Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt So then this really is a cynical publicity stunt to help smooth things over after the Prop 8 backlash and the widespread legalization of gay marriage across the country.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>They are not really comparable to a change in what the Law of Chastity is and means.<< Yes, the Law of Chastity is so eternal it only showed up in the temple ceremony in 1879, more than thirty years after temple rites were introduced in Nauvoo. Also, Law of Chastity was not nearly as important as polygamy was to nineteenth century Mormons. I know you really don't like that fact, Josh, but it's just how it is. Polygamy was the thing that would never, ever go away. Yet...here we are.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Do you really think that they are going to willingly accept married gay couples into the fold, conduct gay marriages and openly accept gay families as LDS members ecdc without some sort of legal mandate? Maybe someday, but not in our lifetimes.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "If the Mormon's knew the word of god ... as they think and say they do .. then they would have been ~divinely inspired~ to give that money to the poor and the needy. Not on a campaign to strip a minority of the right to marry." Why do you assume that the Mormon god is a kind and loving god? Maybe he's more old testament than new testament.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "The LDS church is small. It's very relevant to people to whom it matters and not to people who don't care. Funny how that word means what it means." Such incredible bullshit. They're large, wealthy and impose their will on people with no connection to them whatsoever, even when they're dead.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Also, Law of Chastity was not nearly as important as polygamy was to nineteenth century Mormons. I know you really don't like that fact, Josh, but it's just how it is. Polygamy was the thing that would never, ever go away. Yet...here we are*** I think it will be much easier for mormons to maintain this one though. The polygamy thing was anathema to just about every other religion out there, not to mention every civilization outside of a few exotic middle eastern locales. There was tremendous pressure to ditch that bizarre custom, including the pressure of perhaps being killed by legions of outraged christians. However, the mormons will have no need to ditch this particular 'law' as long as the actual christians hang on to it, and thus far they don't seem to have any inclination to change their opinions so drastically, even as many of them are delving into the whole 'kinder and gentler' approach. In other words, I don't see the Catholic church accepting, never mind allowing, gay marriage anytime soon. And as long as they don't, the mormons won't have to either. If the mormons moved *first*, that would surprise me greatly. Right now, they're just following that white-hatted leader as usual.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>In other words, I don't see the Catholic church accepting, never mind allowing, gay marriage anytime soon. And as long as they don't, the mormons won't have to either.<< I think that's a pretty reasonable argument, but I'm not so sure that's how it'll play out. Unlike, say, women in the church who are okay with their second-class status, gay members will become increasingly vocal and the church will be forced to make a choice: excommunicate them or accommodate them. That's an acceptable choice right now, but I'm not convinced it will remain one in the future. I know it's impossible for someone like Josh to envision, and I know his response will be even if the LDS church is completely hated and despised, it'll stick to its guns, but that goes against everything in the history of the faith. The secret of Mormonism isn't that it's an ironclad faith that never budges from its principles; it's that it's willing to adapt and change as necessary, and its done it several times.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The secret of Mormonism isn't that it's an ironclad faith that never budges from its principles; it's that it's willing to adapt and change as necessary, and its done it several times.<< And I think that the church recognizes the incredible destruction of its once mostly positive image following the whole Prop 8 episode. The LDS church have been masters of public image going back to the 70s, and it would be fascinating to know how much they will wind up spending to right their public image ship vs. how much they spent on that campaign. I am sure ultimately they'll send more. Proclamations like the one that started this thread are all a part of repairing their brand. But retaining the right to discriminate in housing while telling everyone else not to do that is telling of where their heads and hearts really are on the matter.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <Proclamations like the one that started this thread are all a part of repairing their brand> Only in part. This one was mostly about voicing the desire to balance religious freedom and non-discrimination.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan "Religious freedom" in this case seems to mean preaching one thing and doing another. Which is why, as a branding strategy, it doesn't really work.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan It would be the same as the catholic church coming out with a proclamation declaring that businesses and governments shouldn't discriminate in hiring practices. And then not allowing women to serve as priests.
Originally Posted By utahjosh That's correct. Because there is a difference between government and public rights and religious rights. From a KSL.com article: ""People who do not believe in God have a very hard time seeing the merit of the free exercise of religion," Elder Oaks said, "and they often make fun of it. They downgrade it." "Religious conscience is real," Elder Christofferson said, "and though some may or may not have it doesn't detract or take away from the fact that it's a very critical part of many peoples' lives. "In general, the idea of saying 'this is just a license to discriminate' or 'you're seeking a license to discriminate' is a way of avoiding the hard work of finding a way to balance competing values that are both critically important. Frankly, what we're saying is, we gotta do the hard work. We can't just throw out a slogan and get away with that. It's not good enough.""
Originally Posted By utahjosh Here's the link where the LDS leaders react to the discussion about their press conference. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.ksl.com/?sid=33288212&nid=148&fm=most_popular&s_cid=popular-5">http://www.ksl.com/?sid=332882...opular-5</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>"In general, the idea of saying 'this is just a license to discriminate' or 'you're seeking a license to discriminate' is a way of avoiding the hard work of finding a way to balance competing values that are both critically important. Frankly, what we're saying is, we gotta do the hard work. We can't just throw out a slogan and get away with that. It's not good enough.""<< Uh huh. Which means what, exactly? That the LDS will no longer discriminate in student housing at BYU? If it doesn't mean that. then it's a meaningless word salad of terms which *sound* kinda good but really mean nothing in practice.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <"Religious freedom" in this case seems to mean preaching one thing and doing another. Which is why, as a branding strategy, it doesn't really work.> LOL and QFT at the same time.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Elder Oaks restated the church's position that nondiscrimination laws and ordinances should protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people against discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodation, with some exceptions for religious conscience.<< That's from your link. And if you can't see that it leaves a logic hole large enough to drive a truck through, then I don't know what to tell you. "Some exceptions" means do as we say, not as we do.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I hereby proclaim that I will never cut off a driver in traffic and nobody else should either. Except, of course, if I'm late for an appointment and didn't move toward the freeway exit early enough, but otherwise, it's completely wrong. That's why it's called a FREEway -- you have the freedom to go your own way.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>"People who do not believe in God have a very hard time seeing the merit of the free exercise of religion," Elder Oaks said, "and they often make fun of it. They downgrade it."<< People make fun of hypocrites. Atheists can be hypocrites just as much as religious people. When it happens, it deserves mocking and calling attention to it. If Elder Oaks wishes to not be ridiculed, he shouldn't make ridiculous statements and support hypocritical proclamations of "fairness." I swear, this wanting to have it both ways is appalling nonsense. "We love everybody and everybody should be treated fairly, except we're against the homosexual lifestyle so fair treatment means we don't have to rent them a room. Sorry, we believe that's what God wants. But the rest of you really should rent them a room. It's only fair."
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I swear, this wanting to have it both ways is appalling nonsense." Are you surprised? We're talking about millions of people who have a moral belief system that's completely illogical.
Originally Posted By ecdc I endorse Kar2oonMan's posts. Oaks is a case study in what happens when a genuinely smart person is blinded by their own biases and has to defend a really dumb idea. Only he and his own brand of followers are oblivious to how ridiculous he sounds. Note: He also stated that it was Mormons who were the real victims in the whole Prop 8 thing. Yep, he really did.
