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

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Somehow I think part of having a testimony of the work is learning to deal with the foibles of the organization. Personally, I'm glad there are controls in place to prevent abuses of the system.

Sadly, if the story is how it is being relayed in the news, the abuse of the system was the punishment of the Danzigs and the controls in place did nothing to stop it.

[splitbamboo]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If that is the case, what is my LDS representative supposed to do? Can he not say anything in opposition to the church's stance?

I think he can. But in Danzig's case he tried to use his link to the Orchestra as a stick. In sense, an abuse of "power."

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Sadly, if the story is how it is being relayed in the news, the abuse of the system was the punishment of the Danzigs and the controls in place did nothing to stop it.

I meant controls to avoid abuse of the ordinances.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So, what is the qualitative difference between writing a legislator, urging them to take a position AGAINST the church's position versus attempting to gain political support from others who live in your congressional district to uphold YOUR position by publishing an article in a newspaper?

You are posing a false dichtomy. As the release clearly lays out, the problem for Danzig was not his adovocacy against the amendment. Instead it was this phrase (among others, perhaps): "[I ] was troubled that my church requested I violate my own conscience to write in support of an amendment I feel is contrary to the constitution and to the gospel of Christ."

If he would've left that out, if he would've said, "In my opinion, this amendment violates my conscience and is contrary to the constitution and to the gospel of Christ," he likely would've been just fine.

You are falsely framing the issue. This is not about the right to publicly disagree with the church on political matters. It's about the right to attack the church publicly and remain a member in good standing.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Tex

I meant controls to avoid abuse of the ordinances.



You are posing a false dichtomy. As the release clearly lays out, the problem for Danzig was not his adovocacy against the amendment. Instead it was this phrase (among others, perhaps): "[I ] was troubled that my church requested I violate my own conscience to write in support of an amendment I feel is contrary to the constitution and to the gospel of Christ."

If he would've left that out, if he would've said, "In my opinion, this amendment violates my conscience and is contrary to the constitution and to the gospel of Christ," he likely would've been just fine.

You are falsely framing the issue. This is not about the right to publicly disagree with the church on political matters. It's about the right to attack the church publicly and remain a member in good standing.

ask him to leave. but it was the Church's fault?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Note the following statements from the press release:

"However, it is not acceptable when their digging and questioning leads to public opposition against doctrine Church leaders are obliged to uphold."

"Honest disagreements are not the same as public advocacy of positions contrary to those of the Church."

"Unfortunately he was not able to reconcile his personal beliefs with the doctrine Church leaders are charged to maintain by divine mandate."

This wasn't an issue of Danzig saying "the church wants me to say something I didn't want to say!" It was quite clearly an issue of him saying something in public in opposition to the church's teaching on a particular topic. Your speculation that he would have been fine to say "In my opinion, this amendment violates my conscience and is contrary to the constitution and to the gospel of Christ," he likely would've been just fine" is totally baseless and is contradicted by everything noted in that press release.

The problem here appears to be that publicly disagreeing with the church on political matters was deemed to be an attack on the church.

No, no, this is exactly wrong.

The press release makes clear that it was NOT about his disagreement on the political matter.

Have you read his letters? They are on his website. His first letter advocates against the amendment, and leaves the church out of it:

Congress is debating the federal marriage amendment.

If this amendment were passed it would restrict the right of a minority to set up a legally defined family with those they love.

From its conception our nation was founded on the idea that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

These rights were held in the first foundation document of our fledgling nation to be "self-evident." Sadly, however, "we the people" have too often trampled on this fundamental principle.

Initially only white men were found to be created equal. It took courage and dedication to win those same rights, first for men of other races, and later for women. Indeed, the struggle to ensure that those rights are protected from infringement is ongoing.

How can we uphold that singular and profound purpose when we begin to restrict the rights of a minority out of fear or religious conviction that they do not share?

Support the principles that have guided our nation since its inception by opposing the amendment on marriage.

Notice the press release doesn't mention a problem with that first letter. It's not until his second letter, where he wages an attack on the church, that a problem arises. He also specifically cites his membership in the church and the Orchestra, as a means of validating his criticism--an escalation, if you will.

As a member of the LDS church, returned missionary, and member of the Orchestra at Temple Square I am appalled at the intellectual tyranny that our leadership has exercised through the summary dismissal of Jeffery Nielson from his teaching position at BYU for speaking his mind in an op-ed published June 4 in the Tribune.

I was troubled that my church requested I violate my own conscience to write in support of an amendment I feel is contrary to the constitution and to the Gospel of Christ. I am even more discouraged to see how they deal with an honest difference of opinion.

I wish to express to Jeffery Nielson that I admire his courage and that I stand with him. I hope that rank and file members of the church as well as members of the lay clergy who also find this troubling will have the courage to step forward and let themselves be known. To do anything else would be to hide in the shadow of an injustice.

The church was not upset with advocacy against the amendment, as the quotes YOU posted show. It had a problem with his advocacy against the doctrine and the institution.

http://equalitysblog.typepad.com/equ...e-more-on.html

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You hit on the point that bothers me the most.

The church in that statement is taking the position that members were encouraged to write their senators and representatives to urge them to take a position on the marriage amendment, but that the position taken was not dictated by the church.

Clearly, the church, if their statement is true, was interested in seeing more political involvement by the members on the issue, REGARDLESS OF THE POSITION THEY TOOK ON THE ISSUE.

So, what is the qualitative difference between writing a legislator, urging them to take a position AGAINST the church's position versus attempting to gain political support from others who live in your congressional district to uphold YOUR position by publishing an article in a newspaper?

Am I to accept that I can ask a public figure to take public action (legislation) on a position in opposition to the church's stance but I can't ask anyone else to agree with me in public?

If that is the case, what is my LDS representative supposed to do? Can he not say anything in opposition to the church's stance? If he can't, why am I being asked to write to him to urge him to do something the church will prohibit him from doing? And if the legislator CAN take a position publicly in opposition to the church's stance, why can't the Danzigs?

It is very disingenuous of the church to make the argument they are making in that press release.

Good post.

[woot]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I didn't like that part either. Seemed pretty dishonest. Actually seemed pretty Tex-like, which scares me.

church member: "I can't do what the church wants me to do and support the marriage ammendment."

church/Tex: "Actually we didn't tell you to support the marriage ammendment. We just told you to be politically active about it."

church member: ?? scratches his head, "I could have sworn the church said to support marriage ammendment" goes back to search the archives and finds though the tone is obvious, it was technically never written that way...

So is it safe to say they handled it this way in order to retain tax-exempt status, or is this all the enthusiasm they can muster for that old "agency" thing?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

No, no, this is exactly wrong.

The press release makes clear that it was NOT about his disagreement on the political matter.

Have you read his letters? They are on his website. His first letter advocates against the amendment, and leaves the church out of it:



Notice the press release doesn't mention a problem with that first letter. It's not until his second letter, where he wages an attack on the church, that a problem arises. He also specifically cites his membership in the church and the Orchestra, as a means of validating his criticism--an escalation, if you will.



The church was not upset with advocacy against the amendment, as the quotes YOU posted show. It had a problem with his advocacy against the doctrine and the institution.

http://equalitysblog.typepad.com/equ...e-more-on.html

Tex- you are trying to bring in information the church didn't discuss in its press release, so I don't know how helpful that information is in deciphering what the church thought on the matter. All we know about what they thought is what they set forth in their press release. You are trying to reshape their press release to fit your paradigm, and it isn't working.

The church may have thought and felt exactly what you say. It is entirely possible. But that just isn't what they articulated. The trouble with their press release (among others) is that it quite clearly blurs the line between support/opposition to the amendment and support/opposition to church doctrine. The church notes that his belief on gay marriage wasn't possible to reconcile with church doctrine. That indicates that the church has doctrine on gay marriage (which you can also get from the Proclamation) and that speaking in opposition to that doctrine publicly can get you kicked out. So what if I argue that homosexuals SHOULD be allowed to marry? Is that a fight with the doctrine (that they shouldn't get married) or with policy (that they shouldn't be allowed to get married)? This press release makes it sound like the church decided that opposition to the policy was tantamount to opposition to the doctrine, and that isn't helpful to their cause.

The press release did the church no favors.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The church may have thought and felt exactly what you say. It is entirely possible. But that just isn't what they articulated. The trouble with their press release (among others) is that it quite clearly blurs the line between support/opposition to the amendment and support/opposition to church doctrine. The church notes that his belief on gay marriage wasn't possible to reconcile with church doctrine. That indicates that the church has doctrine on gay marriage (which you can also get from the Proclamation) and that speaking in opposition to that doctrine publicly can get you kicked out. So what if I argue that homosexuals SHOULD be allowed to marry? Is that a fight with the doctrine (that they shouldn't get married) or with policy (that they shouldn't be allowed to get married)? This press release makes it sound like the church decided that opposition to the policy was tantamount to opposition to the doctrine, and that isn't helpful to their cause.

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.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The press release did the church no favors.

For people like you.

[MikeWaters]

tex, how about

"disappointed with the shifting story about why gays exist that implies once again a lesser light in this area by General Authorities in the past"

Is that a problem?