Jonathan Rauch, "Civic Theology" and the Church

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I did.  I quoted it and bolded/italicized it.

Which reflects a compromise. 

As opposed to an absolutist, no-abortion-under-any-circumstances position, which does not reflect a compromise.

I haven't said anything about "legislating the church’s position."  That's not the way our secular system of governance works.  We legislate the will of the people, through their representatives and subject to the U.S. and state Constitutions.

I am saying that the Church's position reflects a compromise, an accommodation.  Similarly, the Church has made concessions/compromises on questions affecting immigration, Utah Senate Bill 296, and so on.

Broadly, the Church remains politically neutral.  On those few issues for which the Church publicly weighs it, it often takes an approach that promotes accommodation and compromise.  This is perhaps most acutely reflected in Pres. Oaks' 2021 speech at the University of Virginia.

Thanks,

-Smac  

That is not a compromise unless you believe the Church actually wants to just say all abortion should be forbidden under all circumstances but are not saying that as a compromise which would be deeply weird.

Saying it is a compromise because we live in a fallen world doesn’t work either since then everything is a compromise. I was told a few weeks ago that I would be a fundamentally different person if I didn’t live in a fallen world. I guess I am a living compromise.

The Church also historically only takes a position of accommodation and compromise when they don’t think they can win outright. That is not neutrality. That is just reading the room.

[Tacenda]

Could this be true????

https://www.instagram.com/p/DGJXqMPxvym/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Could this be true????

https://www.instagram.com/p/DGJXqMPxvym/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

As I understand it, the sponsor was saying such flags could be used for teaching purposes such as part of a display of confederate or WWIImaterials, which makes sense to me but it could go the wrong way if such displays got left up for an extended time and it wasn’t obvious it was for teaching history.  

Apparently though teaching the history of lgbt pride using such displays was considered much worse and needed to be banned or maybe it never occurred to the sponsor someone would see it important to teach Pride history in schools in Utah.

The bill got amended so that concern seems to have been removed.  One can use any flag, including Pride ones (if I understand correctly) if for teaching history.  

Only sanctioned flags are allowed to be flown for celebration/memorial/respect reasons.

“The bill still outlaws flags not listed as exemptions. The sanctioned flags include the Utah and U.S. flags, as well as military flags, flags for other countries or Native American tribes, and the official flags for colleges and universities.”

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2025/02/14/utah-anti-pride-flag-bill-amended/

Edited February 20, 2025 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

That is not a compromise

I think it is.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

unless you believe the Church actually wants to just say all abortion should be forbidden under all circumstances but are not saying that as a compromise which would be deeply weird.

The Church's position is not absolute.  It allows some accommodation.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The Church also historically only takes a position of accommodation and compromise when they don’t think they can win outright. That is not neutrality. That is just reading the room.

I am not saying that the Church is neutral.  I am saying that the Church accommodates where it can.

Again, Pres. Oaks' 2021 address at the University of Virginia is worth a read.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

As I understand it, the sponsor was saying such flags could be used for teaching purposes such as part of a display of confederate or WWIImaterials, which makes sense to me but it could go the wrong way if such displays got left up for an extended time and it wasn’t obvious it was for teaching history.  

Apparently though teaching the history of lgbt pride using such displays was considered much worse and needed to be banned or maybe it never occurred to the sponsor someone would see it important to teach Pride history in schools in Utah.

The bill got amended so that concern seems to have been removed.  One can use any flag, including Pride ones (if I understand correctly) if for teaching history.  

Only sanctioned flags are allowed to be flown for celebration/memorial/respect reasons.

“The bill still outlaws flags not listed as exemptions. The sanctioned flags include the Utah and U.S. flags, as well as military flags, flags for other countries or Native American tribes, and the official flags for colleges and universities.”

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2025/02/14/utah-anti-pride-flag-bill-amended/

Boy am I a lazy learner, thanks for the "rest of the story"!

[SeekingUnderstanding]

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is not a compromise

I think it is.

Are we using the same definition of compromise? “an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.”

I feel like you are saying that your church is balancing the moral imperatives as it sees them instead of just using one moral imperative. That’s not a compromise as the term is generally used. I can’t compromise with myself. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think it is.

It is definitionally not.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The Church's position is not absolute.  It allows some accommodation.

That is not how anything works. The Church came up with their policy. They likely copied it from evangelicals. Those aren’t accommodations or concessions. They are literally the church’s position.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am not saying that the Church is neutral.  I am saying that the Church accommodates where it can.

Except not an accommodation.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Again, Pres. Oaks' 2021 address at the University of Virginia is worth a read.

Does he say that God prohibits all abortions in there but we make accommodations?

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Are we using the same definition of compromise? “an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.”

Yes.  The Church makes concessions in instances of rape, incest, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  The Church makes concessions in instances of rape, incest, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

Who are they making concessions to?

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  The Church makes concessions in instances of rape, incest, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

What side was in dispute with them when the policy was formed?

