The path for homosexuals in LDS theology

[tooblue]

The economic pressure on large segments of our population is gruesome. Hence, Trump. Hence, Bernie. Hence, "I don't care if Trump gives Putin all the nuclear codes lets him sleep with Melania, BRING BACK MY COAL MINING JOB!"

The opiod epidemic is scary as hell.

Those are all substantial contributing factors. As is a lack of acceptance of LGBT individuals. But each of those factors, and isolating discrimination as a main culprit do not address the single biggest factor that causes any person to take their own life: mental illness.

It's common for advocates to suggest arguments against gender fluidity etc. are binary. The problem is, they often do so making equally binary arguments of their own. The hard truth is, the numbers suggest that even if all discrimination suddenly stopped (which is a goal worth striving for). Large numbers of LGBT individuals would still take their own life. Just as large numbers of people would still take their life, even if all the coal mining jobs came back. The heart of the problem is a lack of understanding and access to help, in dealing with debilitating mental health issues.

[tooblue]

Those are all substantial contributing factors. As is a lack of acceptance of LGBT individuals. But each of those factors, and isolating discrimination as a main culprit do not address the single biggest factor that causes any person to take their own life: mental illness.

It's common for advocates to suggest arguments against gender fluidity etc. are binary. The problem is, they often do so making equally binary arguments of their own. The hard truth is, the numbers suggest that even if all discrimination suddenly stopped (which is a goal worth striving for). Large numbers of LGBT individuals would still take their own life. Just as large numbers of people would still take their life, even if all the coal mining jobs came back. The heart of the problem is a lack of understanding and access to help, in dealing with debilitating mental health issues.

Prevalence Of Mental Disorders May Be Higher Than Previously Thought:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/09/mental-disorders-prevalence-depression-ocd_n_4568843.html

[Two Utes]

Prevalence Of Mental Disorders May Be Higher Than Previously Thought:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/09/mental-disorders-prevalence-depression-ocd_n_4568843.html

'
Aren't we all a little mentally ill?

[NorthwestUteFan]

'
Aren't we all a little mentally ill?
Yes we are. That is why it is irresponsible to simply blame the victim for his own suicide.

"He did it because he was broken" or "He wasn't right in the head..."

[tooblue]

Yes we are. That is why it is irresponsible to simply blame the victim for his own suicide.

"He did it because he was broken" or "He wasn't right in the head..."

Not sure I understand your logic? No one is simply blaming anyone. Rather, that's the problem. It is unfortunate that there are persons who insist, despite the overwhelming evidence, that suicide is exclusively the consequence of bullying in all it's various forms, or due solely to an individual having to suffer through dire economic circumstances. I truly believe every person will deal with a mental health issue, in some form or another, during their life-time. Bullying, a lack of compassion and kindness, poverty and desperation, occurring at an inopportune time, could certainly push someone over the edge. However, legitimate and significant mental health challenges are what put that person in proximity to the edge in the first place. It is irresponsible to suggest otherwise.

[tooblue]

'
Aren't we all a little mentally ill?

Well, speaking as the black sheep—absolutely.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

This last Sunday, one of our youth speakers was a young woman wearing a white button down and a tie. I was ready for some fireworks, but turns out I was over-reacting. People around me probably wondered why I was recording.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[USS Utah]

Religious liberty and fairness for all:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865685553/Mormon-leader-tells-Black-Leadership-Summit-that-religious-liberty-means-fairness-for-all.html

[mUUser]

Imagine Dragons take a shot at bringing religion and LGBTQ together.....

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=45234130&nid=148

[jrj84105]

I'm having a really hard time with the righteous indignation that some are directing at Trump's failure to stand up to racists right now.

When it became socially unacceptable to be blatantly racist and oppressive, the rhetoric shifted to claiming reverse discrimination and protecting whites from persecution. But it was never about pride or heritage or protection against reverse discrimination. It was just the same old racism.

In the course of 10-15 years we've seen the shift from it being socially acceptable to hate and oppress gays to claiming reverse discrimination of religion and oppression of religious freedom by gays. And in the case of the LDS church we're talking about active institutional racial discrimination in our lifetime (for many of us) and active and CONTINUED institutional discrimination against gays in our lifetime.

i just don't see how in a complete lack of self-awareness, some can denounce the alt-right race rhetoric while simultaneously using the exact same rhetorical strategies to continue the pursuit of an anti-gay agenda. We live in a very narrow window of time where people can still talk about these issues like they're different, but thankfully that window is closing.

[mUUser]

LDS Church issues statement of support for Imagine Dragons LGBTQ concert.....


http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865686887/LDS-Church-issues-statement-of-support-for-LGBTQ-concert-event.html

[USS Utah]

"It literally tore my soul into pieces growing up, because I knew the Church was true but I knew that a core piece of who I was was in direct opposition of my belief," Courtney shares of the years of secrecy she experienced as a lesbian Mormon. After leaving the Church and finding a woman she fell in love with and later married, Courtney and her wife Rachelle felt a pull toward the gospel that later caused them to divorce and join the Church.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSKWRTaJNw0

[NorthwestUteFan]

LDS Church issues statement of support for Imagine Dragons LGBTQ concert.....


http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865686887/LDS-Church-issues-statement-of-support-for-LGBTQ-concert-event.html
"It literally tore my soul into pieces growing up, because I knew the Church was true but I knew that a core piece of who I was was in direct opposition of my belief," Courtney shares of the years of secrecy she experienced as a lesbian Mormon. After leaving the Church and finding a woman she fell in love with and later married, Courtney and her wife Rachelle felt a pull toward the gospel that later caused them to divorce and join the Church.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSKWRTaJNw0This is a fascinating juxtaposition. Again the message is, 'we are ok for you to BE gay, just don't DO anything that could be construed to be gay...'. Subtext:"you are still an apostate if you are in a same-sex marriage and a disciplinary council is mandatory. Expect to be sent for."

Also, there is quite a strong undercurrent of sociopathy at play in that video. The woman's father refused for five years to meet her WIFE? Good thing her grandmother effectively shamed the family into accepting her wife by bringing the wife into the wedding picture. It seems a special kind of evil to refuse to allow a child's spouse to be part of the family, unless that spouse is a criminal or otherwise dangerous.

And I am glad they are happy in the video. I hope they remain happy long into the future.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

This is a fascinating juxtaposition. Again the message is, 'we are ok for you to BE gay, just don't DO anything that could be construed to be gay...'. Subtext:"you are still an apostate if you are in a same-sex marriage and a disciplinary council is mandatory. Expect to be sent for."

Also, there is quite a strong undercurrent of sociopathy at play in that video. The woman's father refused for five years to meet her WIFE? Good thing her grandmother effectively shamed the family into accepting her wife by bringing the wife into the wedding picture. It seems a special kind of evil to refuse to allow a child's spouse to be part of the family, unless that spouse is a criminal or otherwise dangerous.

And I am glad they are happy in the video. I hope they remain happy long into the future.

That's a super weird video. Very interesting story that offers a different perspective. I appreciate the comments towards the end that this is their story and it isn't going to work for everyone, but it should have been a much stronger message. These stories get isolated and used as weapons by people like this woman's father. "It worked out for these two, it should work out the same for my son/daughter. Just more faith. More prayer. More service." That seems very wrong to me.

The biggest tragedy for both of these women, is that if they end up in heterosexual marriages, they can enter into the House of the Lord to be sealed for time and all eternity but their children wouldn't be able to get baptized until they were 18. That policy still blows my mind.

[USS Utah]

The biggest tragedy for both of these women, is that if they end up in heterosexual marriages, they can enter into the House of the Lord to be sealed for time and all eternity but their children wouldn't be able to get baptized until they were 18. That policy still blows my mind.

Uh . . . what?

[mUUser]

Uh . . . what?


The new policy could be interpreted the way he's describing......boggles the mind to think that it would be.....but, the way it's written it could leave a smidgen of wiggle room. There's four paragraphs in the policy to consider:

1. "A.......child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship.....may be baptized.....only as follows:"
2. ".....request approval from the OFP.....for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when.....both of the following requirements are met:"
3. "The child......disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation...." and,
4. "The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation...."

I would assume a child born in the covenant trumps all, but, honestly don't know for certain. Those with a pay grade much higher than me can hash that out.

But, I will agree with him on this point -- the policy created more problems than it proposed to solve. To treat children of gay parents the same as children of hetero parents would've made too much sense -- in most cases, this includes receiving permission from both parents, gay or hetero.

[NorthwestUteFan]

The rational flip side of the policy (where children of gay parents cannot get baptized before age 18) is for people to refuse to baptize their kids before age 18. Obviously it isn't a big deal to wait, if all kids are equal. But the sad reality is the church sees the children of same-sex couple as poison on some level, and seem to fear other members seeing the family as normal.

As it turns out my wife's friend used to live in the same ward as the short-haired woman in the video. Needless to say her father is a piece of work. He once showed up at the ward Halloween party as a Prop 8 sign. There is a very good chance this video will get turned into a 'pray the gay away' Mo celebrity tour.

[LA Ute]

Interesting take from a leader in another faith.

How Catholics Can Welcome LGBT Believers
It’s possible to stay faithful to the church’s teachings without turning away millions.

by Cardinal Robert Sarah

https://www.wsj.com/article_email/how-catholics-can-welcome-lgbt-believers-1504221027-lMyQjAxMTA3NjAzMjIwNzIyWj/

Warning: I think this may be behind the Wall Street Journal pay wall. First paragraph:


The Catholic Church has been criticized by many, including some of its own followers, for its pastoral response to the LGBT community. This criticism deserves a reply—not to defend the Church’s practices reflexively, but to determine whether we, as the Lord’s disciples, are reaching out effectively to a group in need. Christians must always strive to follow the new commandment Jesus gave at the Last Supper: “Love one another, even as I have loved you.”

[UTEopia]

One step forward, two steps back: http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/09/12/mormon-church-utah-senators-lend-their-support-to-bakers-refusing-to-make-cake-for-gay-weddings/

I guess I have a simplistic view of this. In my home my religious beliefs allow me to discriminate against anyone and everyone if I so choose. I can refuse to allow anyone I want to enter my home. When I enter the public square, my religious beliefs allow me to advocate discrimination against everyone, but my religious beliefs to do not allow me to prevent others from advocating the opposite position. When I enter the public marketplace, my religious beliefs do not allow me to discriminate against protected groups. I am not forced to enter the public marketplace, but if I do, I must play by those rules.

