Mormon Church Backs LGBT Rights

Language: JP EN DE FR
New Items
2023-11-19
users online
Forum » Everything Else » Politics and Religion » Mormon church backs LGBT rights
Mormon church backs LGBT rights
First Page 2
 Garuda.Chanti
Offline
Server: Garuda
Game: FFXI
user: Chanti
Posts: 11095
By Garuda.Chanti 2015-01-27 16:45:10
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Mormon church backs LGBT rights -- with one condition CNN

They are talking non discrimination not marriage.

Quote:
In at least one big and bruising culture-war battle, the Mormon church wants to call a partial truce.

Convening a rare press conference on Tuesday at church headquarters in Salt Lake City, Mormon leaders pledged to support anti-discrimination laws for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people, as long the laws also protect the rights of religious groups.

In exchange, the Mormon church wants gay rights advocates -- and the government -- to back off.

"When religious people are publicly intimidated, retaliated against, forced from employment or made to suffer personal loss because they have raised their voice in the public square, donated to a cause or participated in an election, our democracy is the loser," said Elder Dallin Oaks, a member of the church's Quorum of Twelve Apostles.

"Such tactics are every bit as wrong as denying access to employment, housing or public services because of race or gender." ....
And lots more. CNN can get wordy.
 Lakshmi.Flavin
Offline
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
user: Flavin
Posts: 18466
By Lakshmi.Flavin 2015-01-27 16:54:11
Link | Quote | Reply
 
It's basically a you leave us alone we'll leave you alone type of arrangement.

You'd probably see a lot less opposition from the LGBT and their supporters to religious establishments if they didn't support legislation limiting the rights of the LGBT.
 Cerberus.Pleebo
Offline
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
user: Pleebo
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2015-01-27 16:55:37
Link | Quote | Reply
 
/eyeroll

They still want to preserve the right to be bigots so long as they can fall back on "religious freedom". *** em.
[+]
Offline
Server: Balmung
Game: FFXIV
user: Yatenkou
Posts: 314
By Cecilia Charl 2015-01-27 17:27:43
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
/eyeroll

They still want to preserve the right to be bigots so long as they can fall back on "religious freedom". *** em.

If they wanna be bigots, let them be bigots. That's their problem, not ours.
 Shiva.Onorgul
Offline
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Onorgul
Posts: 3616
By Shiva.Onorgul 2015-01-27 17:32:12
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Kei Nagase said: »
If they wanna be bigots, let them be bigots. That's their problem, not ours.
Even when they claim their freedom from religious oppression means they're allowed to oppress someone else if they claim it's part of their dogma?

Because I'm way too cynical to imagine the LDS are going into this genuinely and the cultural tide hasn't turned hard enough to convince me they're following it yet.
[+]
 Cerberus.Pleebo
Offline
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
user: Pleebo
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2015-01-27 17:33:25
Link | Quote | Reply
 
I'll clarify then. They still want the right to push bigoted policies. Nothing has changed.

/glitter
[+]
Offline
Posts: 13787
By Bloodrose 2015-01-27 17:34:12
Link | Quote | Reply
 
"we don't want the LGBT community to be bigots, because we want the sole right to be bigots" - LDS.
[+]
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 13617
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-01-27 17:43:05
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Did you guys miss the part where they're backing LGBT rights legislation? I mean sure, I get that there are still hurt feelings over Prop 8, but they did push for allowing gay boys to join the Scouts and backed non-discrimination legislation in Salt Lake City.
[+]
 Cerberus.Pleebo
Offline
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
user: Pleebo
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2015-01-27 17:52:39
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Yes, they're backing LGBT rights* legislation. Fundamentally, nothing has changed. They're simply repackaging.






*said rights mustn't infringe on their religious bigotry
 Shiva.Onorgul
Offline
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Onorgul
Posts: 3616
By Shiva.Onorgul 2015-01-27 17:57:39
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
but they did push for allowing gay boys to join the Scouts
When?

I was out of the news loop for a while, so I must have missed this. If there has been a genuine sea change within the LDS, I'll support it, but I've not seen evidence thus far. If you can provide some citations, I'll temper my cynicism.
[+]
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 13617
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-01-27 18:02:08
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Verda said: »
It's not missed. It's just also not missed that they feel bullied into it and haven't changed their position on moralistic grounds. It's more like someone losing a war and being bitter about it. Which just means you have to worry about when they strike next. If they keep showing good faith (hahah see how I made a funny), then people will slowly trust them. But it ain't that easy.

I live in Utah, and one of my coworkers is a gay, black woman. She walked in a gay pride parade in Salt Lake, and I asked her how that was, given that it is the location of the Mormon church headquarters and all. She had nothing but good things to say about the Mormons, and commented that there were actually a lot of Mormons there to support them. Say what you want about the religion, but I see a lot of butthurt people here who just want to hate on a group that they clearly don't know or understand.
[+]
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 13617
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-01-27 18:03:33
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Shiva.Onorgul said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
but they did push for allowing gay boys to join the Scouts
When?

I was out of the news loop for a while, so I must have missed this. If there has been a genuine sea change within the LDS, I'll support it, but I've not seen evidence thus far. If you can provide some citations, I'll temper my cynicism.

It's in Chanti's link.
 Shiva.Onorgul
Offline
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Onorgul
Posts: 3616
By Shiva.Onorgul 2015-01-27 18:12:17
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Just reading the article, the LDS spokesman cited three instances of infringement on religious freedom.

The first actually sounds legit on his explanation, but I have never heard of it: the mayor of Houston subpoena'd sermon notes. That's government sticking its nose into what is said at the pulpit, which is at least interfering with freedom of speech if not potentially also religion, at least based on what Elder Oaks said.

The other two, however, are instances of the public rising up and voicing their opinion. And THAT is where the sticking point is going to be. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion don't mean "Freedom from criticism," especially not from private citizens. I'm certain I can find misguided GLBT groups claiming that nobody can use nasty words or express a divisive opinion about them and they'd be just as wrong to expect some privileged protection.

Elder Holland followed up with a clarification that "It begins with the rights of faith communities to preach their beliefs from the pulpit, teach them in church classrooms and freely select their own leaders and ministers." Again, sounds reasonable to me, but then he apparently followed with, "But religious freedom should also extend to Mormon physicians who refuse to perform abortions or artificial insemination for a lesbian couple, or a Catholic pharmacist who declines to carry the 'morning after' pill."

So it sounds like the same debate that's been going on for a couple years now: how can I use my religion to be a *** to someone else? I know I've said multiple times that demanding a baker or photographer or someone else offering a meaningless service should in no way be required to offer that service to anyone (though s/he should pay the consequences when the public becomes aware and makes their opinion known), but that doesn't get to extend to necessary services like medical care, housing, etc. Because although Holland used examples of debatably unnecessary procedures, that doesn't mean the right to refuse service wouldn't also be argued to extend to "Using a defribulator on a dying gay man while his husband looks on in terror."

But, again, I'm open to someone showing me different.
[+]
 Shiva.Onorgul
Offline
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Onorgul
Posts: 3616
By Shiva.Onorgul 2015-01-27 18:15:19
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Shiva.Onorgul said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
but they did push for allowing gay boys to join the Scouts
When?

I was out of the news loop for a while, so I must have missed this. If there has been a genuine sea change within the LDS, I'll support it, but I've not seen evidence thus far. If you can provide some citations, I'll temper my cynicism.

It's in Chanti's link.
Must've skimmed over it. How about letting gay men be scout leaders again? In spite of what some moms on Instagram show us, most kids don't figure out the whole "I'm attracted to a particular sex" thing until puberty, so it's a pretty safe bet to permit "gay" kids when most kids are asexual and the drop-out rate is spectacular for middle schoolers. Have they removed their objection to atheists? I'm guessing not.
[+]
 Lakshmi.Zerowone
Offline
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
user: Zerowone
Posts: 6949
By Lakshmi.Zerowone 2015-01-27 18:29:28
Link | Quote | Reply
 
A lot of times these shifts are about money. Reading the statement that definitely seems to be the case.
 Cerberus.Pleebo
Offline
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
user: Pleebo
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2015-01-27 19:05:05
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
I live in Utah, and one of my coworkers is a gay, black woman. She walked in a gay pride parade in Salt Lake, and I asked her how that was, given that it is the location of the Mormon church headquarters and all. She had nothing but good things to say about the Mormons, and commented that there were actually a lot of Mormons there to support them. Say what you want about the religion, but I see a lot of butthurt people here who just want to hate on a group that they clearly don't know or understand.
Ok, she met nice people. The problem is their leaders. What am I not understanding about their stance?
 Shiva.Onorgul
Offline
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Onorgul
Posts: 3616
By Shiva.Onorgul 2015-01-27 19:54:36
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Elder Holland said: »
It begins with the rights of faith communities to preach their beliefs from the pulpit
Actually, this one was itching in the back of my brain and now I've remembered why.

I remember in the days of my youth that a rather big deal was made of the fact that none of my priests could preach politics from the pulpit. It was just a thing one didn't do. I'd thought this was a mark of taking seriously the separation of church and state, but it's actually because IRS rules of 501(c)3 organizations do not permit an organization to be tax-exempt if it starts fooling around in politics.

And this is where we come back around to the problem between what LDS says and what LDS likely means. It's fine to say that they want to teach that Jesus is a space-man and women should treat their reproductive organs like a baby-firing Gatling gun. It's probably ok to comment on divisive issues that have entered into the political sphere, like gay marriage. It's not ok to, for instance, encourage donating to or otherwise supporting something like CA's Prop 8 or, indeed, any other political thing. Which means that the LDS Church supporting non-discrimination laws in Salt Lake City, wherein support equates to preaching to the congregation and/or otherwise actively lobbying on behalf of the law, is unacceptable.

It's a narrow line to walk, which explains why my priests always kept their nose well away from things like DOMA or the Lewinsky scandal (I was an active member of the Roman Catholic Church in the '90s). The language on the IRS website, which may not entirely reflect what is actually written wherever these things are written, is that a "substantial" part of what a 501(c)3 organization does cannot be legislative lobbying. It actually says that some is permissible, which basically means that it's left open to the discretion of the IRS. What a muddle.

If they wanted to be honest, they'd demand very specific guidelines. Again, cynicism based on experience here, I expect what they really want is no restriction whatsoever.

I'm a member of a 501(c)3 organization and we do quite a lot to avoid any appearance of politicization, in spite of the fact that several of our members are politicians or campaign managers. When we're officially together, we don't even mention that, say, an important case is going before the Supreme Court soon, much less try to somehow influence its outcome. Is it so much to expect preachers conform to a similar method?
[+]
 Bahamut.Baconwrap
Offline
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2015-01-27 20:09:09
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Garuda.Chanti said: »
Mormon church backs LGBT rights -- with one condition CNN

They are talking non discrimination not marriage.

Quote:
In at least one big and bruising culture-war battle, the Mormon church wants to call a partial truce.

Convening a rare press conference on Tuesday at church headquarters in Salt Lake City, Mormon leaders pledged to support anti-discrimination laws for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people, as long the laws also protect the rights of religious groups.

In exchange, the Mormon church wants gay rights advocates -- and the government -- to back off.

"When religious people are publicly intimidated, retaliated against, forced from employment or made to suffer personal loss because they have raised their voice in the public square, donated to a cause or participated in an election, our democracy is the loser," said Elder Dallin Oaks, a member of the church's Quorum of Twelve Apostles.

"Such tactics are every bit as wrong as denying access to employment, housing or public services because of race or gender." ....
And lots more. CNN can get wordy.

Wait one of the biggest financial supporters of Prop 22 in California? lol

Mormon Church: The Powerful Force Behind Proposition 22

They are complaining about retaliation and public intimidation? save me the fake fears. They brought this upon themselves.
[+]
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 13617
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-01-27 20:18:17
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Shiva.Onorgul said: »
It's fine to say that they want to teach that Jesus is a space-man and women should treat their reproductive organs like a baby-firing Gatling gun.

Er, neither of those is an accurate representation of their beliefs. I don't know how it was in the past, but it was made known to me that the number of children a couple has is their own business. As far as the rest of your post, I don't really know enough about the situation to comment.

Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Ok, she met nice people. The problem is their leaders. What am I not understanding about their stance?
Politics aside, within the church the only rule I'm aware of concerning homosexual behavior is that it's not allowed for the members. People who participate in such behavior are allowed to attend church still, but membership is pretty much out of the question. I'm sure gays take offense to this, but I'm not aware of any who are just itchin' to be Mormons anyway. As far as the leaders are concerned, there are, like, 15 of them. I'll have to read and see how each approaches the issue, but as far as I can tell there aren't any who encourage the type of displays and protests that you see with evangelical churches. You know the kind.
 Lakshmi.Zerowone
Offline
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
user: Zerowone
Posts: 6949
By Lakshmi.Zerowone 2015-01-27 20:20:38
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Garuda.Chanti said: »
Mormon church backs LGBT rights -- with one condition CNN

They are talking non discrimination not marriage.

Quote:
In at least one big and bruising culture-war battle, the Mormon church wants to call a partial truce.

Convening a rare press conference on Tuesday at church headquarters in Salt Lake City, Mormon leaders pledged to support anti-discrimination laws for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people, as long the laws also protect the rights of religious groups.

In exchange, the Mormon church wants gay rights advocates -- and the government -- to back off.

"When religious people are publicly intimidated, retaliated against, forced from employment or made to suffer personal loss because they have raised their voice in the public square, donated to a cause or participated in an election, our democracy is the loser," said Elder Dallin Oaks, a member of the church's Quorum of Twelve Apostles.

"Such tactics are every bit as wrong as denying access to employment, housing or public services because of race or gender." ....
And lots more. CNN can get wordy.

Wait one of the biggest financial supporters of Prop 22 in California? lol

Mormon Church: The Powerful Force Behind Proposition 22

They are complaining about retaliation and public intimidation? save me the fake fears. They brought this upon themselves.

"We tried to publicly intimidate the gays but it turned out they weren't intimidated so easily. Now we're intimidated and don't know what to do other than complain about it".

It's a bit of a cliche though when you consider their stance and attitudes towards African Americans before the Civil Rights Movement, and their acceptance after.
[+]
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 13617
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-01-27 20:26:33
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Lakshmi.Zerowone said: »
It's a bit of a cliche though when you consider their stance and attitudes towards African Americans before the Civil Rights Movement, and their acceptance after.

That particular point is overblown. The only thing that could be considered discrimination to blacks was that the men couldn't hold the priesthood, which was a doctrinal point by Brigham Young in like the mid 1800s that nobody really understood. Mormons were anti-slavery and pro-civil rights all along.
 Lakshmi.Zerowone
Offline
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
user: Zerowone
Posts: 6949
By Lakshmi.Zerowone 2015-01-27 20:39:40
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Lakshmi.Zerowone said: »
It's a bit of a cliche though when you consider their stance and attitudes towards African Americans before the Civil Rights Movement, and their acceptance after.

That particular point is overblown. The only thing that could be considered discrimination to blacks was that the men couldn't hold the priesthood, which was a doctrinal point by Brigham Young in like the mid 1800s that nobody really understood. Mormons were anti-slavery and pro-civil rights all along.

Then you are admitting you are not a Mormon and are defending them to a person who is an ex-communicate? Cause I can tell you all about how well understood Brigham Young's doctrine about how people of African descent can not hold positions of government; (it's actually quite the popular "doctrine" in American culture during the period of 1860-1920), and how the church followed American societal status quo, until the 70's when a change was needed in order to keep numbers and money flowing from Brazil.
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 13617
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-01-27 20:48:44
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Lakshmi.Zerowone said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Lakshmi.Zerowone said: »
It's a bit of a cliche though when you consider their stance and attitudes towards African Americans before the Civil Rights Movement, and their acceptance after.

That particular point is overblown. The only thing that could be considered discrimination to blacks was that the men couldn't hold the priesthood, which was a doctrinal point by Brigham Young in like the mid 1800s that nobody really understood. Mormons were anti-slavery and pro-civil rights all along.

Then you are admitting you are not a Mormon and are defending them to a person who is an ex-communicate? Cause I can tell you all about how well understood Brigham Young's doctrine about how people of African descent can not hold positions of government; (it's actually quite the popular "doctrine" in American culture during the period of 1860-1920), and how the church followed American societal status quo, until the 70's when a change was needed in order to keep numbers and money flowing from Brazil.

I make it a point to learn the truth about groups that other people tend to bash indiscriminately. Well, except for Scientologists, because screw them. Anywho, I've read enough about the Mormons to realize that a vast majority of "facts" presented in ex-communicate blogs and the like are just lies and spin from people who are mad and have a bone to pick. It's like trying to find out information about a potential college by asking someone who was kicked out of it because they weren't up to snuff.
 Shiva.Onorgul
Offline
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Onorgul
Posts: 3616
By Shiva.Onorgul 2015-01-27 21:19:22
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Shiva.Onorgul said: »
It's fine to say that they want to teach that Jesus is a space-man and women should treat their reproductive organs like a baby-firing Gatling gun.

Er, neither of those is an accurate representation of their beliefs. I don't know how it was in the past, but it was made known to me that the number of children a couple has is their own business. As far as the rest of your post, I don't really know enough about the situation to comment.
It was hyperbole. Have you never encountered humor? Though, that said...

Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Well, except for Scientologists, because screw them.
How is Scientology more worthy of your scorn than LDS? Because the latter is barely a century older?

As for your commentary on the experience of African-Americans and others in the LDS Church... I'm going to bet you're one of those people who denies things like micro-aggressions and the subtle varieties of endemic discrimination that a group faces when found in opposition to the present authority. It doesn't have to be as overt as a N.I.N.A. sign for it to be a thing that happened.
 Lakshmi.Zerowone
Offline
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
user: Zerowone
Posts: 6949
By Lakshmi.Zerowone 2015-01-27 21:24:55
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Oh yes, because getting the information from personal blogs about personal experiences is the same as learning historical facts about a select groups policy.

However back to this:

Bahamut.Ravael said: »
That particular point is overblown. The only thing that could be considered discrimination to blacks was that the men couldn't hold the priesthood, which was a doctrinal point by Brigham Young in like the mid 1800s that nobody really understood. Mormons were anti-slavery and pro-civil rights all along.

Its not like an informational site that isn't in a blog format exists right? Or even like maybe a book?

Armand.Mauss said:
"All Abraham's Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage"
(2003 pp. 219–227) (comparing 1960s survey responses of Mormons versus non-Mormons) "On the whole, Mormons were not very different from other Americans in holding rather conservative views on civil rights for blacks. On internal church questions, not all of the Saints were happy about the priesthood restriction, an d many had serious doubts about other traditional teachings relating to black people. However, when pressure mounted from the outside, Mormons tended to defend their church out of loyalty, whatever their doubts."

So it appears that yes the policy of the church is to follow societal status quo and members who do not agree with the stance still champion it due to loyalty.

Also it's not like Brigham Young's social policy about people of African descent not holding positions of government wasn't a popular sentiment in parts of America ever, right?

Not like people at the time of it's theatrical release found "Birth of a Nation" and its propaganda like images vilifying politicians of African descent appealing in any way shape or form, right?

It's not like the Revelation of 1978 happened before 1965 or that it happened before there was a large population of mixed race Mormons in Brazil who would not be granted access to a newly planned temple in Sao-Paulo. Not like that would affect proceeds in any way shape or form, right?

So long story short, you really shouldn't base your opinion of an institution's past societal policies off of people who have an axe to grind due to personal grievances and negative experiences in their local areas. Those tend to be family v church issues in of themselves.

But it's not like one would expect a person claiming to be a data analysis to conflate things or have a lapse of contextual analysis for the sake of arguing over the internet.
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 13617
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-01-27 21:27:54
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Shiva.Onorgul said: »
It was hyperbole. Have you never encountered humor? Though, that said...

Fair enough.

Shiva.Onorgul said: »
How is Scientology more worthy of your scorn than LDS? Because the latter is barely a century older?

Going to use your own quote here...

Shiva.Onorgul said: »
Have you never encountered humor?

In seriousness, I tried to study Scientology, but had to stop. There are varying degrees of weird in all beliefs, but that one had weird beyond my own personally acceptable level.

Shiva.Onorgul said: »
As for your commentary on the experience of African-Americans and others in the LDS Church... I'm going to bet you're one of those people who denies things like micro-aggressions and the subtle varieties of endemic discrimination that a group faces when found in opposition to the present authority. It doesn't have to be as overt as a N.I.N.A. sign for it to be a thing that happened.

No, I don't deny that subtle or minor discrimination may have occurred. But good luck finding any group of people anywhere that doesn't have that to some degree. I was simply pointing out that it wasn't nearly as bad as Zero made it out to be.
First Page 2
Log in to post.