[BlueDreams]

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is why you are better than me. This board is where I blow off steam in non-productive ways to prevent doing so in ways that would otherwise negatively impact in person relationships. Out here in west Kaysville it’s almost all Trump and around 90% active Latter-day Saints. That said I am aware of how I behave on this board and do try to operate within most board (current political stuff notwithstanding) guidelines. 

I don't think I'm better. Just in a different context that makes it easier for me. For one I'm happily LDS. So my larger conflict with where I live is not one of religious concern, moreso social and political. On the social I've been able to insulate myself from the things that drive me the most nuts about UT or at least keep it in balance, so that Utah culture doesn't feel all encompassing. It allows me to like what I like about it and not engage with what I don't when I want to. And I have my friends and family with points of similarity that I can vent to about social or political things when I need it. 

Plus, I just don't have much vinegar in my bones at this point in my life. Some of that is probably life experience that's made me devalue reacting strongly to most things. Some of it may be my general outlook about people (I believe we all make sense in our contexts, people are generally good or want to be good...these are fundamental in how I think about people). Part of it is pragmatic: what do I want in a conversation with someone? I write with those in mind most days. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

Edited February 20, 2025 by BlueDreams

[smac97]

10 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Yes.  The Church makes concessions in instances of rape, incest, etc.

Who are they making concessions to?

The Church is not in a particularized debate with a specific person.  

I have lost count of how many times I've seen pro-abortion arguments centering on rape, incest, etc.  I think these are generally not very good arguments, as the vast majority of abortions, as in 99%+, have nothing to do with rape or incest, and are instead elective.  These arguments reflect a "thin edge of the wedge"-style reasoning, which is that if abortion may be morally justified in these very rare dilemma-style circumstances, then abortion is justified in all circumstances.

The Church could take an absolutist approach, it does not.  Instead, its position reflects an acknowledgment that, in rare instances, genuine moral dilemmas can arise, and so makes some allowance for those rare instances.

Meanwhile, there are concessions/compromises made on the pro-abortion side as well.  The opposing absolutist positions - total abortion bands on one end and unrestricted abortion up to the moment of birth - are both minority positions in the United States, with 12 states having the former and 9 states and D.C. having the latter.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

On 2/19/2025 at 9:49 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

This isn't really true. The US tax code was family friendly only in the context of the family wage. It was very beneficial (and still is today) when you have a primary wage earner and a secondary wage earner whose income is significantly below that primary wage earner's income. The tax code actually penalizes married partners who have similar earnings. It's an entirely different discussion to get into about the historical shifts that moved women into the workforce - but once they were there, the need for economic growth kept them there - and the eventual elimination of the family wage (which mainly occurred during my father's lifetime) created the economic pressure for women to continue entering the workforce in greater numbers. The economic instability this causes for the American household along with lowering retirement stability is a contributing factor to lower US fertility rates. Any benefits today that might come for children in the tax code are minuscule compared with the increased costs of raising children. The cost of raising children has exceeded inflation. To put that into perspective, the estimated total cost to raise a child in 1983 (not including college) was about $81,000. In 2023, the estimated cost to do the same is now $310,000. Of course, if we include 4 years of college, 4 years of room and board at a public in-state university ran about $12,000 in 1983. In 2023, you are looking at $53,000. So, we can talk about how the tax code helps families and children. But, the reality is that even with the recent upticks in Child tax credits, it certainly helps those with children - but it isn't enough to incentivize  having children.

As CPA who practices tax law I respectfully disagree. And when I said the tax code was pro children I do not say it was enough to cover the cost of children. But between former tax exclusions for dependents, child tax credits that have been up and down, credits for day care, credits for college costs, the earned income tax credit that is child focused, the head of household status for single filer with children the tax code has provided child focused incentives. Are they enough to incentivize having children? Likely not. But they do provide tax breaks that childless people do not enjoy.  Oh and the married filing join "penalty "was eliminated in 2017 or perhaps earlier. Hard to remember of the tax law changes over the past 35 years.

[smac97]

On 2/19/2025 at 7:53 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Not quite. Smac likes Rauch when he praises Latter-day Saints

I like some, but not all, of Rauch's ideas.  This ought not be controversial.

I suspect Rauch still disagrees with the Church on same-sex marriage.  I'm okay with that.  In some other areas, though, he likes what the Church is doing re: civic theology.  I think he is making some good points.  

I am willing to let the Church receive credit and acknowledgment and appreciation when it is doing something good and right.  Are you?

On 2/19/2025 at 7:53 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

and when Rauch takes secularists to task!

IIRC, I only briefly mentioned, in passing, Rauch's 2003 self-assessment regarding secularism being the answer to society's woes.  That is, I think Rauch was in error on that point.  So does Rauch.

I have also commented (using a mildly critical bent) on Rauch's taking of White Evangelicals to task, as well:

Quote

Fourth, this article, in The Cougar Chronicle (an independent paper written by BYU students), writer Kimball Call broadly approved of Mr. Rauch's comments (as do I), but he did take some exception to his (Mr. Rauch's) treatment of white evangelicals:

That's pretty milquetoast.