[Scorcho]

One step forward, two steps back: http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/09/12/mormon-church-utah-senators-lend-their-support-to-bakers-refusing-to-make-cake-for-gay-weddings/

I guess I have a simplistic view of this. In my home my religious beliefs allow me to discriminate against anyone and everyone if I so choose. I can refuse to allow anyone I want to enter my home. When I enter the public square, my religious beliefs allow me to advocate discrimination against everyone, but my religious beliefs to do not allow me to prevent others from advocating the opposite position. When I enter the public marketplace, my religious beliefs do not allow me to discriminate against protected groups. I am not forced to enter the public marketplace, but if I do, I must play by those rules.

Is it just me or is the LDS Church sending out mixed messages? :confused:

The LDS Church admirably will stand by the LGBT community when it comes to housing and other basic rights, but when it comes to complicated matters such as baking a wedding cake, well you're on your own. Its what Jesus would want.

sigh!

[UTEopia]

Is it just me or is the LDS Church sending out mixed messages? :confused:

The LDS Church admirably will stand by the LGBT community when it comes to housing and other basic rights, but when it comes to complicated matters such as baking a wedding cake, well you're on your own. Its what Jesus would want.

sigh!

One unfortunate result of actions like these is that it invites LDS members disposed to discriminate to do so and to feel that the church is encouraging them to do so.

[sancho]

but when it comes to complicated matters such as baking a wedding cake,

I don't think they see this as a cake - they see it as a precedent that leads to bishops being forced to perform weddings for gay couples. Maybe the law talkers can weigh in.

[LA Ute]

First Amendment issues are so interesting and so difficult. Anyway it's too bad this is going to go to the Supreme Court. We will get some law out of it, which may provide guidance to others; will surely be controversial; and will not be the last we hear about this issue.

Personally, I would've baked the cake. But I can see and understand the discomfort of those who see the issue differently. And all of the "slippery slope" argument is often ridiculed, it actually does apply in cases of constitutional law. A precedent is a precedent.

[sancho]

Personally, I would've baked the cake. But I can see and understand the discomfort of those who see the issue differently. And all of the "slippery slope" argument is often ridiculed, it actually does apply in cases of constitutional law. A precedent is a precedent.

Slippery slope is how law gets done, right?

[Applejack]

I don't think they see this as a cake - they see it as a precedent that leads to bishops being forced to perform weddings for gay couples. Maybe the law talkers can weigh in.

Requiring a buisnes to not discriminate will lead to forced weddings of gay couples? Awfully slippery slope there.

[sancho]

Requiring a buisnes to not discriminate will lead to forced weddings of gay couples? Awfully slippery slope there.

You're the law guy. It's all Greek to me. I just figure that a slippery slope is what the church is worried about. I don't think they care about the cake.

[Applejack]

You're the law guy. It's all Greek to me. I just figure that a slippery slope is what the church is worried about. I don't think they care about the cake.

Yeah, I assume you are right. The thing I don't get is the church has tons of attorneys, many good ones. I just can't believe they believe this will eventually result in requiring gay marriage for churches.

[sancho]

Yeah, I assume you are right. The thing I don't get is the church has tons of attorneys, many good ones. I just can't believe they believe this will eventually result in requiring gay marriage for churches.

Maybe the worry is not that specific. The church seems concerned in general about where things could go with religious freedom issues.

[UTEopia]

First Amendment issues are so interesting and so difficult. Anyway it's too bad this is going to go to the Supreme Court. We will get some law out of it, which may provide guidance to others; will surely be controversial; and will not be the last we hear about this issue.

Personally, I would've baked the cake. But I can see and understand the discomfort of those who see the issue differently. And all of the "slippery slope" argument is often ridiculed, it actually does apply in cases of constitutional law. A precedent is a precedent.

If you don't want to do business with certain groups that is your right so long as you identify all of those groups on your store and on advertising and marketing materials. We wouldn't want you to unknowingly be exposed to people you are religiously opposed to serving. All restaurant servers could wear tags indicating which groups they will and will not serve. Better yet, we can set aside special sections of restaurants and motels where only certain groups can be served. We can have separate entrances and everything so no ones religious beliefs are infringed.

One thing is clear is that whatever side of this issue the Court comes down on, the decision will be a rallying cry for those inclined to discriminate whether they be white supremacists or the "religious" right.

[UTEopia]

Maybe the worry is not that specific. The church seems concerned in general about where things could go with religious freedom issues.


I think there are better ways of protecting religious freedom than joining with those who espouse bigotry as legitimate religious expression or belief.

[LA Ute]

Requiring a buisnes to not discriminate will lead to forced weddings of gay couples? Awfully slippery slope there.

Right on cue, you're ridiculing the slippery slope argument. But you know that this case is going to result in a decision, which will be a precedent in future cases, based on which creative lawyers on either side will bring cases, seeking to push the boundaries of the law one direction or the other. That's how it works, as you know.

This is all political anyway. Supreme Court decisions amount to politics, buffered by the appointments process. If there are enough justices on the Court who want to find a way to get to the bottom of that slippery slope, they will.

[NorthwestUteFan]

It is time for Lucien Greaves and the Satanic Temple to demand these bakeries make cakes that say 'Hail Satan!' or 'Jesus Is Dead!' or something similar. The bakeries strictly cannot based on religion, so they should be forced to comply. Hilarity will ensue.

Once again the old men at 50 E North Temple will show themselves to be diametrically opposed to 85% of the younger generation of people they lose sleep over leaving the church. The message is confusing, do they support lgbt rights, a la their explicit and implied support of the LoveLoud festival last month, or this?

The crazy thing is they could eliminate all of their future concerns about being forced to marry same sex couples by allowing couples to marry outside of the temple, followed by a temple sealing ceremony immediately after just as they already do every other nation. Buy here in the US they force the couple to wait 12 months, which carries an implicit shaming.

Active church-goers, does this dichotomy disturb you? I would think there is a significant amount of anti-lgbt fatigue in wards every time something like this is announced.

Jesus would bake the damn cake.

[LA Ute]

Active church-goers, does this dichotomy disturb you? I would think there is a significant amount of anti-lgbt fatigue in wards every time something like this is announced.

Jesus would bake the damn cake.

I honestly think the church's leaders are not concerned about the cake but about the long-term impact of societal trends on freedom to practice our religion. Whether or not one agrees with them, to be fair-minded one must at least understand the LDS memory of past persecution and the expectation that there will be persecution, to some extent, in the future. We want the law to protect us from that. This is a reasonable concern, IMO.

[sancho]

The message is confusing, do they support lgbt rights, a la their explicit and implied support of the LoveLoud festival last month, or this?


I don't think the message is all that confusing. You yourself recently summed it up. The LDS church supports LGBT rights and LGBT members but asks them to remain celibate. It's been pretty consistent in that lately.

The Church does not see the cake as an LGBT rights question - it is viewed as a religious freedom issue.

So, no, I'm not disturbed by any dichotomy, since I think the church has been more or less consistent. I am bugged that the church can't just let the case run its course. In general, I prefer the church not to get involved in politics. And this case seems particularly trivial on both sides.

If Jesus would bake the cake, he might also preach a sermon to the buyers (and the sellers, and all of us, really).

[Applejack]

Right on cue, you're ridiculing the slippery slope argument. But you know that this case is going to result in a decision, which will be a precedent in future cases, based on which creative lawyers on either side will bring cases, seeking to push the boundaries of the law one direction or the other. That's how it works, as you know.

This is all political anyway. Supreme Court decisions amount to politics, buffered by the appointments process. If there are enough justices on the Court who want to find a way to get to the bottom of that slippery slope, they will.

I honestly hate these cases (cakes? Who cares?). But I don't buy that if this case comes out in support of the buyer that we are any closer to abolishing the first amendment. We just aren't.

This country has a long history of rights to practice religion. I don't see any, Any evidence that that is under attack.

I think the church's drumbeat about religious freedom (or more properly, oakes') is misguided.

[sancho]

I honestly hate these cases (cakes? Who cares?). But I don't buy that if this case comes out in support of the buyer that we are any closer to abolishing the first amendment. We just aren't.

This country has a long history of rights to practice religion. I don't see any, Any evidence that that is under attack.

I think the church's drumbeat about religious freedom (or more properly, oakes') is misguided.

Oaks is a pretty knowledgeable law-guy, too, though. He may have insights that you don't. And you probably have some that he doesn't share. And you both know a million times more than I do.

Mormons have both historical and doctrinal (end-of-days!) reasons to fear issues related to religious freedom. Maybe we are hyper-sensitive to it because of that.

I read through the Atlantic's three-part series on title IX this past week. It's not related to religion, but it's striking how many people are okay with limiting others' protections and freedoms in support of their own causes.

Slippery slopes/boiling frogs - the point is that you don't see how the result brings us any closer to the undesirable outcome. And the argument both ways on the cake thing is a slippery slope argument. On the one hand, you have those afraid of LDS bishops being forced to marry gay couples. On the other, you have those afraid of segregated sections of restaurants. All over a cake which seemingly can't move the needle in either direction. One thing we do agree on - this is all dumb.

[Scorcho]

The Virginia-based Christian Legal Society filed its brief Monday on behalf of the LDS Church, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the National Association of Evangelical, the National Association of Evangelical, the Orthodox Jewish Congregations and others. It asks the nation’s high court not to forget the First Amendment rights of those who are deeply religious.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/09/12/mormon-church-utah-senators-lend-their-support-to-bakers-refusing-to-make-cake-for-gay-weddings/

I'm guessing the Westboro Baptists are all over this too, is that really the kind of company the LDS Church wants to keep?

[LA Ute]

I honestly hate these cases (cakes? Who cares?). But I don't buy that if this case comes out in support of the buyer that we are any closer to abolishing the first amendment. We just aren't.

Bit of a straw man, wouldn't you agree? 😉

I was mainly trying to describe what think (think) the church is worried about. Just my impression.

I am personally pretty fatalistic about this whole subject. I think society is going to continue to secularize, and it will be harder and harder to be religious person. Nothing new in that idea, it's been prophesied for centuries. I think the church is just trying to do its best to carve out a place for itself and its members in that world. I doubt they even think they will succeed, long-term. They just want to raise their voices in support of what they believe is right. And, as sancho said, they're trying to do so in a way that doesn't hurt or discriminate against anybody, or cause hatred or anything along those lines.

