What I didn't like about the Church's newsroom release

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

It is exactly what they articulated. They say it, plain as day. I can't speak for the church, but here's my guess based on this press release how they would respond to you, if you wrote a letter saying:

"Gays should be allowed to marry." No action taken.
"The constitution protects the right of gays to marry." No action taken.
"No amendment should prevent gays to marry." No action taken.
"Encourage your Congressmen to vote against the amendment preventing gays from marrying." No action taken.

"The Church doctrine on gay marriage is wrong." Problem.
"The Church's doctrine on gay marriage violates my conscience." Problem.
"The political actions the Church has taken to prevent gay marriage are wrong." Problem.
"The political positions the Church has taken taken to prevent gay marriage are wrong." Problem.
"Oppose the Church's policies on gay marriage." Problem.

This is not rocket science. It's very easy to see the difference, both in those statements and in Danzig's letters (to say nothing of what he wrote/said LATER). And this is easy to see in the press release as well.

You're trying to blur the lines because you'd LIKE to make this a "the church is oppressing my political views" issue, when it isn't.



For people like you.

All you are doing is obscuring the issue, which isn't helpful.

You say this is a problem statement.

"The Church doctrine on gay marriage is wrong." Problem.

But this is ok.

"Gays should be allowed to marry."

What is the church's doctrine on gay marriage? That they shouldn't be married, right?

As a result, it becomes challenging to see much of a difference between the two statements, and church enforcement of a prohibition on speaking out begins to appear quite arbitrary.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

All you are doing is obscuring the issue, which isn't helpful.

You say this is a problem statement.

"The Church doctrine on gay marriage is wrong." Problem.

But this is ok.

"Gays should be allowed to marry."

What is the church's doctrine on gay marriage? That they shouldn't be married, right?

As a result, it becomes challenging to see much of a difference between the two statements, and church enforcement of a prohibition on speaking out begins to appear quite arbitrary.

I should reiterate the caveat that I don't speak for the church, and these are arbitrary statements. But if I were a bishop (which I'm not), to me there is a big difference between those two statements, yes. As one of the nit-pickiest word-game-playing lawyers on this board, I'm shocked (SHOCKED) you can't see it.

I think the problem is including the church in your criticism. I think that was the problem all along for Mr. Danzig. And it's clear from his lengthly blog post that was ultimately his beef: the marraige amendment fiasco was just a vehicle to that end.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I should reiterate the caveat that I don't speak for the church. But if I were a bishop (which I'm not), to me there is a big difference between those two statements, yes. As one of the nit-pickiest word-game-playing lawyers on this board, I'm shocked (SHOCKED) you can't see it.

I think the problem is including the church in your criticism. I think that was the problem all along for Mr. Danzig. And it's clear from his lengthly blog post that was ultimately his beef: the marraige amendment fiasco was just a vehicle to that end.

I get it. It's the same thought process that allows you to separate "Call your legislature with your position on the federal anti-gay marriage amendment" from "Don't contradict the church's doctrine opposing gay marriage."

Or that allows you to see a significant difference between "We support marriage only between a man and a woman" from "We are anti-gay marriage."

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I should reiterate the caveat that I don't speak for the church, and these are arbitrary statements. But if I were a bishop (which I'm not), to me there is a big difference between those two statements, yes. As one of the nit-pickiest word-game-playing lawyers on this board, I'm shocked (SHOCKED) you can't see it.

I think the problem is including the church in your criticism. I think that was the problem all along for Mr. Danzig. And it's clear from his lengthly blog post that was ultimately his beef: the marraige amendment fiasco was just a vehicle to that end.

You are just getting very arbitrary in how you apply rules, if that is your position.

You appear to be saying that the difference between the statements is that in one, you mention the church but not in the other. What if I say that "As an LDS member, I do not support the gay marriage amendment? Is that too far because I say I am LDS?

What if it is generally known that I am LDS? Is that too far? If you are employed at BYU, the church clearly deems it to be going too far. So what if you aren't employed at BYU, but you are a well-known bishop/stake president who writes the paper? What if you are Orrin Hatch or Jim Matheson? How can Matheson vote against the marriage amendment (which is as public of a proclamation as any) and not be in trouble?

At the end of the day, this is an extraordinarily tricky issue, and the church has walked right into the thick of it with its press release.

Your consistent opinion is that whatever the church does, it is right and always easy to figure out. Do you really believe that or are you just trying to play the role of good member?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You are just getting very arbitrary in how you apply rules, if that is your position.

You appear to be saying that the difference between the statements is that in one, you mention the church but not in the other. What if I say that "As an LDS member, I do not support the gay marriage amendment? Is that too far because I say I am LDS?

What if it is generally known that I am LDS? Is that too far? If you are employed at BYU, the church clearly deems it to be going too far. So what if you aren't employed at BYU, but you are a well-known bishop/stake president who writes the paper? What if you are Orrin Hatch or Jim Matheson? How can Matheson vote against the marriage amendment (which is as public of a proclamation as any) and not be in trouble?

At the end of the day, this is an extraordinarily tricky issue, and the church has walked right into the thick of it with its press release.

Your consistent opinion is that whatever the church does, it is right and always easy to figure out. Do you really believe that or are you just trying to play the role of good member?

This disagreement is about the press release, lest we lose focus.

What I have tried to illustrate is the general rule that I read from the press release. You have said that rule is unclear, and I've said it isn't, and I think I've demonstrated pretty well why. The rule is, "don't attack the church."

Your beef has now changed to its application: "where do I know where the line is?" Obviously that's dicey and somewhat subjective, which is why I put my caveat in from the start. Intent, tone, position of the person, and the vehicle of publicization all play a factor, and imperfect men have to make a judgment call as best they can.

As it concerns Danzig, there is no such ambiguity. It was clear in his 2nd letter (in sharp contrast to his 1st) that he was attacking the church and its leaders, and not JUST the political issue of the marriage amendment. That point is reiterated clearly in the press release.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

This disagreement is about the press release, lest we lose focus.

What I have tried to illustrate is the general rule that I read from the press release. You have said that rule is unclear, and I've said it isn't, and I think I've demonstrated pretty well why. The rule is, "don't attack the church."

Your beef has now changed to its application: "where do I know where the line is?" Obviously that's dicey and somewhat subjective, which is why I put my caveat in from the start. Intent, tone, position of the person, and the vehicle of publicization all play a factor, and imperfect men have to make a judgment call as best they can.

As it concerns Danzig, there is no such ambiguity. It was clear in his 2nd letter (in sharp contrast to his 1st) that he was attacking the church and its leaders, and not JUST the political issue of the marriage amendment. That point is reiterated clearly in the press release.

What you seem incapable of understanding, or what you refuse to acknowledge, is that the press release raises each of the issues I described in my post and makes the church appear arbitrary and capricious. You are right to want to keep this to the press release, so there is no point looking at the first and second letters. Let's just look at what the church cited as the reasoning. Stick to that and maybe you will understand the problem. The church quite clearly blurs the line of the political issue of the marriage amendment and criticism of the church.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What you seem incapable of understanding, or what you refuse to acknowledge, is that the press release raises each of the issues I described in my post and makes the church appear arbitrary and capricious. You are right to want to keep this to the press release, so there is no point looking at the first and second letters. Let's just look at what the church cited as the reasoning. Stick to that and maybe you will understand the problem. The church quite clearly blurs the line of the political issue of the marriage amendment and criticism of the church.

You're right, I am incapable of understanding this irrational position. I don't know anywhere in church history where the leadership has been okay with members openly criticizing the church, its doctrines, and its leadership. Danzig crossed that line, which was blurry neither then nor now.

In that sense, this press release really IS nothing new.

Again, you want to claim this release opens a new era of intolerance against members with political views different from the church's. It is clearly not that, and it is clearly not the reason Danzig had problems.

Were you right and I wrong, the entire episode would've arisen over his 1st email, before he ever got around to writing a 2nd.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Tex

You're right, I am incapable of understanding this irrational position. I don't know anywhere in church history where the leadership has been okay with members openly criticizing the church, its doctrines, and its leadership. Danzig crossed that line, which was blurry neither then nor now.

In that sense, this press release really IS nothing new.

Again, you want to claim this release opens a new era of intolerance against members with political views different from the church's. It is clearly not that, and it is clearly not the reason Danzig had problems.

Were you right and I wrong, the entire episode would've arisen over his 1st email, before he ever got around to writing a 2nd.

Danzig took himself out of the church! sounds like some left over feelings about his father........which I'm sure his father told him to make himself feel better about losing his job at the vaults.