On 2/19/2025 at 7:53 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

When Rauch criticizes SMAC’s evangelical friends and political allies? That’s where he draws the line. 

Well, no:

Quote

Mr. Rauch states that the above data indicate that white evangelicals "are exactly, precisely in line with the Republican Party," and that this is "not true of any other Christian group."

Put another way, Mr. Rauch seems to be saying that white evangelicals are taking their marching orders from political platforms/ideologies (hence the near-exact overlap between them in the above graph).

He may well have a point.  And if this is so, I am not comfortable with it, as I think religious/moral/ethical scruples are, or should be, "upstream" from political ideology/affiliation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 20, 2025 by smac97

[BlueDreams]

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church is not in a particularized debate with a specific person.  

I have lost count of how many times I've seen pro-abortion arguments centering on rape, incest, etc.  I think these are generally not very good arguments, as the vast majority of abortions, as in 99%+, have nothing to do with rape or incest, and are instead elective.  These arguments reflect a "thin edge of the wedge"-style reasoning, which is that if abortion may be morally justified in these very rare dilemma-style circumstances, then abortion is justified in all circumstances.

The Church could take an absolutist approach, it does not.  Instead, its position reflects an acknowledgment that, in rare instances, genuine moral dilemmas can arise, and so makes some allowance for those rare instances.

Meanwhile, there are concessions/compromises made on the pro-abortion side as well.  The opposing absolutist positions - total abortion bands on one end and unrestricted abortion up to the moment of birth - are both minority positions in the United States, with 12 states having the former and 9 states and D.C. having the latter.

Thanks,

-Smac

This still doesn't sound like concessions or compromises. It's a moral stance based in nuance and moral balance, not absolutism.

But for me, my view isn't much different from the church's (minus that I would expand examples of exceptions to include relationships where abuse is prominent and a few more risky health concerns such as drug addiction). But I don't view that as a "compromise" I view it as a basic position not fitting our current political paradigm that runs towards absolutes. What is an example of a compromise is what legislation I am actually for compared to my personal moral stance because it does allow space for early pregnancy elective abortions. That's not fully reflective of my personal values around abortion and is a compromise with varying groups that view this issue differently from me and are more morally okay with other reasons for abortion.

If the church gave support for a policy that included not just allowances for exceptions they see fit, but allowances for ones they weren't as okay with, that would be a compromise. As it is, it's just a policy trying to maintain a moral balances in 2 values we hold: agency and life.

 

With luv,

BD  

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The Church could take an absolutist approach, it does not.  Instead, its position reflects an acknowledgment that, in rare instances, genuine moral dilemmas can arise, and so makes some allowance for those rare instances.

So the church hasn't compromised on any of its positions or values on this issue. Instead it has what's in your view a non-absolutist approach by balancing the moral imperatives that it thinks are relevant. That's not a compromise. A compromise would be to state the church's position, but for the church to state, that allowing first trimester abortions is acceptable if later abortions were banned. Here they would be giving something up in order to accommodate those with a different point of view (namely say a view that abortion should be available on demand until viability).

 

Edit: @BlueDreams beat me to it and of course articulated it better than me.

Edited February 20, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So the church hasn't compromised on any of its positions or values on this issue.

You apparently have not read Pres. Oaks' 2021 address at the University of Virginia.  I encourage you to do so.  Even if you do not agree with what he says, you will at least have a better understanding of his perspective (which I largely share).

A few excerpts:

Quote

I feel privileged to be in this honored place. I love this country, which I believe was established with the blessings of God. I love its Constitution, whose principles I believe were divinely inspired.[1] I am, therefore, distressed at the way we are handling the national issues that divide us. We have always had to work through serious political conflicts, but today too many approach that task as if their preferred outcome must entirely prevail over all others, even in our pluralistic society. We need to work for a better way — a way to resolve differences without compromising core values. We need to live together in peace and mutual respect, within our defined constitutional rights.

"We need to work for a better way — a way to resolve differences without compromising core values."

Yep.

Quote

As a religious person who has served in government at both federal and state levels and now as a leader in the worldwide Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have always known of the tensions experienced when persons who rely on the free exercise of religion are conflicted between duties to God and duties to country. More recently, I have come to understand better the distress of persons who feel that others are invoking constitutional rights like free exercise of religion and freedom of speech to deny or challenge their own core beliefs and their access to basic constitutional rights. I deeply regret that these two groups have been drawn into conflict with one another.

So do I.

Quote

As you have seen, I have titled my remarks “Going Forward with Religious Freedom and Nondiscrimination.” This title acknowledges that our society is still painfully unsettled in managing the relationship between religious freedom and nondiscrimination, but also expresses my belief that it need not remain so. My goal is to suggest a helpful and feasible path forward without excessively accommodating either the Left or the Right or the Religious or the Non-Religious. I hope what I say will be helpful to those who seek a better way for the advocates of religious freedom and nondiscrimination to relate to one another as fellow citizens dedicated to maintaining a civil society.