[UTEopia]

I just believe that there are better places to spend your capital if you are interested in carving out a place for the church and its members.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I just believe that there are better places to spend your capital if you are interested in carving out a place for the church and its members.I have to believe an increasing number of active church members belong to the 'Straight, but not Narrow...' group.

[LA Ute]

I have to believe an increasing number of active church members belong to the 'Straight, but not Narrow...' group.

With very few exceptions, I think every LDS person interested in this issue is trying to do what they think is right, and in accordance with their own conscience.

[LA Ute]

This seems a bit over-wrought but relates to our discussion.

What’s changed in Britain since same-sex marriage?

https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/09/whats-changed-in-britain-since-same-sex-marriage/

[Ma'ake]

The best predictor of how things would play out with a broader ruling/law/amendment in support of religious freedom is what happened in Indiana. Under Governor Pence, the Legislature passed a "freedom of religion" bill that (essentially) gave businesses the right to discriminate.... which quickly was viewed by other side as "they just legalized discrimination!"

The LGBT viewpoint was more predominant, most businesses couldn't put up "We Don't Discriminate" signs quick enough, the NCAA was looking at ways to pull out of Indiana, etc. The Legislature quickly added a "this is not a license to discriminate" provision, Pence signed it, while admitting he didn't understand what the fuss was all about.

Most of these religious freedom efforts are simply ways to help those uncomfortable with change feel better about themselves, or find strength in numbers, or whatever. Unless there's a Let's Not Talk About This Anymore Constitutional Amendment for topics so designated, the religious freedom efforts will only serve to further isolate and identify those who want to hit the go-back button on time.

"I can decide who I want to serve, and you are constitutionally prohibited from telling anyone else about it, especially CNN".

My grandma - god bless her soul - would be 1000% for a declaration signed by Trump saying "just because I don't think negroes should be allowed to live in white neighborhood doesn't make me a racist!"

Alas, grandma passed in the 90s, and excepting the Charlottesville wing of American society, those views are over-the-horizon in the rearview mirror in America. So will it be with the bakers who decide to take themselves out of the free market, as younger generations wonder what these religious freedom efforts were all about. (Or, maybe they'll self-segregate to Christian homelands within the US, which wouldn't be a great idea for their kids, but is certainly possible.)

[Applejack]

This seems a bit over-wrought but relates to our discussion.

What’s changed in Britain since same-sex marriage?

https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/09/whats-changed-in-britain-since-same-sex-marriage/

Yes, just a tad alarmist.

[U-Ute]

This is one area where my beliefs break from the liberals and the Democrats.

The same principle I use that says "There shouldn't be any state sponsored funding of statues dedicated to Confederate leaders" says "The private sector can decide who and who they do not want to provide services to".

I don't think they should be forced to make cakes for gay weddings. Let the market decide before we go about making laws about this. I understand that the market is made up of people and that people have prejudices and that our leaders have to set goals and directions, but I don't think we're to that point yet. I don't see widespread discrimination of the LGBT community by retailers like there were of blacks.

But I admit that I am not in a position to see or feel those types of experiences.

That's the Libertarian side of me coming out.

[Scorcho]

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865688689/Gay-brother-of-Mormon-apostle-shares-his-spiritual-journey.html

"We don't understand or know how all of this will play out in eternity," Christofferson writes that his parents told one of their sons around this time. "So we are going to make sure we enjoy every single moment with Tom in this life."

great article

[mUUser]

......
That's the Libertarian side of me coming out.

That's the struggle I have with this. If people who own their own business (not a shareholder business) want to be complete turds about things and not sell to the gay community, well, that says more about them than the gay couple. I'm hesitant to ask the govt to step in to do something about it. OTOH, the baker has brought his business public, and therefore, if he makes a cake, then anyone meeting the financial requirements ought to be able to purchase the cake. On the third hand.....perhaps that provision should only be applied to items that are offered to the public for sale, but shouldn't be required to produce a specialty cake upon request. IOW, the gay couple ought to be able to buy a cake if the cake has already been made and offered to the public -- but the baker should be able to turn down custom orders based on personal belief.

I don't know -- you smart guys figure it out and I'll happily abide.

As for me and my house, we support LGBTQ for ANY right enjoyed by all other law-abiding, tax-paying, adult american citizens of sound mind. I don't trust the govt enough to believe any other way.

[LA Ute]

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865688689/Gay-brother-of-Mormon-apostle-shares-his-spiritual-journey.html

"We don't understand or know how all of this will play out in eternity," Christofferson writes that his parents told one of their sons around this time. "So we are going to make sure we enjoy every single moment with Tom in this life."

great article

Tom lives in the ward we attend when we are in Salt Lake. He teaches the Gospel Doctrine class there. He's one of the best teachers of that class I've ever known. He's a terrific human being.

As fate would have it, Tom's other brother Greg teaches Gospel Doctrine in a ward in our stake in L.A., where I attend at least monthly because of an assignment I have. He's ALSO a fabulous teacher and a wonderful man. Those Christoffersons are an amazing family!

[sancho]

[QUOTE=LA Ute;104155Those Christoffersons are an amazing family![/QUOTE]

Go Duke Go!

[mpfunk]

I don't think they see this as a cake - they see it as a precedent that leads to bishops being forced to perform weddings for gay couples. Maybe the law talkers can weigh in.Unless they have deep seeded hatred of homosexuals causing them to be irrational, there is no reason this should be a concern. It will never happen.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[SeattleUte]

Yes, just a tad alarmist.

The Spectator hates. I don't like it.

[Applejack]

This is one area where my beliefs break from the liberals and the Democrats.

The same principle I use that says "There shouldn't be any state sponsored funding of statues dedicated to Confederate leaders" says "The private sector can decide who and who they do not want to provide services to".

I don't think they should be forced to make cakes for gay weddings. Let the market decide before we go about making laws about this. I understand that the market is made up of people and that people have prejudices and that our leaders have to set goals and directions, but I don't think we're to that point yet. I don't see widespread discrimination of the LGBT community by retailers like there were of blacks.

But I admit that I am not in a position to see or feel those types of experiences.

That's the Libertarian side of me coming out.

This is an understandable position; let people do what they want and let the marketplace award winners and losers. It feels very libertarian. But I doubt you (or anyone) really believes in that position to it's full extent.

For example, I think you would have problems with a restaurant refusing service to people of color; or jews; or mormons; or women. That's why the court has essentially said if you are in the public marketplace, you cannot discriminate. In your personal life do whatever you want, believe what you want, be with people that you deem acceptable. But as soon as you hold yourself out as open for business, that means that whomever is willing to pay for your services cannot be discriminated against based on the color of their skin, their god, or their loved ones.

[LA Ute]

Yes, just a tad alarmist.

I am not familiar with that publication or the author. But if what he claims is happening really is happening, don't you agree that people of good will on both sides of the issue ought to be concerned, and should be able to have a thoughtful discussion about it all?

[USS Utah]

Helping LDS Leaders Understand Recent Perspectives on LGTB Issues

A document to help local LDS leaders understand some of the most recent statements and materials presented by senior leaders about LGBT topics.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bonz5dxw7llcxjw/For%20LDS%20Leaders%2015%20Sept%2017.pdf?dl=0

[LA Ute]

Commentary: Coming face to face with The Last Judgment

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2017/09/30/commentary-coming-face-to-face-with-the-last-judgment/

[USS Utah]

During a BYU Devotional Address on November 14, 2017, Elder M. Russell Ballard took the opportunity to answer various questions submitted to him by young single adult members in advance of his talk. Two of the questions Elder Ballard answered were LGBT related.


https://affirmation.org/ballard-answers-lgbt-questions-byu-devotional/?utm_content=buffer2e0e3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[Ma'ake]

During a BYU Devotional Address on November 14, 2017, Elder M. Russell Ballard took the opportunity to answer various questions submitted to him by young single adult members in advance of his talk. Two of the questions Elder Ballard answered were LGBT related.


https://affirmation.org/ballard-answers-lgbt-questions-byu-devotional/?utm_content=buffer2e0e3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

"...you have a place in the kingdom"

First, Ballard's remarks are very welcome, I'm sure, to many people. That's the big takeaway.

This is a significant milestone, IMO. Not a major milestone, but definitely signals movement toward equality.

Before LGBT get true equality, women will need to get the priesthood. I'm spit-balling it, but before *that* happens, there would need to be a change in policy(?) about men being able to have multiple (sequential) celestial marriages, but "sorry" for the ladies. (This may have already happened, though I think it would have leaked out.)

The women-priesthood issue may very well get nudged further by the rash of high profile "men behaving badly" incidents in society, prompting deeper thinking about why inequality exists between the genders, in LDS theology.

(Will Ed Firmage's (now dated) declaration that he could find no scriptural basis for denying women the priesthood become an "ahead of his time" label?)

[LA Ute]

This is is a thoughtful piece by a well-known gay writer and thinker. He proposes a solution that might work.

The Case for the Baker in the Gay-Wedding Culture War

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/andrew-sullivan-let-him-have-his-cake.html

[UTEopia]

This is is a thoughtful piece by a well-known gay writer and thinker. He proposes a solution that might work.

The Case for the Baker in the Gay-Wedding Culture War

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/andrew-sullivan-let-him-have-his-cake.html


Not only does the author have a very good take on the Baker case, he provides some great insight to Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as the Capitol of Israel.

[Rocker Ute]

Here is a serious question: my business that does marketing and websites has always had a policy that we don’t do certain types of sites, among them for illegal activities (of course), gambling, pornography and MLMs among others. Most of those things are based off my principles and religious beliefs. Presuming the Supreme Court sides with previous decisions against the baker would that mean I would be exposing myself to liability if someone wanted to build a gay porn site on my platform and I didn’t allow it?

Or am I protected because I don’t allow any of that kind of activity?

And no I’m not being facetious, I’m honestly curious (and no I don’t expect it to happen).

In the same, if the baker says, “As a gay person you are welcome in my shop and I’ll serve you for everything but that event...” is he not doing essentially the same thing as me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

If you say you will not build a website of any sort for a particular gay person, then you are discriminating and at risk. But if you don't do porn of any kind for any client, and you would happily make a car repair or scrapbooking or travel website for the same gay client, then you are being consistent and not individually discriminatory.

