- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
hawkgrrrl wrote:
I’m told this is absolutely worth a listen:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/2112602-155/tomorrow-at-115-pm-lds-apostles I’m encouraged by this. I hope it’ll get repeated in conference.
In addition to the thrust of the message, I also liked:
-Elder Oaks saying that there are two rights in tension and conflict with each other, and that neither side will get all it “wants.”
Neitherside. -Elder Oaks saying that they’re not familiar with transgender issues and couldn’t speak to them just yet. Candor and humility.
-Elder Christofferson saying that perhaps Utah can become a model for the country re. balancing of these issues. Shows faith in us as a people.
I’m puzzled by a couple of things:
-Elder Oaks saying that no one is disciplined for advocacy. (Maybe I or he didn’t quite understand the question.) I personally know two people who were disciplined for marching in a parade, and I think
manywere for doing that, posting things on Facebook, or similar things. -Re. apologies: If you’re going to entertain the question at all, I think it’s not great form to talk only about people who were damaged financially by their Prop 8 stance. (DHO did the same thing in his NPR interview today.) There are a lot of people in the church with severe regrets about how they treated gay family members
in the climate created by the church.I think it would help us all move forward if – while they’ve taken the public stage – they did a little more to acknowledge the institution’s influence on individuals’ behaviors. Ann wrote:-Elder Oaks saying that no one is disciplined for advocacy. (Maybe I or he didn’t quite understand the question.) I personally know two people who were disciplined for marching in a parade, and I think
manywere for doing that, posting things on Facebook, or similar things. Here’s what I remember:
1) Oaks said there was “no case on record” (paraphrase) of disciplining people. He made that comment in reference to people wondering if the church disciplined its members for voting contrary to what church leaders wanted (
22:492) They addressed local leadership roulette, of course they didn’t reference it like that. Their points:
a) There are 30,000 BPs, as much as they desire uniformity there’s going to be variance. They say they do their best and yes, it’s a difficult problem.
b) They teach correct principles. This is where things get iffy. You can uniformly teach a principle but that doesn’t address the issue. When has a principle been violated? What is the degree of the violation? What disciplinary actions are appropriate for varying levels of violation? What disciplinary actions are not appropriate? That’s all on the policy side, not the doctrinal side. As you can see, these types of questions make it difficult to ensure uniformity in approach. It’s not an easy problem to manage.
c) Oaks mentioned an appeals process. I don’t know much about the process but I think someone that has been incorrectly barred from holing a calling doesn’t have much recourse. For one, they probably aren’t going to consider that as something that can be appealed. Second, it likely won’t help matters. I know many leaders are of the attitude that not willfully submitting yourself to leadership is also a sin, so your appeal only justifies any disciplinary measures. To be blunt, an appeal may only confirm that someone is apostate.
Maybe when Oaks mentions an appeal it is limited in scope to the outcome of a disciplinary court but it sounded like this was the catch-all for local leadership roulette. I’m not sure how an appeals process reaches the smaller forms of discipline that fall outside official rulings in a disciplinary court. Those forms of discipline still hurt people spiritually.
nibbler wrote:He [Oaks] does go on to talk about freedom of speech and how people should not be subject to retaliation because of their support in public forums.
It stood out to me with a huge spotlight on the fact that they said “from both sides.” Yet I just heard talk against public advocacy for positions contrary to what is taught by the church. It sounded to me like a double standard. I know people are afraid of speaking their mind on issues because there is the potential of “retaliation” from their fellow church members.I was touched by the story of his reprimanding the father who cut off a gay child. “In a loving relationship you don’t cast them out.” …I immediately thought of John Dehlin and KK.
So yes, positive statements recently. Here’s to the hope that we can move in that direction.
Quote:big·ot ˈbiɡət/ noun a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions
With that broad a definition, everyone alive is a bigot – and, really, ought to be in some cases. Seriously, if you aren’t a bigot by that definition, you don’t have a heart or a mind.
An update on this topic, a new essay on lds.org. Credit where credit is due – this is a solid piece. https://lds.org/religious-freedom/examples/religious-freedom-in-the-workplace?cid=fb_ad_workplace_video_dec_5 A key point in the essay is that harrassing others (or harming others) based on your religious views is wrong. I’ve seen many members express views not in harmony with this statement. For example, the idea that it’s ok to discriminate against people in same sex marriages, while in direct conflict with the first paragraph of the essay, is something that I’ve seen church members claim as part of their free exercise of religion. Earlier in the year, the church even made a complaint against a report that claimed that people use religion as an excuse to discriminate.
*sigh* It’s a step in the right direction, but we still have a long ways to go.
Yes, it should apply to how we understand and practice our religion; no, it doesn’t always mean that in practical terms to everyone else. I also don’t see anything new in the statement – and that isn’t a positive thing for me.
Quote:and that isn’t a positive thing for me.
Wow – Ray this is a rarity. I may need to go get a drink on this one.
😆 😆 :shh:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.