"My goal is to suggest a helpful and feasible path forward without excessively accommodating either the Left or the Right or the Religious or the Non-Religious."

That sounds promising.

Quote

I begin with a proposition I hope all will share. As a practical basis for co-existence, we should accept the reality that we are fellow citizens who need each other. This requires us to accept some laws we dislike, and to live peacefully with some persons whose values differ from our own. Amid such inevitable differences, we should make every effort to understand the experiences and concerns of others, especially when they differ from our own.

"As a practical basis for co-existence, we should accept the reality that we are fellow citizens who need each other. This requires us to accept some laws we dislike, and to live peacefully with some persons whose values differ from our own."

This is, in my view, part of the "compromise."  We live with "laws we dislike," and with perspectives with which we do not agree, and we allow those most of those laws and perspectives to perpetuate even though we disagree with them.

Quote

We can only succeed in this effort to the extent that we acknowledge and respect each other’s highest ideals and human experiences. We must not be part of what Professor Arthur C. Brooks of Harvard’s Kennedy School describes as “a culture of contempt — a habit of seeing people who disagree with us not as merely incorrect or misguided but as worthless.”[2] A basic step is to avoid labeling our adversaries with epithets such as “godless” or “bigots.” As the Deseret News, a paper published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, editorialized:

Conflicts between religious liberty and nondiscrimination principles are  exacerbated when advocates for nondiscrimination paint people of faith as bigots, and when people of faith fail to appreciate the brutal history of the basic human rights of marginalized groups, such as gays and lesbians.[3]

When some advocates voice insults or practice other minor provocations, both sides should ignore them. Our society already has too many ugly confrontations. If we answer back, we tend to mirror the insult. A better response is that of the late Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks. When he agreed to meet with a staunch atheist who detested everything he held sacred, the Rabbi was asked whether he would try to convert him. “No,” he answered, “I’m going to do something much better than that. I’m going to listen to him.”[4]

Yep.  Although I have not accused others of "bigotry," I do need to improve myself on the overarching concept.

Quote

Another basic imperative is that we should not seek total dominance for our own position; we should seek fairness for all. Specifically, people of faith should not contest every nondiscrimination law or policy that could possibly impinge, however insignificantly, on institutional or individual religious freedom. Likewise, proponents of nondiscrimination need not contest every religious freedom exemption from nondiscrimination laws. The goals of both sides are best served by resolving differences through mutual respect, shared understanding, and good faith negotiations. And both must accept and respect the rule of law.

"{W}e should not seek total dominance for our own position; we should seek fairness for all."

That sure sounds like . . . compromise.  Accommodation.  Tolerance.  

Quote

Where there is genuine conflict, one constitutional right should not be invoked to try to cancel another constitutional right. Both must be balanced legally and negotiated politically in a way that upholds essential rights to the greatest extent possible. In doing so, people of faith should not assume that those who advocate nondiscrimination have no regard for religious freedom or that nondiscrimination lacks any constitutional basis. Similarly, those who advocate nondiscrimination should not assume that those asserting claims of religious freedom are seeking a “license to discriminate.” There are worthy constitutional and ethical arguments on both sides of such disputes, and, so far as possible, we should seek to accommodate them consistent with the most important interests of all sides. This is not easy when we differ so fundamentally on matters of such immense importance. But the effort is essential if we are to live together in peace in a pluralistic society.

• "Where there is genuine conflict, one constitutional right should not be invoked to try to cancel another constitutional right."
• "Both must be balanced legally and negotiated politically in a way that upholds essential rights to the greatest extent possible."

The Church's stance on abortion is, in my view, an attempt at such a "balanced" effort.

"This is not easy when we differ so fundamentally on matters of such immense importance. But the effort is essential if we are to live together in peace in a pluralistic society."

I think he makes an important point here.

Quote

We should also be wary of the idea that one set of rights automatically trumps another in all circumstances. Both religious freedom and nondiscrimination are important values that are powerfully protected by law. Nondiscrimination principles have been given increasing social recognition in the last century and are now rooted in the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law. Yet, they still cannot be said to obviate the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.

"We should also be wary of the idea that one set of rights automatically trumps another in all circumstances."

Broadly, the abortion involves two important rights: the bodily autonomy of the mother and the life of the child.  

The Church's position states a broad principle (that the child's right to life is extremely important) while acknowledging some rare circumstances may exist for intractable moral dilemmas (pregnancy imperiling the life/health of the mother) the deprivation of bodily autonomy (rape or incest), etc.  

Quote

The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights singles out the “free exercise” of religion for specific protection, along with the related freedoms of speech, press, and assembly. These rights enjoy singular status because of their paramount significance to the foundations of our constitutional republic. They are rights on which all other rights depend. Protecting them is essential to safeguarding and perpetuating all constitutional freedoms. That is why religious exercise and religious expression enjoy special constitutional protection.

But even though the First Amendment obviously guarantees the right to exercise or practice religious beliefs and affiliations, that right is not absolute. As advocates for religious freedom, we must yield to the fact that in a nation with citizens of many different religious beliefs or disbeliefs, the government must sometimes limit the right of some to act upon their beliefs when it is necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of all.