The curious thing about this case is the attorneys appear to head toward calling the baker's wedding cakes a figure of 'art', and thus an act of 'speech'. But then where do you draw the line at what is 'art'? Where in the process does it become art? There is a broad range of steps between dumping the flour into the mixing bowl, whipping the eggs, lining up the rounds, laying on a fondant, spooging the roses and ivy decorations from a frosting gun, and placing the two grooms on top.

That point in time is important because the baker in the case will be required to do everything up to that point for all pairs of clients, whether or not they have an even number of penises (zero being an even number in this case...).

[UtahsMrSports]

Here is a serious question: my business that does marketing and websites has always had a policy that we don’t do certain types of sites, among them for illegal activities (of course), gambling, pornography and MLMs among others. Most of those things are based off my principles and religious beliefs. Presuming the Supreme Court sides with previous decisions against the baker would that mean I would be exposing myself to liability if someone wanted to build a gay porn site on my platform and I didn’t allow it?

Or am I protected because I don’t allow any of that kind of activity?

And no I’m not being facetious, I’m honestly curious (and no I don’t expect it to happen).

In the same, if the baker says, “As a gay person you are welcome in my shop and I’ll serve you for everything but that event...” is he not doing essentially the same thing as me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I love that MLMs get lumped in with porn, gambling, and illegal activities. I couldn't agree more!

[Rocker Ute]

I love that MLMs get lumped in with porn, gambling, and illegal activities. I couldn't agree more!

Well interestingly the way my platform works has some functionality for real estate brokerages that allows individual agents to have their own websites yet the core content and control is retained by the brokerage. That is a functionality that is really nice for MLMs because you could potentially do the same thing for the downline. I've been approached many times by budding MLMs who wanted to do that and I've politely declined stating that I didn't believe our business models were a good match for each other. I wouldn't be able to look myself in the mirror knowing I had supported that garbage.

[UTEopia]

Here is a serious question: my business that does marketing and websites has always had a policy that we don’t do certain types of sites, among them for illegal activities (of course), gambling, pornography and MLMs among others. Most of those things are based off my principles and religious beliefs. Presuming the Supreme Court sides with previous decisions against the baker would that mean I would be exposing myself to liability if someone wanted to build a gay porn site on my platform and I didn’t allow it?

Or am I protected because I don’t allow any of that kind of activity?

And no I’m not being facetious, I’m honestly curious (and no I don’t expect it to happen).

In the same, if the baker says, “As a gay person you are welcome in my shop and I’ll serve you for everything but that event...” is he not doing essentially the same thing as me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i would think you are okay because none of the activities you described are practiced solely by people of a protected class, i.e., race, nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation. In the Baker case, the Baker would provide products to a gay person, other than a wedding cake based on his belief on marriage. This makes this case very difficult to decide and will allow the court to reach a very narrow ruling. I like the artistic expression argument because in this case the Baker does provide products for gay people, other than wedding cakes. The court could rule in favor of the Baker without creating a basis for someone to deny services to all gay people.

[mpfunk]

Nelson as president selects Oaks as first counselor.

Can I collect my swish now that there is no place in the LDS church of LDS theology for LGBTQ individuals?

[USS Utah]

When asked how the First Presidency plans to approach LGBTQ issues, President Nelson replied that God loves His children and wants them to have joy.

“We know that there are challenges with the commandments of God; challenges to be worthy [and] to enter His holy presence when we’re through with this mortal experience.

“We’re trying to help people find happiness and joy in this life and prepare for great possibilities in the world ahead.”

Because of God’s love, He has given His children commandments, added President Oaks. There is the love of the Lord — and the law of the Lord.

“He has given us a plan to achieve the highest blessings He has for His children. As leaders of the Church, we have the responsibility to teach love and also teach the commandments of God and the highest destination that He has prescribed for His children, all of which is embodied in the plan of salvation.”

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865695109/New-First-Presidency-addresses-Church-growth-LGBTQ-issues-role-of-women-at-press-conferenceNew.html

[Ma'ake]

Here's a pothole for many Mormons, from the new prophet: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/02/19/satan-temps-us-to-love-as-we-should-not-love-lds-prophet-russell-m-nelson-warns-mormon-millennials/

And below is a response in the forums, from somebody named "JustChris1976". (I think this is why some Mormons felt like Uchdorf got the shaft in the recent transition).


What a joke! I'm sick an tired of being respectful, when old men, who haven't even tried to understand, condemn others.MISTER Nelson, I did not choose to be exclusively attracted to males. It was always just this way. Before I had even reached your "age of accountability" I was aware of the way I felt about other boys my age.As I got older, I tried, and tried, and cried as I begged, in prayer, for God to "fix me." I served an honorable two-year mission, hoping that God would turn my head for my sacrifice.After I got home, I still felt exactly the same as ever about my sexuality. It was then that I realized that I'd had my answer all along:There's nothing wrong with me. I'm not in need of redemption. I'm a moral, kind person who works hard to love others, especially my partner of TEN YEARS.Let's make a deal - You stay out of my bedroom, and I'll stay out of your silly, man-made church.

[UTEopia]

Here's a pothole for many Mormons, from the new prophet: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/02/19/satan-temps-us-to-love-as-we-should-not-love-lds-prophet-russell-m-nelson-warns-mormon-millennials/

And below is a response in the forums, from somebody named "JustChris1976". (I think this is why some Mormons felt like Uchdorf got the shaft in the recent transition).


What a joke! I'm sick an tired of being respectful, when old men, who haven't even tried to understand, condemn others.MISTER Nelson, I did not choose to be exclusively attracted to males. It was always just this way. Before I had even reached your "age of accountability" I was aware of the way I felt about other boys my age.As I got older, I tried, and tried, and cried as I begged, in prayer, for God to "fix me." I served an honorable two-year mission, hoping that God would turn my head for my sacrifice.After I got home, I still felt exactly the same as ever about my sexuality. It was then that I realized that I'd had my answer all along:There's nothing wrong with me. I'm not in need of redemption. I'm a moral, kind person who works hard to love others, especially my partner of TEN YEARS.Let's make a deal - You stay out of my bedroom, and I'll stay out of your silly, man-made church.


My son gives some advice to his LGBTQ friends who get upset over what Mormon leaders say. Stop reading and listening to it. The poster ends his statement with "you stay out of my bedroom and I'll stay our of your silly, man-made church." It is obvious the poster refuses to do so.

As for the statement that made him upset. The LDS Church is not going to change its doctrine when it comes to marriage or same gender, sexual relationships anymore than it is going to change its doctrine on adultery or pre-marital sex. I don't expect the LDS Church to tell me that it is okay if I want to go out and commit adultery because I happen to love someone who is not my spouse. Why do people continue to expect the LDS Church to say that it is okay to engage in same gender, sexual relationships?

[LA Ute]

This woman is one of many who leave me wondering if I could ever face the challenges they face the way they do.


https://youtu.be/vd8LkJt9iPI

[LA Ute]

Stats, and more stats.

Op-ed: Responding to Ellen on Mormons and teen suicide

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900021663/op-ed-responding-to-ellen-on-mormons-and-teen-suicide.html

[UTEopia]

Stats, and more stats.

Op-ed: Responding to Ellen on Mormons and teen suicide

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900021663/op-ed-responding-to-ellen-on-mormons-and-teen-suicide.html

This is the part of the story that is disconcerting and that should be addressed by the LDS Church.

"Another more recent Utah study of 600 families with a teen (the Family Foundations of Youth Development study, 2016-2017) found the same: more religious teens and Mormon teens were significantly less likely to experience suicidal thoughts. Teens who had previously been Mormon (had left the Mormon Church) had similar rates of suicidal thoughts as their non-Mormon peers. As we consider these findings in a highly homogenous religious state like Utah, we acknowledge that a higher rate of suicidal ideation for non-LDS youths in Utah may speak to a need for better integration of non-LDS youths within schools and local communities."

[sancho]

This is the part of the story that is disconcerting and that should be addressed by the LDS Church.

"Another more recent Utah study of 600 families with a teen (the Family Foundations of Youth Development study, 2016-2017) found the same: more religious teens and Mormon teens were significantly less likely to experience suicidal thoughts. Teens who had previously been Mormon (had left the Mormon Church) had similar rates of suicidal thoughts as their non-Mormon peers. As we consider these findings in a highly homogenous religious state like Utah, we acknowledge that a higher rate of suicidal ideation for non-LDS youths in Utah may speak to a need for better integration of non-LDS youths within schools and local communities."

I question the value of a study of only 600 families in a place as large and diverse as Utah looking for something as nuanced as a likelihood to experience suicidal thoughts. That said, I'm all for better integration of LDS and non-LDS populations in the state.

The stat from the article that really jumps out as being significant is the hugely elevated rate of suicidal thoughts among LGBT youth (43% vs 18%). Regardless of how the survey is conducted or what constitutes a positive response, that's a big difference.

[UTEopia]

The comment section in the News article regarding the about face the Provo Freedom Festival Parade committee did after initially rejecting the applications of 5 LGBTQ groups applications to participate says about all that needs to be said about the hurdles faced by the LGBTQ community in Utah. The groups were initially not allowed because organizers claimed that their applications did not meet standards and the parade is not a place for advocating special interests but to show patriotism. The groups have now been allowed to participate in the parade after agreeing to have more red, white and blue on the submission and more patriotic themes. The SLTrib showed a photo of the LDS Provo Utah Mission entry in last year's parade. It consisted of the mission president and wife walking in front of a banner with the words Utah Provo Mission and then followed by missionaries in white shirts and ties. While the frame of the photo was narrow, none of those shown were waving or carrying flags.

[Diehard Ute]

The comment section in the News article regarding the about face the Provo Freedom Festival Parade committee did after initially rejecting the applications of 5 LGBTQ groups applications to participate says about all that needs to be said about the hurdles faced by the LGBTQ community in Utah. The groups were initially not allowed because organizers claimed that their applications did not meet standards and the parade is not a place for advocating special interests but to show patriotism. The groups have now been allowed to participate in the parade after agreeing to have more red, white and blue on the submission and more patriotic themes. The SLTrib showed a photo of the LDS Provo Utah Mission entry in last year's parade. It consisted of the mission president and wife walking in front of a banner with the words Utah Provo Mission and then followed by missionaries in white shirts and ties. While the frame of the photo was narrow, none of those shown were waving or carrying flags.

I believe the Freedom Festival folks tweaked their theme requirements to be even more strict, because they’d been forced to sign the non-discrimination agreements. Their thinking was they could just say an entry wasn’t patriotic enough and avoid any controversy. The original plan for at least one of the rejected groups was a float of LGBTQ veterans. How that wasn’t patriotic I have no idea.

They also made a big deal about funding....making sure to say the large sums of taxpayer money they receive goes to everything but the parade.


Frankly it’s amazing local governments have such large sums of taxpayer money to hand out for parades and festivals. I’d be curious if they charge these events for resources they use, such as police and fire...if not the reported ‘donations’ are probably lower than what it’s actually costing taxpayers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

From the Trib:

Mormon church makes historic donation to LGBTQ support group Affirmation for suicide prevention training

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/07/10/mormon-church-makes/

It’s only $25K but a positive step.

[LA Ute]

Good stuff.

Previous Latter-day Saint Bishop Shares 4 Ways We Can Show Respect for LGBTQ Members

http://www.ldsliving.com/Previous-Latter-day-Saint-Bishop-Shares-4-Ways-We-Can-Show-Respect-for-LGBTQ-Members/s/90167

[Ma'ake]

Good stuff.

Previous Latter-day Saint Bishop Shares 4 Ways We Can Show Respect for LGBTQ Members

http://www.ldsliving.com/Previous-Latter-day-Saint-Bishop-Shares-4-Ways-We-Can-Show-Respect-for-LGBTQ-Members/s/90167

That *is* good stuff. Though I don't think there was ever an overtly hostile, "extermination" kind of mindset among LDS, it's remarkable how far the common understanding has come. I don't hear anyone pushing the "it's a choice" angle anymore.

[LA Ute]

This one left me a little choked up.

"You Are My People": Inactive Gay Mormon Shares Powerful Insights After Attending Church for the First Time in Years

http://www.ldsliving.com/Inactive-Gay-Mormon-Shares-Powerful-Insights-After-Attending-Church-for-the-First-Time-in-Years/s/87741
http://www.ldsliving.com/Inactive-Gay-Mormon-Shares-Powerful-Insights-After-Attending-Church-for-the-First-Time-in-Years/s/87741?fbclid=IwAR3XlmQy99yk0OU5xT729lvfo-ryv-H308OL4sxW2xC3khU3mZqxoFKzbac

[Scorcho]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/29/us/byu-valedictorian-comes-out-in-speech-trnd/index.html

I bet that made more than a few people squirm in their seats

[UTEopia]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/29/us/byu-valedictorian-comes-out-in-speech-trnd/index.html

I bet that made more than a few people squirm in their seats

Good for him to get this off his chest. I have known of more than 1 person who has waited to graduate at BYU before coming out.

[concerned]

The son of good friends of ours is a freshman, and posted online around Thanksgiving that he is gay. He intends to serve a mission; I don't know if he has submitted papers yet. He is very brave. i can't imagine what it is like to be him down there.

[Scorcho]

Good for him to get this off his chest. I have known of more than 1 person who has waited to graduate at BYU before coming out.

I don't understand how this works? Its my understanding that even though you've graduated, BYU has power to withdraw/suspend your degree (I recall the guy from Las Vegas that did the shirtless missionary calendar that was denied his degree even though he had met all the requirement and had graduated). I assume that these degrees will be honored as long as they don't openly practice, but I'm not sure?

[concerned]

I don't understand how this works? Its my understanding that even though you've graduated, BYU has power to withdraw/suspend your degree (I recall the guy from Las Vegas that did the shirtless missionary calendar that was denied his degree even though he had met all the requirement and had graduated). I assume that these degrees will be honored as long as they don't openly practice, but I'm not sure?

We have another close friend -- bYu undergrad, law school bask east; has lived in NYC for 25 years. He got married in his husband's rural home town in Nebraska. It was written up in the local paper; somebody saw it and forwarded to his bishop in NYC. He was excommunicated, but he is still a graduate.

[sancho]

I don't understand how this works? Its my understanding that even though you've graduated, BYU has power to withdraw/suspend your degree (I recall the guy from Las Vegas that did the shirtless missionary calendar that was denied his degree even though he had met all the requirement and had graduated). I assume that these degrees will be honored as long as they don't openly practice, but I'm not sure?

I don't think he has admitted to any behavior that is against the honor code, right?

[sancho]

We have another close friend -- bYu undergrad, law school bask east; has lived in NYC for 25 years. He got married in his husband's rural home town in Nebraska. It was written up in the local paper; somebody saw it and forwarded to his bishop in NYC. He was excommunicated, but he is still a graduate.

Can you imagine them going around rescinding degrees from 20 years ago due to honor code violations that occurred years after graduating? It's a crazy place, Provo, but that would be too far even for them.

[UTEopia]

Can you imagine them going around rescinding degrees from 20 years ago due to honor code violations that occurred years after graduating? It's a crazy place, Provo, but that would be too far even for them.

Unfortunately, I can.

[Rocker Ute]

I predict the Honor Code office as we now know it will not exist one year from now. Instead honor code worthiness type issues will be sent to the respective bishops and academic disciplinary actions will be handled by the school.

[sancho]

I predict the Honor Code office as we now know it will not exist one year from now. Instead honor code worthiness type issues will be sent to the respective bishops and academic disciplinary actions will be handled by the school.

But what of the many parts of the honor code that are not commandments or even general church standards? What about beards?

[Scorcho]

I don't think he has admitted to any behavior that is against the honor code, right?


I just looked it up and it sounds like he was in the process of graduating, not officially graduated (although pretty petty by BYU)?

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/705255925/Calendar-designer-denied-BYU-diploma.html

PROVO — Selling a calendar of shirtless returned missionaries of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints first cost Chad Hardy his membership in the church.

Now it's cost him his Brigham Young University degree.

Hardy walked in BYU commencement ceremonies in August, but a BYU administrator informed him in a letter dated Sept. 30 that he had been deleted from the August graduation list and would not be awarded his degree in broadcasting.

BYU spokeswoman Carri Jenkins confirmed BYU has not granted Hardy a diploma. "When a student applies for graduation, he or she must be in good standing with the university," Jenkins said.

The BYU letter said Hardy's degree is on hold because he was not in good honor code standing because of his excommunication. The LDS Church owns and operates BYU. The letter invited Hardy to contact the executive director of student academic and advisement services about his degree if he returns to good standing in the church.

Hardy completed the final requirements for his degree over the summer by completing two religion courses. Hardy was excommunicated by the church on July 13. Hardy had not been active in the church for six years.

[Diehard Ute]

I just looked it up and it sounds like he was in the process of graduating, not officially graduated?

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/705255925/Calendar-designer-denied-BYU-diploma.html

PROVO — Selling a calendar of shirtless returned missionaries of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints first cost Chad Hardy his membership in the church.

Now it's cost him his Brigham Young University degree.

Hardy walked in BYU commencement ceremonies in August, but a BYU administrator informed him in a letter dated Sept. 30 that he had been deleted from the August graduation list and would not be awarded his degree in broadcasting.

BYU spokeswoman Carri Jenkins confirmed BYU has not granted Hardy a diploma. "When a student applies for graduation, he or she must be in good standing with the university," Jenkins said.

The BYU letter said Hardy's degree is on hold because he was not in good honor code standing because of his excommunication. The LDS Church owns and operates BYU. The letter invited Hardy to contact the executive director of student academic and advisement services about his degree if he returns to good standing in the church.

Hardy completed the final requirements for his degree over the summer by completing two religion courses. Hardy was excommunicated by the church on July 13. Hardy had not been active in the church for six years.




Most schools let you “walk” prior to degrees being official. It usually takes them months now to actually send you your diploma.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[LA Ute]

I am reluctant to defend BYU but the speaker said every word of his speech was approved by BYU authorities before he gave it. So that’s interesting. Good for them.

[Ma'ake]

I am reluctant to defend BYU but the speaker said every word of his speech was approved by BYU authorities before he gave it. So that’s interesting. Good for them.

Yes, that was notable. That speech was a positive shot for a lot of LDS people. The reversal of the ban on underage children of gay marriage getting baptized was also a good thing.

BYU is still wrestling with the PR issue of the HC office's heavy handed tactics, so it's not like we're giving BYU a standing ovation - that would be weird. We're Utes, they're Cougars. There are limitations.

[UTEopia]

I am reluctant to defend BYU but the speaker said every word of his speech was approved by BYU authorities before he gave it. So that’s interesting. Good for them.

I don't know whether he was required to submit his speech to authorities or did it of his own accord. If the former, that is troubling.

[UTEopia]

I predict the Honor Code office as we now know it will not exist one year from now. Instead honor code worthiness type issues will be sent to the respective bishops and academic disciplinary actions will be handled by the school.

I wish you would predict that a year from now the Church would divest itself of BYU so that the tithes of people in Africa aren't subsidizing BYU tuition.

[sancho]

I don't know whether he was required to submit his speech to authorities or did it of his own accord. If the former, that is troubling.

I would bet that most schools require their valedictorian to submit her speech before giving it.

[LA Ute]

I don't know whether he was required to submit his speech to authorities or did it of his own accord. If the former, that is troubling.

I think that all commencement speeches there require prior approval. I think this is pretty common.

[Rocker Ute]

I think that all commencement speeches there require prior approval. I think this is pretty common.

That's why you don't write, "San Dimas Football Rules!" in your speech, you just say it.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

That's why you don't write, "San Dimas Football Rules!" in your speech, you just say it.

San Dimas football hasn’t ruled for 25 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

Maybe this fits in here (since this is the last place I remember us discussing BYUs honor code issues - if not feel free to move if) but Luke Staley is considering having his retired number removed from LES.

https://www.sltrib.com/sports/2019/05/04/chicago-bulls-coach-jim/

I've mentioned ecclesiastical leaders should be handling the worthiness issues of students and he makes a good point that the Honor Code is actually causing kids to delay repentance out of fear of being kicked out of school. He then describes what Lavell Edwards would do (I'll add it was couple with the leniency only athletes at BYU get with the honor code) to help mentor kids along who had made mistakes. That sounds like the right approach and reinforces my original notion.

I believe sancho asked about the non religious parts of the honor code and who enforces that. I suggest they do it the same way they do it will all other professional organizations under the church umbrella. If you work for the church you also have your professional standards and that also includes a yearly ecclesiastical endorsement. The bishops worry about worthiness, the organization deals with all other discipline needs which is usually just correction. (I have a friend who contends that 90% of church employees are unemployable elsewhere, which also makes a case of the church's ability to be compassionate).

So at BYU, grow a beard you or wear hot pants, you can't go to class or take tests. Etc etc.

This is not a complicated fix for BYU and the right one to do. Time to wipe out the thought police.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UTEopia]

I am really weary of this honor code talk. The way the honor code is enforced is undoubtedly out of date. However, I believe the entire existence of BYU is out of date. There was likely a time when a place like BYU was important. Now, is no longer that time. There is no rational reason why a small percentage of LDS college age students should have the cost of their educations subsidized by the tithes of those who cannot afford their own eductions. This was brought home last year when I visited Kenya and learned that it costs a family more then they earn in a year to send their kid to high school. The tithes of kids in Africa should not be used to subsidize the tuition of kids from Alpine.

[Scorcho]

a little more on the BYU student coming out at graduation: https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/05/06/gay-byu-valedictorian/

the honor code just needs to go away, its flat out embarrassing

[sancho]

a little more on the BYU student coming out at graduation: https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/05/06/gay-byu-valedictorian/

the honor code just needs to go away, its flat out embarrassing

It is embarrassing, but I'm also a little embarrassed for this kid who felt the need to lie about it. Getting in trouble for shaking hands? Come on, kid.

[Scorcho]

It is embarrassing, but I'm also a little embarrassed for this kid who felt the need to lie about it. Getting in trouble for shaking hands? Come on, kid.

I agree that seems over the top, but if your an 18-19 year old kid with extreme insecurities and a sexual identity dilemma in that environment, maybe its not?

Can BYU at the very least address the tattle-tailing aspect of the honor code? I propose that anyone snitching on someone else get punishment.

[UTEopia]

I struggle to understand the erosion of religious freedom that is discussed regularly by LDS leaders and is currently being raised in opposition to the "Equality Act." What freedoms are being eroded? I am religious. I practice my religion at home and at church. I do not perceive those freedoms to be in danger. I also participate in the public square. I expect that I will not be discriminated against in the public square on the basis of my religious beliefs. I don't think I have been. In exchange for protection from discrimination based on my religion, I believe that when I enter the public square I am precluded from discriminating against individuals or groups based on certain criteria including race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. A couple of examples. The LDS Church owns BYU and KSL. I can see that allowing BYU to make employment decisions that take religion and sexual orientation into account should be protected. However, KSL is a full participant in the public square and should not be allowed to take those things into account. BYU TV is a hybrid. However, it has gone from providing programing for a fairly limited audience to seeking broad and public distribution. It should not be allowed to discriminate.

[UtahsMrSports]

I struggle to understand the erosion of religious freedom that is discussed regularly by LDS leaders and is currently being raised in opposition to the "Equality Act." What freedoms are being eroded? I am religious. I practice my religion at home and at church. I do not perceive those freedoms to be in danger. I also participate in the public square. I expect that I will not be discriminated against in the public square on the basis of my religious beliefs. I don't think I have been. In exchange for protection from discrimination based on my religion, I believe that when I enter the public square I am precluded from discriminating against individuals or groups based on certain criteria including race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. A couple of examples. The LDS Church owns BYU and KSL. I can see that allowing BYU to make employment decisions that take religion and sexual orientation into account should be protected. However, KSL is a full participant in the public square and should not be allowed to take those things into account. BYU TV is a hybrid. However, it has gone from providing programing for a fairly limited audience to seeking broad and public distribution. It should not be allowed to discriminate.

Agree or disagree, the Colorado wedding cake case looms large here.

[UTEopia]

Agree or disagree, the Colorado wedding cake case looms large here.
Yes it does.

[Rocker Ute]

I struggle to understand the erosion of religious freedom that is discussed regularly by LDS leaders and is currently being raised in opposition to the "Equality Act." What freedoms are being eroded? I am religious. I practice my religion at home and at church. I do not perceive those freedoms to be in danger. I also participate in the public square. I expect that I will not be discriminated against in the public square on the basis of my religious beliefs. I don't think I have been. In exchange for protection from discrimination based on my religion, I believe that when I enter the public square I am precluded from discriminating against individuals or groups based on certain criteria including race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. A couple of examples. The LDS Church owns BYU and KSL. I can see that allowing BYU to make employment decisions that take religion and sexual orientation into account should be protected. However, KSL is a full participant in the public square and should not be allowed to take those things into account. BYU TV is a hybrid. However, it has gone from providing programing for a fairly limited audience to seeking broad and public distribution. It should not be allowed to discriminate.

How do you make these distinctions in a practical way on a broad set of issues? I'm not even certain your distinctions for BYU, KSL and BYUtv make sense to me. That seems like a nasty mess to parse things that way.

[UTEopia]

How do you make these distinctions in a practical way on a broad set of issues? I'm not even certain your distinctions for BYU, KSL and BYUtv make sense to me. That seems like a nasty mess to parse things that way.

These are difficult issues. But they need to be addressed. We cannot simply ignore the issues because they are a nasty mess. Religious groups are asking for balance. What is that balance? It is always vaguely stated, and for me, unclear exactly what they want to be able to do. That is my real question? What do they want to do and how is the "Equality Act" infringing on their ability to do what they want? If they want the right to not serve or employ someone who is LGBQT based on some religious belief, just come out and say so. There are some places where they maybe should be allowed to do that? Churches should not be forced to accept anyone and everyone as members. Churches are involved in certain activities where it is important that they be able to consider church membership, etc in making employment decisions. Churches are also involved in activities where I don't believe they should be able to do discriminate. So, it is unacceptable to me to allow churches to discriminate and to allow members of their religion to discriminate when they are engaged in activities in the public marketplace. I believe that is what the religious majority did when it was a majority and they now feel a bit of a pinch when they are not the majority and are required to justify some of their actions. Many times they are simply unable to do so.

For me, the distinction is the marketplace where the activity takes place. BYU is a private, religious institution established to provide both religious and secular education to almost exclusively members of the LDS Church. It makes sense to me that requiring employees to be members and/or willing to abide by certain rules, is okay. (I always found it interesting while attending law school at BYU that most were willing to turn a blind eye to the private habits of non-LDS professors who enjoyed an adult beverage or coffee. Yet, at the same time had no problem turning in students who did the same thing.)
KSL, on the other hand, broadcasts all types of programming. I see no logical reason why it should be exempt from complying with discrimination laws. Further, I don't think it is.
BYUtv is a hybrid. I don't know if it requires employees to sign the equivalent of an honor code. I know that it employs non-Mormons and people who do not conform their personal activities to the teachings of the LDS Church. is it important to the mission that film camera people not be LGTBG? How about on-air talent? I remember a case from many years ago when the LDS Church argued that individuals employed by Beehive Clothing, a company that made garments and Temple clothing, were required to be practicing Mormons. The Church put up a defense that such a practice was needed, but it really was pretty weak. In the end, the evidence was clear that garments and Temple clothing are handled by many who are not members of the LDS Church and there was no religious reason why those making it should be required to be members in good standing.
An even more difficult case can be made for private businesses, such as off-campus, BYU approved housing. I disagree with but understand why BYU would want the restrictions it places on such accommodations in place? I mean, I can see where sharing common walls with members of the opposite sex causes sin. But, should those private businesses be allowed to discriminate? They do not limit their residents to students attending BYU. They allow college-age people to live there so long as they sign some sort of honor code, like document.

I would like someone to articulate what religious freedoms are being taken and what the balance is.

[sancho]

I would like someone to articulate what religious freedoms are being taken

I'm not sure anything is being taken, but it's not hard to imagine a future where religious freedoms are restricted. I think this is preemptive in that sense. The nondiscrimination part of the bill is similar. There is no widespread discrimination now; the bill just makes that official. I think religions would like the same kind of guarantee. They look around and see people who would love to harm religious institutions in any way possible.

In general, I like compromise. Why not let there be some language of compromise in whatever this bill is?

[UTEopia]

I'm not sure anything is being taken, but it's not hard to imagine a future where religious freedoms are restricted. I think this is preemptive in that sense. The nondiscrimination part of the bill is similar. There is no widespread discrimination now; the bill just makes that official. I think religions would like the same kind of guarantee. They look around and see people who would love to harm religious institutions in any way possible.

In general, I like compromise. Why not let there be some language of compromise in whatever this bill is?

The last time i checked, religion was protected from discrimination in employment, housing, receiving services the same way, as race, national origin and gender. A person's sexual orientation was not protected and this law is an effort to extend those same protections provided to groups of people based on race, national origin and gender to sexual orientation. A cursory reading of the Equality Act appears to me to be an attempt to do that. For example, if a baker could not refuse to bake a cake based on someone's race, national origin or gender. An evangelical baker could not refuse to bake a cake for non-christians, including Mormons, based on his belief that Mormons are not Christian. This law would make it unlawful to engage in such discrimination on the basis of a persons sexual orientation.

[sancho]

The last time i checked, religion was protected from discrimination in employment, housing, receiving services the same way, as race, national origin and gender. A person's sexual orientation was not protected and this law is an effort to extend those same protections provided to groups of people based on race, national origin and gender to sexual orientation. A cursory reading of the Equality Act appears to me to be an attempt to do that. For example, if a baker could not refuse to bake a cake based on someone's race, national origin or gender. An evangelical baker could not refuse to bake a cake for non-christians, including Mormons, based on his belief that Mormons are not Christian. This law would make it unlawful to engage in such discrimination on the basis of a persons sexual orientation.

I probably should have looked at the bill before trying to comment on it. You clearly know more than I do about this. I wonder if the LDS Church is worried about being forced to perform gay weddings based on the bill.

[Applejack]

I probably should have looked at the bill before trying to comment on it. You clearly know more than I do about this. I wonder if the LDS Church is worried about being forced to perform gay weddings based on the bill.

If they are, they need better attorneys advising them on potential consequences.

[sancho]

If they are, they need better attorneys advising them on potential consequences.

What do you mean?

[Applejack]

What do you mean?

This bill won't force a church to perform gay marriages. And I say that having not read the bill! But I have read the Constitution (at least the interesting parts).

[sancho]

But I have read the Constitution (at least the interesting parts).

You're one up on me, then!

Thanks

[mpfunk]

Agree or disagree, the Colorado wedding cake case looms large here.

That case has nothing to do with religious freedom. He is 100% free to practice his religion. No one has or will restrict his freedom of religion. He may not be able to use his religion as an excuse to discriminate if he decides to own a business.

The claims of eroding of religious freedom are absolute bullshit and have about as much validity as the claims of flat earthers.

Oh and the LDS church proves once again there is zero place in the religion for LGBTQ people. The LDS church's "fairness for all" = laws vigorously protecting freedom of religion and "basic human rights" for the gays.

[LA Ute]

The claims of eroding of religious freedom are absolute bullshit and have about as much validity as the claims of flat earthers.

Methinks thou dost hyperbolize too much.


Oh and the LDS church proves once again there is zero place in the religion for LGBTQ people.

I don't think that's fair: https://mormonandgay.lds.org/

[mpfunk]

Methinks thou dost hyperbolize too much.



I don't think that's fair: https://mormonandgay.lds.org/

Tell me a real world example where religious freedom is being infringed on?

I think it is very fair to say there is no place in the LDS church for LGBTQ people when you look at the treatment of them by the LDS church, not some PR website.

[Rocker Ute]

He may not be able to use his religion as an excuse to discriminate if he decides to own a business.


Didn't the Supreme Court rule in favor of the baker 7-2? Did they also not rule in favor of Hobby Lobby?

When it comes the this bill, I think the compromise the Church is seeking has already been modeled in SLC, which has law for equal rights for LGBTQ people. On the other hand, have those protections of religious freedoms expressed in the law locally actually eroded the rights of LGBTQ in any way?

And yes I think the reason the Church is being preemptive in this is because of weddings and perhaps other religious ceremonies. The ruling in the Supreme Court in favor of same-sex marriage affirmed it was a human right. It wouldn't seem to be too much of a leap for someone to challenge the church that if they are going to perform weddings for some, they need to perform weddings for all. (A side note on this, but I also think the recent policy change regarding civil marriages is to counteract this possibility - that if they do ultimately lose that battle they'll get out of the wedding business altogether and just perform sealings).

[LA Ute]

(A side note on this, but I also think the recent policy change regarding civil marriages is to counteract this possibility - that if they do ultimately lose that battle they'll get out of the wedding business altogether and just perform sealings).

I agree.

[UTEopia]

Didn't the Supreme Court rule in favor of the baker 7-2? Did they also not rule in favor of Hobby Lobby?

When it comes the this bill, I think the compromise the Church is seeking has already been modeled in SLC, which has law for equal rights for LGBTQ people. On the other hand, have those protections of religious freedoms expressed in the law locally actually eroded the rights of LGBTQ in any way?

And yes I think the reason the Church is being preemptive in this is because of weddings and perhaps other religious ceremonies. The ruling in the Supreme Court in favor of same-sex marriage affirmed it was a human right. It wouldn't seem to be too much of a leap for someone to challenge the church that if they are going to perform weddings for some, they need to perform weddings for all. (A side note on this, but I also think the recent policy change regarding civil marriages is to counteract this possibility - that if they do ultimately lose that battle they'll get out of the wedding business altogether and just perform sealings).

The Supreme Court ruled on procedural grounds in the baker case that allow Colorado to go through it all again if it chooses.

Here is the language added to the Utah law:

34A-5-111.Application to the freedom of expressive association and the free
688 exercise of religion.
689 This chapter may not be interpreted to infringe upon the freedom of expressive
690 association or the free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment of the United
691 States Constitution and Article I, Sections 1, 4, and 15 of the Utah Constitution.
692 Section 10. Section 34A-5-112 is enacted to read:
693 34A-5-112.Religious liberty protections -- Expressing beliefs and commitments in
694 workplace -- Prohibition on employment actions against certain employee speech.
695 (1) An employee may express the employee's religious or moral beliefs and
696 commitments in the workplace in a reasonable, non-disruptive, and non-harassing way on
697 equal terms with similar types of expression of beliefs or commitments allowed by the
698 employer in the workplace, unless the expression is in direct conflict with the essential
699 business-related interests of the employer.
700 (2) An employer may not discharge, demote, terminate, or refuse to hire any person, or
701 retaliate against, harass, or discriminate in matters of compensation or in terms, privileges, and
702 conditions of employment against any person otherwise qualified, for lawful expression or
703 expressive activity outside of the workplace regarding the person's religious, political, or
704 personal convictions, including convictions about marriage, family, or sexuality, unless the
705 expression or expressive activity is in direct conflict with the essential business-related
706 interests of the employer.


I don't know if there were any problems with this prior to this change in the law. I really don't have any problem with this as long as it applies equally to matters in addition to religion. As a former employment law lawyer, I see this as almost impossible to enforce. Essential business related interests must include image, profit, and workplace harmony. Then again, plaintiff lawyers never lack for creativity.

I think the LDS Church should get out of the wedding business. From a religious standpoint, I believe mixing the wedding stuff with a sacred ordinance many times makes sacred ordinance second to all of the wedding stuff.

[LA Ute]

I think the LDS Church should get out of the wedding business. From a religious standpoint, I believe mixing the wedding stuff with a sacred ordinance many times makes sacred ordinance second to all of the wedding stuff.

I think we are headed in this direction.

[UtahsMrSports]

Define "getting out of the marriage business"....

No marriages in lds chapels?

[concerned]

Q: what happens if you get married in a civil ceremony and have a sealing later that day? Can you make the traditional dash to the hotel after the wedding breakfast, or do you have to wait until after the sealing?

[Applejack]

I think we are headed in this direction.

Why? There really is nothing to be afraid of re:gay marriage and the temple. And I don't think the mormon church wants to "get out" of the marriage business. I mean, they might stop marrying couples, but why do this? For legal liability reasons? For pragmatic reasons? I'm truly interested to hear your thoughts on this.

[LA Ute]

Why? There really is nothing to be afraid of re:gay marriage and the temple. And I don't think the mormon church wants to "get out" of the marriage business. I mean, they might stop marrying couples, but why do this? For legal liability reasons? For pragmatic reasons? I'm truly interested to hear your thoughts on this.


Define "getting out of the marriage business"....

No marriages in lds chapels?

I haven't thought about this for some time. I've heard the idea floated that maybe the temple sealing (or the Catholic/Episcopalian/Adventist/Presbyterian ceremonies) should be sort of a church blessing on the civil ceremony, which would be done outside of a church. In many countries only the state has authority to perform marriages, and the couples involved later go to church to "solemnize" the union. The new policy actually allows that, so it is effectively, if not intentionally, a step in that direction.

I don't know about weddings in chapels. I suppose that if a gay couple wanted to be married in a chapel and were refused, it's not outlandish to imagine a legal challenge based on state law. If a chapel is open to the public and state law requires equal access, there might be a case, and the church might just say, "No more weddings in our chapels." But I'm speculating off the top of my head. I really hope it never comes to that.


Q: what happens if you get married in a civil ceremony and have a sealing later that day? Can you make the traditional dash to the hotel after the wedding breakfast, or do you have to wait until after the sealing?

I have no idea. I doubt the church would get into that level of detail, which would only cause more problems, IMO. Enforcement would become kind of ridiculous.

[sancho]

Q: what happens if you get married in a civil ceremony and have a sealing later that day? Can you make the traditional dash to the hotel after the wedding breakfast,

Yes, you can, but I imagine few couples will do this. I bet there will also be some sealings that wait until after the honeymoon for logistic reasons.

[sancho]

Why? There really is nothing to be afraid of re:gay marriage and the temple.

I think you are more trusting in the reasonableness of people and in the logic of law than I am. More trusting in the constitution. The constitutions seems rather flexible to this outsider.

I'm not saying I think anything crazy is imminent; I can just imagine crazy things happening in the future.

[Applejack]

I think you are more trusting in the reasonableness of people and in the logic of law than I am. More trusting in the constitution. The constitutions seems rather flexible to this outsider.

I'm not saying I think anything crazy is imminent; I can just imagine crazy things happening in the future.

It's true that I am more patriotic than you. Thanks for the aknowledgement.

The Constitution is pretty vague about a lot of things and completely silent about a whole host of things. But on freedom of religion it is pretty clear. The government is not going to be able to dictate who religions choose to marry.

[sancho]

It's true that I am more patriotic than you. Thanks for the aknowledgement.


You are in capital city - of course you are more patriotic than me. But I'm the one here campaigning for "This Land Is Your Land" in the LDS hymnbook, so I'm no slouch.

[Rocker Ute]

Q: what happens if you get married in a civil ceremony and have a sealing later that day? Can you make the traditional dash to the hotel after the wedding breakfast, or do you have to wait until after the sealing?

Short answer is the dash would certainly be allowed. The law of chastity as stated by the church is that you have no sexual relations except with the person you are "legally and lawfully" married. If you are married civilly you aren't breaking the law of chastity. Pre-reception disappointment is still on the table.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UTEopia]

Define "getting out of the marriage business"....

No marriages in lds chapels?

I’ve seen receptions but never a marriage ceremony in a chapel. Is that a thing?

[LA Ute]

I’ve seen receptions but never a marriage ceremony in a chapel. Is that a thing?

No weddings in LDS chapels. They have to be in another room. It's a long-standing policy. That's all I know about it. [EDIT: I mean the chapel portion of the building. Relief Society room, cultural hall, etc., are all ok for weddings.]

[Sullyute]

Pre-reception disappointment is still on the table.

Lol, at least for one of them.

[Ma'ake]

This news isn't religious, and it's not unique, but that it's in Utah and being reported - at least in the Trib, perhaps not/never in the D-News - is a data point in my thesis:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/06/09/lovingly-utah-family/

Prebirth, the doctors said it was a girl, so the parents gave the name "Victoria". Later in the term, they switched and said it was a boy, so the name became "Victor". After birth, it became apparent the child has two X chromosomes and one Y chromosome, so it's an intersex baby. Unlike previous practice, where parents tried to swerve the baby in one direction or another with surgery and hormones, these parents are letting this play out until "Victory" is old enough to decide which way to go... or not to choose.

Before the Information Age, these kinds of cases were rare enough that the genie could be kept in the bottle, ideology/theology could be kept tidy.

This is a small dot, but it may become a significant one, if young people start asking questions.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

I haven’t read all of this yet, so I’m mostly just putting it somewhere that I can come back to later.

https://www.outsports.com/2019/6/11/18659052/emma-gee-byu-track-cross-country-bi-coming-out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

Minor milestone in my thesis: Ed Smart

His coming out would have peeled paint off walls closer to when Elizabeth was kidnapped in 2002, but it's mostly a non-event now, which is both a good thing, and is another small brick in the wall, helps set up a "why did we exclude them in the past?" question somewhere in the future.


Certainly, the way Ed Smart handled the public communications on his situation is a far, far cry from the more provocative, anti-LDS departures, and in itself lays the seeds for some introspective thought.

Certainly doesn't change my opinion that Ed Smart is a good guy, before & after.

[sancho]

but it's mostly a non-event now, which is both a good thing

I agree that it's a good thing. Why does he feel the need to do this publicly? Does he miss the spotlight?

I think it's possible that this could not have happened back when Elizabeth was kidnapped because he may not have had these feelings back then. At any rate, I don't think what he did is anything to celebrate.

[Ma'ake]

I agree that it's a good thing. Why does he feel the need to do this publicly? Does he miss the spotlight?

I think it's possible that this could not have happened back when Elizabeth was kidnapped because he may not have had these feelings back then. At any rate, I don't think what he did is anything to celebrate.

Supposedly he meant the message to go to family & friends, but he made it public, then it was quickly withdrawn, but with the cat out of the bag, he decided might as well go public. Ed's 64 years old, so that story is certainly plausible.

Lois filed for divorce July 5, so apparently this has had some time in the making. From the generic faithful LDS perspective, he did a lot of damage, it could be seen as a betrayal, I'm sure emotions are raw within the family.

From the perspective of the LDS LGTBQ community, it's a big deal. In the past, there was no such thing as a LDS LGTBQ community, at least publicly, so that's a milestone in itself. I think the default direction is still to bail out and be gone, go the ex-Mormon route.

It's those folks who are openly gay but still faithful in their beliefs that are the pioneers of 2019. That's not an easy row to hoe.

My sense is there will be some unofficial, localized sentiment here & there to keep supporting people like Ed, encourage them to keep coming to church, keep the family together, "it will all be revealed at some later point". There's still a big chasm to jump, but between folks bailing out in general, and the ongoing story of more people coming out, there's a bridge that needs building.

Kind of like "we're still here, we've acknowledged some of the tough issues that people struggle with, but we're still here. Why should we let this issue push us apart?"

The Mormons Building Bridges group and a site called MormonAndGay have some commonsense ideas: 1- stop assuming gays are pedophiles. 2 - don't isolate us, let us continue serving in callings, etc.

Kendall Wilcox, of the Bridges group, says "listen to us and try to emphasize with us and then let that empathy unsettle their settled assumption about the doctrine". Wilcox doesn't elaborate on that statement, but suffice it to say the specifics of belief (in general, not confined to LDS ideology) change quite a bit, over time.

I see a yearning for more than just another "well, XYZ just came out, so these must be the very last days" kind of reaction.

[Applejack]

Minor milestone in my thesis: Ed Smart

His coming out would have peeled paint off walls closer to when Elizabeth was kidnapped in 2002, but it's mostly a non-event now, which is both a good thing, and is another small brick in the wall, helps set up a "why did we exclude them in the past?" question somewhere in the future.


Certainly, the way Ed Smart handled the public communications on his situation is a far, far cry from the more provocative, anti-LDS departures, and in itself lays the seeds for some introspective thought.

Certainly doesn't change my opinion that Ed Smart is a good guy, before & after.

Disagree that this is a non-event. Front page of can means that this is an event.

[mUUser]

This guy has been through hell and back, and this latest chapter in his life must be emotionally exhausting. I feel nothing but empathy for this family.

[sancho]

Front page of can means that this is an event.

Front page of can?

[sancho]

I see a yearning for more than just another "well, XYZ just came out, so these must be the very last days" kind of reaction.

"Another"? Have I missed a bunch of bizarre reactions?

[Ma'ake]

"Another"? Have I missed a bunch of bizarre reactions?

I'm assuming on that reaction, based on what I heard growing up. We used to hear about the imminence of the 2nd Coming all the time in the 70s, but then I think that died down as we got closer to Y2K.

In terms of "another", I would have to put Sterling Van Waggoner in the category of high-profile crashes, though what he did was infinitely worse than Ed Smart impacting his family.

[Rocker Ute]

Regardless of Ed Smart's sexual orientation I know of a few people familiar with with him who agree he is not a good guy and that has character flaws have been well known long before this latest announcement.

And no this isn't based in Elizabeth Smart conspiracy theories either.

I only say that if there is LDS LGBTQ basing some hope on him that he will be a foundation for a path for them it will likely be a very sandy foundation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

Regardless of Ed Smart's sexual orientation I know of a few people familiar with with him who agree he is not a good guy and that has character flaws have been well known long before this latest announcement.

And no this isn't based in Elizabeth Smart conspiracy theories either.

I only say that if there is LDS LGBTQ basing some hope on him that he will be a foundation for a path for them it will likely be a very sandy foundation.


Well, I've been on the outside looking in for 35 years, so I have no idea what constitutes a character flaw within the flock these days, other than noting one of the locally celebrated "good guys" just published a book on how high end investors can make big returns by investing in MLMs. (He was the CFO at a major MLM, which kind of shocked me, as he really is an affable, decent dude. Does that make MLMs honorable enterprises to get involved in? Or still just a thin veneer way of fleecing the less informed?)

I don't think Ed Smart is *the* path... but maybe just another brick on the road.

(You have to remember from my perspective, BY wasn't a good guy, as the prescription he laid out for somebody like me was unambiguous, "death on the spot". I'm not a scholar on the topic, but Young's role in at least setting the stage for MMM was not good, and the Priesthood ban appears to have come from him, since it was only policy. Somebody like David O. McKay, who struggled with it after signing a 1st Prez document asserting it was a direct commandment, laying the foundation for SLK to lead the change... he seems like a pretty good guy.)

[sancho]

Regardless of Ed Smart's sexual orientation I know of a few people familiar with with him who agree he is not a good guy and that has character flaws have been well known long before this latest announcement.


I mean, we all have character flaws, and as mUU pointed out, this guy has been through a lot. I just think this decision doesn't need to be celebrated. It is immensely hurtful to someone who he committed to, someone who gave him everything.

[sancho]

I have no idea what constitutes a character flaw within the flock these days

It's pretty much the same things that are considered character flaws outside of the flock.

[LA Ute]

I've known Ed and his wife Lois since college. They're solid people -- especially Lois -- who've both been through a horrifying ordeal from which most of us pray fervently to be spared and that none of us would wish on anyone. I am not sure I agree with lots of Ed's decisions during and after Elizabeth's kidnapping, including the way he handled this one, but I cut all the Smarts an awful lot of slack. I wish them well.

[Rocker Ute]

I mean, we all have character flaws, and as mUU pointed out, this guy has been through a lot. I just think this decision doesn't need to be celebrated. It is immensely hurtful to someone who he committed to, someone who gave him everything.

I used the term 'character flaw' but Ed Smart's issues go far beyond character flaws, I was trying, poorly, to be a bit polite. Not my business to publish them here for obvious reasons and I only know a small portion of it - I'll just say that when people who deal with the scum of the earth have to excuse themselves from a church meeting he is attending it is worth noting. There is nothing noble or courageous about Ed Smart, regardless of his recent announcement. So my heart goes out to his ex-wife and his children in all of this and beyond. My ultimate point is if there is hope of hanging a hat on him as a 'good guy' it would be sorely mistaken.

[UTEopia]

I used the term 'character flaw' but Ed Smart's issues go far beyond character flaws, I was trying, poorly, to be a bit polite. Not my business to publish them here for obvious reasons and I only know a small portion of it - I'll just say that when people who deal with the scum of the earth have to excuse themselves from a church meeting he is attending it is worth noting. There is nothing noble or courageous about Ed Smart, regardless of his recent announcement. So my heart goes out to his ex-wife and his children in all of this and beyond. My ultimate point is if there is hope of hanging a hat on him as a 'good guy' it would be sorely mistaken.

I'm not sure I would characterize Smart as noble or courageous, but I'm not sure his conduct eliminates him from being a "good guy" whatever that is. If we are all judged by our worst conduct, none of us can probably be characterized as good guys. I know I cannot.

[Ma'ake]

I'm not sure I would characterize Smart as noble or courageous, but I'm not sure his conduct eliminates him from being a "good guy" whatever that is. If we are all judged by our worst conduct, none of us can probably be characterized as good guys. I know I cannot.

Great point. At different times, we all have devils and angels within us. We strive to let the angels predominate, and minimize or eliminate our less appealing thoughts & behaviors.

This is all done within a social context, where we take (and give) ques on what is good, what constitutes admirable - or at least earnestly benign - behavior.

I value and accept both Rocker's and LA's observations, knowing they're a bigger part of that mosaic than I know, certainly.

Did Smart befriend and try to help the homeless Mitchell, knowing his own demons put him closer to that sphere of "unrighteousness" than he'd want known? Was he trying to outrun his own demons?

Life is complicated.

[Diehard Ute]

Great point. At different times, we all have devils and angels within us. We strive to let the angels predominate, and minimize or eliminate our less appealing thoughts & behaviors.

This is all done within a social context, where we take (and give) ques on what is good, what constitutes admirable - or at least earnestly benign - behavior.

I value and accept both Rocker's and LA's observations, knowing they're a bigger part of that mosaic than I know, certainly.

Did Smart befriend and try to help the homeless Mitchell, knowing his own demons put him closer to that sphere of "unrighteousness" than he'd want known? Was he trying to outrun his own demons?

Life is complicated.

No one befriended Mitchell. Lois and the kids saw him asking for work outside crossroads mall. She gave him Ed’s number and Mitchell worked on the house once, then never showed up again except to get his money for the one day of work.

(I was at a closed training, all vetted people, where Elizabeth spoke and took questions for an hour, it’s was interesting to get a very candid look at what she experienced and her take on many things)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro