- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Heber13 wrote:
When is it enough hurt from religions having their freedom of belief? When is the policy necessary to defend? What is hurt by changing the policy?
I detest the hurt caused by religious beliefs as much as anyone. The trouble is, in rejecting any particular religious dogma, you take on another; and all religious dogmas/ideologies will, from time to time, hurt innocent people pretty severely. Those questions could be posted to either side of any controversial issue, and each side would give you a different response. And when you recognize that two groups of people, people who are on both sides pretty intelligence, who feel they are well versed in the issue, and have only the noblest intents… and yet come up with such widely different opinions…
you can be pretty sure their “freedom of belief” is just an illusion.
On Own Now wrote:
– 2001 – since the dawn of humankind, the first nation legalizes SSM (Netherlands)
Not true. SSM was legal in classical times, in fact some of the Roman emperors were married to men.
SamBee wrote:
On Own Now wrote:
– 2001 – since the dawn of humankind, the first nation legalizes SSM (Netherlands)
Not true. SSM was legal in classical times, in fact some of the Roman emperors were married to men.
That’s actually kind of a difficult point to figure out. Were there homosexual relationships in the distant past? Of course. Were there unions that were somewhat similar to marriages? Yes, at times. Were there nations or empires which specifically normalized these and considered them the same as marriage nation-or-empire-wide the same way the Netherlands did in 2001? I suppose it’s possible, but I would say extremely doubtful. I think it’s useful to keep in mind that the Emperor of Rome could do whatever he wanted, including making his own horse a Consul and Priest (Caligula). That didn’t mean that it was the accepted practice of the land. I’m 100% certain that there were far more same-sex prostitutes and sex slaves in Rome than same-sex spouses. So, I’m not sure holding up Rome as the example is sustainable.But you do point out that there have been times in the past where it was more normalized than in, say, the 19th century. With that in mind, I’m fine with saying that “in modern times, the first nation to legalize SSM was the Neterhands in 2001 and it had been at least a dozen centuries since the last time anything even remotely resembling that had taken place.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions Wikipedia, so unreliable, but the Roman law of the 300s forbidding it is of interest:.
Quote:When a man “marries” in the manner of a woman, a “woman” about to renounce men, what does he wish, when sex has lost its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed into another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment. (Theodosian Code 9.7.3)
I edited my earlier timeline post above to clarify something. I had originally said: – 2000 – California voters pass Proposition 22, making SSM illegal in California. “Only marriage between a man and woman is valid or recognized in California.”
But I have changed it to:
– 2000 – California voters pass Proposition 22, ensuring that marriage would continue, as it always had been, to be legal only between heterosexual couples. “Only marriage between a man and woman is valid or recognized in California.”
The reason I have made this change is because of the off-repeated thought that Prop 8 sought to take away a right of gay/lesbian people. Prop 22 and then Prop 8 were measures to enshrine into law traditional marriage, and keep CA from changing laws to allow SSM. It is revisionist history to think of the Church, Prop 8, Californians or anyone else who did not want SSM to be legalized as taking away existing rights.
I’m very glad that we live in a society that can extend rules/laws to be more inclusive. The change in the last 20 years has been wonderful to behold. But I think we need to give credit where it is due. Modern, (first-world, at least) nations have changed the long-standing rules and that should be celebrated, rather than punishing those who have not been as quick to adapt and adopt.
I did want some discussion about whether belief is a choice. I think there are interesting ideas that could be explored. We tend to believe (there’s that word again) that belief is a simple choice when we want others to change (remain in church, return to the church, or non-members joining the church) but when there’s external pressure for us to change, belief is no longer that simple choice. I tried to frame the above purposely. Meaning church leaders do this, we do this, people in general tend to do this.
And in revisiting the ancillary point raised in the article about gay marriage, I think what set me off was:
1)
Quote:The LDS Church has openly supported LGBT rights in employment and housing. For example, it backed the 2015 passsage of a Utah bill that was hailed as a historic compromise that provided new protections for lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgender people while reaffirming religious rights.
While this statement is true, it also felt like doublespeak. The author appears to be trying to place the church at the forefront of social change by citing something positive that the church did while omitting things the church has done to fight against gay rights. I get that a church article isn’t going to advertise perceived shortcomings but in my mind the scales are still tipped heavily on the side of “drug kicking and screaming into accepting gay rights.”
I think we still have a problem in this area. The discussion about
gayrights usually takes a backseat to the potential problem of an erosion of religiousrights. Gay rights? Yeah, yeah, yeah… but what about my religious rights!?!? We protect our self interests. Human nature strikes again. 2)
L. Whitney Clayton wrote:If you believe public and private institutions should credit the dignitary claims of racial, ethnic, gender and sexual minorities, then please consider that many of the same reasons for doing so apply with equal
or greaterforce to the dignitary claims of religious believers. Emphasis added. “Or greater.” Do church leaders argue for equality or privilege? What drives their concerns, a loss of freedoms or a loss of influence? Would they argue that if there is a conflict between a protected class and a religious believer that the religious believer has the greater claim by default?
I think they want to be able to decide what to believe. They don’t want to be told they can or can’t believe something. They want to choose. If the process is that God speaks to prophets, and prophets direct the church…they would like to keep that model so members have the choice to believe in their system or not.
I think they are trying to keep the pendulum from swinging too far in the other direction, and beliefs not be swayed by people but look to God
Quote:Eph 4:14-5
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
nibbler wrote:
L. Whitney Clayton wrote:If you believe public and private institutions should credit the dignitary claims of racial, ethnic, gender and sexual minorities, then please consider that many of the same reasons for doing so apply with equal
or greaterforce to the dignitary claims of religious believers. Emphasis added. “Or greater.” Do church leaders argue for equality or privilege?
I think that the church leaders argue for privilege. The concepts of “chosen generations”, “timing” for specific events to happen (the coming of Jesus Christ, the baton-passing of the gospel from the Jews (the few who had it) to the Christians, etc). The statements about authority and “One true church” can be re-framed as “we are privileged to have this because…”.
We see gender inequality all over the map in various manifestations. There is a lot of gender “privilege” going on because humans are gonna human. And it goes both ways – men have additional “duties” (such as missionary work) because they are priesthood holders –
nibbler wrote:What drives their concerns, a loss of freedoms or a loss of influence?
I think what is at stake here is a loss of the freedom to cling to a specific worldview. I see the church digging into maintaining the worldview in a variety of ways – sending our missionaries out earlier, focusing on the youth, focusing on the Sabbath Day observance. The fact that most of us are uncertain about the type of conversations to have about what happens when our world view shifts. I see the declining church membership as a sign that the church as an organization is more concerned about the loss of the freedom to cling to a specific worldview instead changing and/or allowing greater flexibility to change the world view to retain the influence.
As has been stated here, there are valid reasons not to change too fast or too much in one go – both for the individual and for the stability of the organization.
nibbler wrote:
Would they argue that if there is a conflict between a protected class and a religious believer that the religious believer has the greater claim by default?
I think it depends on whom you ask. For every talk that invites inclusion (a Utchdorf talk, a Holland talk, a Wirthlin talk), there are obedience talks.
I also think that it depends on the leaders and your interactions with them. If the leaders in your area believe that you are a threat to the community because of divergent beliefs, then yes, the protected class has the greater claim.
However, conversations with my husband prove to me that he believes the same things I do on specific traditions/cultural trappings/policies and scriptural insights up until I phrase things just a little out there. We had a 5 minute conversation this weekend where he was telling me that there is a trend in General Conferences for the last 5 years or so where the leaders remind us that they are human and imperfect, and that leaders have always been human and imperfect. When I agreed with him and pointed out that organizational policies are also by definition the products of imperfect humans in specific instances, he froze.
nibbler wrote:
I did want some discussion about whether belief is a choice. I think there are interesting ideas that could be explored. We tend to believe (there’s that word again) that belief is a simple choice when we want others to change (remain in church, return to the church, or non-members joining the church) but when there’s external pressure for us to change, belief is no longer that simple choice.
It’s a really interesting question. I think the Church’s interest is whether religious belief can be at the same protected level as sexual preference, gender, and race. If so, then the Church and SSM tie and the Church doesn’t have to accept SSM. If not, then does the Church HAVE to perform SSM in order not to be (legally or otherwise) considered to be denying rights?Is “religious faith” a “choice” per LWClayton? Post faith crisis, I have explained to people that I wish it were a simple choice, because I would choose to believe, but that’s just not how it is. Faith is not a choice in that sense. I think your level of belief is something that you arrive at as a byproduct of a lot of other factors. I think it can change in subtle or not-so-subtle ways over time, but I think that still is a byproduct of other factors. Although I was never on the Debate Team, I know that a technique often employed is to flip a coin to determine which side of the argument a debater will take. An accomplished debater should be able to argue for either position. Conversely, it would be impossible IMO just to flip a coin and either become a believer or become a non-believer based on heads or tails.
As you pointed out, nibbler, it is a strange dichotomy that members of the Church think of faith as something inherited from the “faith of our fathers” and that it is an inseparable part of the people in the Church… that the only reason one might leave the faith is through offense or sin, yet they casually think that anyone can join the faith if they ever once gave it a shot.
Thinking back to when we were missionaries, we used to try to explain things logically (Apostasy, modern prophets, same organization that existed in the primitive Church, WoW, other sheep, need for baptism by authority, marriage to last forever, etc.) But ultimately, we all knew that nobody was going to choose to be baptized based on what made sense without being converted and that’s what we were really trying for; for them to feel the spirit, pray, receive confirmation, and realize that it was all from God. In fact, I’d say that back when we were believing members, we probably all came at some point to believe that some things didn’t always make sense (polygamy), but belief overcame those factors. Later, we likely came to think of those factors as supreme and faith as floundering, or we wouldn’t be here.
LWC gave that talk in April 2015 that you referenced. As I look over it, I don’t think he means ‘choose’ in the same sense that you or I might think of it. To him, there is an immutable and active truth and we choose to accept it or ignore it. In his words, we “must choose to open our hearts to the divine reality of the Savior—to His eternal light and His healing mercy.” He uses the phrase “choose to believe” but the concept he presents is really more like “embrace the truth” (my words).
Right now, my thinking is that I don’t think of faith as a (direct) choice, and in spite of his 2015 talk, I don’t think LWC does either, at least not in the sense that we think of it.
Thanks for the thoughts. I did mention that I thought it was a loose connection at best. I only found it interesting that it was the first result in a google search and it just so happened to be by the same GA. More coincidental.
I’ll add Niel Andersen’s
Faith Is Not by Chance, but by ChoiceI think the argument being made is that choosing to be in an environment created by the “faithless and the unfaithful” weakens faith/belief and earlier sections imply that continued obedience can make faith/belief grow stronger.
I personally like to look at everything I can about something and then choose what I want to believe, regardless of what I believe about other issues. Do I really choose, or do I select what I naturally am inclined to select? Is it possible for me to make a different choice in any particular situation – and, if not, am I really choosing or simply reacting?
I don’t know, when it comes right down to it, but it is important to me to believe I can choose some things – that I’m not just programmed and predestined in everything I do. At the most basic level, I don’t want to be a robot or a puppet or just a smart, instinctual animal. I want to be a smart, instinctional, thinking, deciding animal with a spiritual aspect that actually means I make decisions I would not make otherwise.
In that sense, it is important to me to believe that I can choose my faith (the substance of my hopes without clear evidence) – especially when things make me change elements of that faith. I want to believe what I choose to set as my new hopes actually are my own choices.
nibbler wrote:
I think the argument being made is that choosing to be in an environment created by the “faithless and the unfaithful” weakens faith/belief and earlier sections imply that continued obedience can make faith/belief grow stronger.
I think that humans want to simplify things as much as possible – especially since there is a A LOT going on in families these days. I think that 3rd world countries have gotten used to running binaries to produce results. There is the “0-1 binary” for computer programming, the “On/Off” light switch – these all produce rational, specific, quantifiable results that run the world.
So it is easier to apply these rules/systems than it is to research the rules governing spirituality – such as Fowler’s Stages of Belief. It is also easier to believe that the rules are explained in the scriptures.
It is interesting sometimes because my husband restates back to me what his understanding of my faith transition is. He reminds me it is important and “normal” to ask questions, to have doubts – that can only be resolved over time (some with and without help). He does not condemn me for where I ended up on this path. We trust that we can make it work out for us.
Also in talking to my mother and branch president – the theme is “having questions/different view points is not the issue – acting on those questions/viewpoints can be (but may not be) the issue”.
AmyJ wrote:
the theme is “having questions/different view points is not the issue – acting on those questions/viewpoints can be (but may not be) the issue”.
This is really a key point.
I think you can believe whatever you want in this church. But what you choose to do and say to others is what matters. And in that, there is always a space for a choice to be made.
-Accept ministering assignments? Your choice
-Go to the temple? Your choice
-Clean the church? Your choice
-Drink coffee? Your choice
-Pray? Your choice
-Skip church? Your choice
-Raise your hand and correct someone in class? Your choice
-Oppose the sustaining of a person receiving a calling? Your choice
-Tell the bishop all your internal doubts? Your choice
All these choices can be done or not done…regardless of what you believe.
So…we choose what we want to believe privately (that is the inner choice).
Then we choose how to act publicly (that is the outer choice).
I think the church wants to protect the right to choose what we can believe, which is religious freedom…the right to choose what we believe. Even if the law of the land may restrict certain practices.
Heber13 wrote:
I think you can believe whatever you want in this church. But what you choose to do and say to others is what matters. And in that, there is always a space for a choice to be made.
There is always a choice at church but the part of the equation that says you are free to chose but you are not free from the consequences of that choice factors into that choice, as does social pressure.
Go ahead and reject a ministering assignment.
Drink coffee.
Skip church.
Openly correct something a prophet said when reading one of their general conference talks during PH/RS.
Oppose the sustaining of an apostle.
Tell the bishop your doubts.
All while knowing in advance that the consequences may be social suicide or at the very least would restrict your movement in the culture.
If you were in a kite flying club and decided to stop flying kites it doesn’t matter how accepting or exclusive the kite flying club is of people that don’t want to fly kites; the club becomes less of fit because you’ve moved on from one of the core things that the club does. Nothing nefarious, just a fact of life.
How is this for a belief:
I believe that people at church will judge me and view me as a bad person if I am myself, so I choose to do things I don’t like to do… or I choose to not do things that I’d like to do.
So yes, we can choose our beliefs at church but often there’s an expectation is that we also choose to not act on them. Kind of like how church leaders expect gays to remain celibate. It’s okay to be gay but it’s not okay to act gay.
There are consequences to every action, and we live each day largely by prioritizing our actions based on their consequences. Religion simply is one manifestation of that human fact. I am not trying to minimize in any way any particular consequences a specific person might face for choosing an action, but peace comes largely from accepting the consequences of what we choose to do.
Choosing actions based on consequences is not a bad thing.
It isn’t a good thing.
It merely is.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.