"But even though the First Amendment obviously guarantees the right to exercise or practice religious beliefs and affiliations, that right is not absolute."

The right to bodily autonomy is extremely important, but it is not absolute.

The right for a child to live is extremely important, but it is not absolute.

Quote

With equal sincerity, I invite nondiscrimination advocates to recognize the reality of the threat to religious freedom that is currently associated with expanding nondiscrimination laws. Those who demand that faith communities change their practices should not seek to force overall changes by legal fiat but rather encourage selective accommodations through persuasion, good faith negotiation and legislative reform. In this way we can all unite in support of nondiscrimination in many areas of social life.

While we peacefully await resolution of conflicts, I strongly urge all participants in these controversies to acknowledge the validity of and to obey existing laws sustained by the highest available judicial authority in the Constitution. Executive officers responsible for executing and enforcing such laws must not assume authority they do not possess; they too are subject to the law. All such officials take an oath to support the constitution and laws of their jurisdiction. That oath does not permit them to use their official position to override the law to further their personal beliefs — religious or otherwise.

This principle was violated following the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision by a county clerk who invoked religious reasons to justify her office’s refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples. More far-reaching violations of the rule of law occurred earlier when a state attorney general and governor refused to enforce or defend a state law limiting marriages to those between a man and a woman because they personally opposed that law on secular grounds. Constitutional duties, including respect for the vital principle of separation of powers, are fundamental to the rule of law. Neither governments nor their citizens can afford to tolerate the revocation of a law (either its text or its operation) by officials not constitutionally authorized to revoke it.

"This principle {that public officials should acknowledge the validity of and to obey existing laws sustained by the highest available judicial authority in the Constitution} was violated following the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision by a county clerk who invoked religious reasons to justify her office’s refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples."

Pres. Oaks, like the county clerk, disagrees - to some extent - with the concept of same-sex marriage.  And yet here he is, criticizing the county clerk for using her office to enact her personal perspective rather than the law of the land.  That, to me, bespeaks of Pres. Oaks' willingness to compromise, to accommodate, etc.

Quote

Still, religious Freedom has been a dominant interest of mine for many years. Seventy-three years ago, when I was only 16, the Supreme Court endorsed with particular force the metaphor of “a wall between Church and State, which must be kept high and impregnable.”[5] The legal relationship implied by this metaphor has been confusing and much criticized and is being selectively displaced. Over time, I have come to wish for a better metaphor, one sufficient to define the limits but also allow accommodation of the mutual interests of religion and government. Less rigid than a “wall,” the boundary should be permeable enough to admit light and flexible enough to allow mutual support. That change has not happened.

"Less rigid than a 'wall,' the boundary should be permeable enough to admit light and flexible enough to allow mutual support. That change has not happened."

That sure sounds like Pres. Oaks is advocating for compromise.  Accommodation.  Not absolutist, my-way-or-the-highway-ism.  Such things are, I think, necessary for our pluralistic society to persevere.

Quote

In these circumstances it is timely to ask how we should go forward to resolve urgent conflicts between the wide-spread support for nondiscrimination and the constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion. Most media coverage and public perception of these conflicts understandably focus on court rulings, especially those of the United States Supreme Court. We all know that the courts are intended to have the final word on constitutional issues. We also know that court opinions in this area are rigorously policed by litigation organizations on both sides who solicit and groom additional cases to advance their causes through favorable court rulings. Though such rulings are immensely important, I caution against primary reliance on judicial rulings to ultimately resolve these conflicts. What is needed is wise public policy, not a declaration of the winner in a legal contest.

Litigation should not be the first recourse in resolving our differences. Courts are constitutionally limited to resolving the specific cases before them. They are ill-suited to the overarching, complex, and comprehensive policy-making that is required in a circumstance like the current conflict between two great values. Notwithstanding my years of working with judicial opinions, I prefer the initial route of legislative law-making on big questions like the ones now before us. I find wisdom in the observation of Professor (later Dean) Martha Minow of the Harvard Law School. In her influential article on this subject, she concluded that “[a]ccommodation and negotiation can identify practical solutions where abstract principles sometimes cannot.”[8] Professor Minow further observed that problem-solving by negotiation “is highly relevant to sustaining and replenishing both American pluralism and constitutional protections for minority groups.”[9]

• "Though such rulings are immensely important, I caution against primary reliance on judicial rulings to ultimately resolve these conflicts."
• "Litigation should not be the first recourse in resolving our differences."
• "I find wisdom in the observation of Professor (later Dean) Martha Minow of the Harvard Law School ...: 'Accommodation and negotiation can identify practical solutions where abstract principles sometimes cannot.'"

Yep.

Quote

Successful negotiation requires that neither side be unduly influenced by the extreme voices that often drive litigation, especially litigation sponsored by ideological groups. Extreme voices influence popular opinion, but they polarize and sow resentment as they seek to dominate their opponents and achieve absolute victory. Such outcomes are rarely sustainable or even attainable, and they are never preferable to living together in mutual understanding and peace.

Good faith negotiation invites that seldom-appreciated virtue so necessary to democracy: tolerance, free of bigotry toward those whose opinions or practices differ from our own. But learning to live with significant differences requires much more than tolerance. Dr. Alwi Shihab, the Indonesian President’s special envoy to the Middle East and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, made this point in an address to the faculty and students at Brigham Young University. Relying on the teachings of the Qur’an, he said:

We must respect this God-given dignity in every human being, even in our enemies. For the goal of all human relations — whether they are religious, social, political, or economic — ought to be cooperation and mutual respect.

Thus, he added, “We must go … beyond tolerance if we are to achieve harmony in the world.”[10] Obviously, followers of Christ also have a duty to seek harmony. Where there are conflicts, all should seek peace.

Far from being a weakness, reconciling adverse positions through respectful negotiation is a virtue. As Jesus taught, “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.”[11] The Apostle Paul followed this by teaching Christians to “follow after the things which make for peace,”[12] and “[i]f it be possible … live peaceably with all men.”[13] Similarly, the Book of Mormon teaches that it is a “peaceable walk with the children of men” that distinguishes a true follower of Jesus Christ.[14]

• "Successful negotiation requires that neither side be unduly influenced by the extreme voices."
• "Extreme voices influence popular opinion, but they polarize and sow resentment as they seek to dominate their opponents and achieve absolute victory. Such outcomes are rarely sustainable or even attainable, and they are never preferable to living together in mutual understanding and peace."
• "{L}earning to live with significant differences requires much more than tolerance."
• "Far from being a weakness, reconciling adverse positions through respectful negotiation is a virtue."

Pres. Oaks is saying some really sensible things here.  I need to work on following his counsel better than I have and do.

Quote

What I have described as necessary to going forward — namely seeking harmony by finding practical solutions to our differences, with love and respect for all people — does not require any compromise of core principles. Both religious and secular rule are ordained of God for the good of His children. As is generally known, Jesus taught this during His ministry. Some who sought to trap Him asked Jesus whether it was right to pay taxes to Caesar. They wanted to force him to declare publicly that his followers were not subject to the civil law. Instead, using a coin of the Roman overseer as a visual aid, Jesus answered, “Render [meaning give] … unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”[15]

The religious duty to obey the law of the land and to live peaceably with all people does not contemplate that the religious will abandon the public square. In a free society like ours, all are lawfully privileged and morally obligated to exert their best political efforts to argue for what they think is most desirable. For example, it is well-known that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints exercised its constitutional right to express its position that the traditional legal definition of marriage should be preserved. But in 2015, when the Supreme Court pronounced the legality of same-sex marriage, the Church immediately ceased all such opposition, and publicly acknowledged its acceptance of the constitutional law established by the nation’s highest court.[16]

"What I have described as necessary to going forward — namely seeking harmony by finding practical solutions to our differences, with love and respect for all people — does not require any compromise of core principles."

I think this makes a lot of sense in the abstract, but it becomes really hard to apply in the context of abortion, since both sides are operating pretty close to "core principles," and each side tends to think the other is out to undermine or take away those principles.

Quote

Of course, a church’s religious marriage law and practice, which upholds the Biblical understanding of marriage, remains in force on its adherents when it does not violate what Jesus called Caesar’s law. Joseph Smith, for whom this lecture is named, taught that “religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberty of others.”[17]

I think this is an important point in the abortion debate.  The Church has advanced a perspective as to its religious sentiments, while still honoring the law of the land.

Quote

Therefore, notwithstanding its heavily criticized opposition in the political debate over same-sex marriage, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reached out to nondiscrimination advocates and participated in Utah negotiations over shared concerns on housing and employment. The discussions that followed were previously thought impossible for either side. Over a six-year period, however, they were able to craft suitable local and statewide legislation because adversaries gradually learned to understand each other’s positions, including what they deemed most important to affirm and protect by law. One participant told me that he recalls them as “an effort in peacemaking, learning how to live together” with mutual respect, even love.

"One participant told me that he recalls them as 'an effort in peacemaking, learning how to live together' with mutual respect, even love."

This outcome, involving people moving forward while "learning how to live together" over a long period of time, is someone different in the context of elective abortion, which contemplates the killing of millions of in utero babies, who are not given any opportunity to live at all.

Quote

At issue was a head-to-head conflict between free exercise of religion and nondiscrimination in housing and employment in a Salt Lake City ordinance first proposed in 2009. In time, a jointly designed proposal gained traction, and its adoption at the city level prompted an effort to adopt a similar law statewide. The resulting law, later called “the Utah Compromise,” was enacted with the Church’s full support in 2015. This law offered protections to both sides. One side obtained significant legal protection from discrimination in employment and housing. The other side gained protection for religious freedom in its most sensitive areas of Church employment and student housing. While the law gave neither side all that it sought, its reconciliations did grant both sides significant benefits — a win-win outcome — that could not have been obtained without the balancing of interests made possible by the dynamics of the legislative process.

I wonder what you think of is a workable "compromise" in the context of abortion.  The absolutist positions - absolute bans on abortions at one end and up-to-the-moment-of-birth elective abortion at the other - don't seem to work.  The Church's position reflects . . . a compromise.

Quote

In contrast to the tendencies of the judicial branch to decide complex issues in a winner-take-all adversarial process, the legislative process in Utah provided an opportunity to forge enduring relationships and to craft workable long-term solutions. Here is how Troy Williams, executive director of Equality Utah, described the process:

We found solutions together. Neither side compromised our values, but rather, we discovered new ways forward that respected each other and forged areas of common ground. Bringing diverse voices to the table is hard. It requires expanded empathy and patience. But when we ratchet down the vitriol and seek areas of agreement, incredible things can happen.[18]

The resulting “Utah Compromise” on housing and employment was a pathbreaking beginning that has been embraced by all parties, including the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As a Church, we are committed to the free exercise of religion to allow us to practice the principles of our faith. But we are also committed to fundamental fairness and the rule of law. We see the process that succeeded in Utah as a promising way to have both religious protection and fundamental fairness, particularly on individual issues like housing and employment. Whether it can be applied to other sensitive issues remains to be seen.

"'We found solutions together. Neither side compromised our values...'"

I wonder how we can do this in the context of elective abortion.

Quote

In this regard, I must add that the Utah Compromise required more than political engagement. Essential to our side was the principle of honoring both divine and mortal laws. Rendering to Caesar in good faith requires religious persons and associations to acknowledge what their government does for them and to be faithful in fulfilling the reciprocal responsibilities they owe to the government and their fellow citizens. All should observe the laws and respect the values of the country that guarantees their freedoms. This is a debt of gratitude that should be paid gladly.

Good point, this.

Quote

But what if neither side to a controversy over religious freedom and nondiscrimination can make the concessions necessary to reconcile their differences? On a broader front, what if the conflicting demands of civil and religious law are such that they cannot be resolved by negotiation? Such circumstances rarely exist. If they do, the experience of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints suggests that a way can be found to reconcile divine and human law — through patience, negotiation, and mutual accommodation, without judicial fiat or other official coercion.

I wonder how this applies in the context of elective abortion.

Quote

I earnestly invite all religious leaders and associations to coalesce more effectively — and that often means out of court — to seek peaceful resolution of painful conflicts between religious freedom and nondiscrimination. This does not require an examination of doctrinal differences or even our many common elements of belief. All that is necessary for unity and a broad coalition to promote our common need for religious freedom is our shared conviction that God has commanded us to love one another, including our neighbors with different beliefs and cultures.[24] This invites all believers, as President Russell M. Nelson has challenged our members, to “expand our circle of love to embrace the whole human family.”[25]

In doing so, we must not allow fears about losing our own freedoms make us insensitive to others’ claims for theirs. Let us unite with those who advocate nondiscrimination to seek a culture and laws that respect the rights of all to the equal protection of the law and the right to the free exercise of religion. From the experience of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I believe we can proceed toward this goal by mutual respect and willing accommodation. The right relationship between religious freedom and nondiscrimination is best achieved by respecting each other enough to negotiate in good faith and by caring for each other enough that the freedom and protection we seek is not for ourselves alone. I pray for that result under our inspired Constitution, as we pledge to be “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Beautiful stuff.  Wise counsel.  Not sure how to fully deploy it in the context of elective abortion, so I'll think on that.

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Instead it has what's in your view a non-absolutist approach by balancing the moral imperatives that it thinks are relevant. That's not a compromise.

I think it is.

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

A compromise would be to state the church's position, but for the church to state, that allowing first trimester abortions is acceptable if later abortions were banned. Here they would be giving something up in order to accommodate those with a different point of view (namely say a view that abortion should be available on demand until viability).

This is a No True Scotsman fallacy.  Respectfully, I do not agree with it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

This still doesn't sound like concessions or compromises. It's a moral stance based in nuance and moral balance, not absolutism.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  

55 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

But for me, my view isn't much different from the church's (minus that I would expand examples of exceptions to include relationships where abuse is prominent and a few more risky health concerns such as drug addiction). But I don't view that as a "compromise" I view it as a basic position not fitting our current political paradigm that runs towards absolutes. What is an example of a compromise is what legislation I am actually for compared to my personal moral stance because it does allow space for early pregnancy elective abortions.

The Guttmacher Institute lays out the states' disparate approaches to abortion.  In my view, some states take an "absolutist" approach (12 have total bans on abortion whereas 9 states + D.C. have no restrictions at all).  The rest of the states have legislated approaches that involve some measure of compromise and accommodation.  If you don't see that, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on what "compromise" means in this context.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church's position reflects . . . a compromise.

Sure. It's a compromise between no allowed abortion, and all allowed abortion. But it's not a compromise for you or your church because it's exactly what you want. My position: Unrestricted abortion until 20 weeks is also a compromise in your view. It balances the same principles you layed out. The right to bodily autonomy, balanced with the growing life in the womb. And it would be a compromise for you to accept this position just as it would be a compromise for someone that wanted unrestricted access for abortion in all circumstances. But it wouldn't be a compromise me. It's my desired outcome. To call that a compromise *for me* is to wrench all meaning from the word.

Edited February 20, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

The Church's position reflects . . . a compromise.

Sure.  It's a compromise between no allowed abortion, and all allowed abortion.

I am glad we can agree on that.

I think this is what "compromise" typically means when discussing social issues such as this.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But it's not a compromise for you or your church because it's exactly what you want.

Well, no.  In most states, the current legal status quo does not reflect "exactly" what the Church wants (or what I want).

So the Church wanting to make accommodations for moral dilemmas is not a compromise because . . . the Church wants to make those accommodations.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

My position: Unrestricted abortion until 20 weeks is also a compromise in your view.  It balances the same principles you layed out. The right to bodily autonomy, balanced with the growing life in the womb.

Yes.  That you allow yourself to make compromises, but deny when the Church does it, is odd.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And it would be a compromise for you to accept this position just as it would be a compromise for someone that wanted unrestricted access for abortion in all circumstances.

And it would be a compromise for folks who do not like the position aligning with that of the Church to accept it anyway.  

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But it wouldn't be a compromise me. It's my desired outcome. To call that a compromise *for me* is to wrench all meaning from the word.

Okay.  We have a different understanding of the concept.  I'm okay with that.

The Church has a position on abortion, but still accepts the law of the land, which in many states varies substantially from the Church's position.  And I just quoted Pres. Oaks at length advocating for the acceptance of the law of the land even when it does not comport with our personal and religious convictions.  If that ain't compromise, I don't know what is.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 20, 2025 by smac97

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am glad we can agree on that.

So the Church wanting to make accommodations for moral dilemmas is not a compromise because . . . the Church wants to make those accommodations.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Yes.  That you allow yourself to make compromises, but deny when the Church does it, is odd.

And it would be a compromise for folks who do not like the position aligning with that of the Church to accept it anyway.  

Okay.  We have a different understanding of the concept.  I'm okay with that.

The Church has a position on abortion, but still accepts the law of the land, which in many states varies substantially from the Church's position.  And I just quoted Pres. Oaks at length advocating for the acceptance of the law of the land even when it does not comport with our personal and religious convictions.  If that ain't compromise, I don't know what is.

Thanks,

-Smac

Following the past few posts re: compromise: Compromise legislation balances everyone’s views, so the views of those who reject them are either ignored by the broader community, have not been sufficiently influential, don’t want to belong to the broader community, or place their own solutions over practical cooperation with the community. This has nothing to do with compromising one’s personal morals, which ideally stand while tolerating legislation they find uncomfortable for the overall stability of the community. In which case they continue to express their moral and practical views in the public square.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That you allow yourself to make compromises, but deny when the Church does it, is odd.

What's weird is that you break down a post to deny it of all meaning. You reply without reading it first. What a toxic way to post.

[Doctor Steuss]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  

The Guttmacher Institute lays out the states' disparate approaches to abortion.  In my view, some states take an "absolutist" approach (12 have total bans on abortion whereas 9 states + D.C. have no restrictions at all).  The rest of the states have legislated approaches that involve some measure of compromise and accommodation.  If you don't see that, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on what "compromise" means in this context.

Thanks,

-Smac

Just to add a point of clarification, because I think sometimes people see "no restrictions" and think it means that in the 9th month, a pregnancy can be terminated, and the baby just slaughtered.  The first state mentioned as having no restrictions by the Guttmacher Institute link is Alaska.  Per Alaska's Admin Code, any abortion after fetal viability can only be performed in a hospital that has a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).  The reason being that if the termination of the pregnancy results in a live birth, the same care has to be provided to the baby as if it had been born any other way.  Advanced interventions have to be carried out.  Terminating a pregnancy (i.e. abortion) isn't always the same thing as terminating the life of the baby.
 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Just to add a point of clarification, because I think sometimes people see "no restrictions" and think it means that in the 9th month, a pregnancy can be terminated, and the baby just slaughtered.  The first state mentioned as having no restrictions by the Guttmacher Institute link is Alaska.  Per Alaska's Admin Code, any abortion after fetal viability can only be performed in a hospital that has a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).  The reason being that if the termination of the pregnancy results in a live birth, the same care has to be provided to the baby as if it had been born any other way.  Advanced interventions have to be carried out.  Terminating a pregnancy (i.e. abortion) isn't always the same thing as terminating the life of the baby.

From the Guttmacher Institute: "9 states and the District of Columbia do not restrict abortion on the basis of gestational duration."

As the National Catholic Register puts it: "In nine states and Washington, D.C., abortion is legal for the entirety of pregnancy, until the moment of birth, for any reason."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What's weird is that you break down a post to deny it of all meaning. You reply without reading it first. What a toxic way to post.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac