Isn’t this what we have been fighting for???


Fether
 Share

Recommended Posts

On ‎6‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 9:32 AM, estradling75 said:

Honestly I have no problem with a business or agency choosing to withhold services for whatever reasons.  Which means I have no problem with an adoption agency that refuses service to Mormons and I have no problem with a Baker or Florist that refuses to do a gay wedding.

What I have a problem with is the hypocrisy (on either side).  Religion is a protected class just like Sexual orientation.  So those that are outraged by this but not by the baker or florist  Shame on you, Hypocrite.  For those that who are not outraged by this but where by the bakers and florist again shame on you, Hypocrite.

Of course I don't think this will be more then a blip on the news cycle and I doubt any lawsuits will happen... so Shame on those hypocritical groups too

 

I almost agree with what you are saying.  However, I think that most problems in society come from miscommunication and ignorance.  May I make an attempt to express what I am thinking.  Let’s deal first with weather or not Mormons fit the mold of being called or referenced as traditional Christian.  Okay, I admit I pulled a bit of a propaganda trick when I added the adverb “traditional” to our discussion of Christianity.   But it is exactly what I believe to be the problem.  Most individuals in the Christian community do not see any difference or distinction in understanding “traditional Christianity” as opposed to “Christianity”.   Mormons see things very differently in believing in a great Apostasy in traditional Christianity and it institutions - and a “Restoration” of truth preparing for the Last-days and divine investiture in Mormonism.

Most “Christians” are as offended by our belief in a Great Apostasy as we are in being called “not Christian”.  Both are seen or interpreted by the other as accusations of not really believing in Christ and his teachings.

There is a similar problem with nuances in the definition of gender and sexual behavior preferences and choices.  For example – because of my scientific background – I believe that an intelligent species is capable of making behavioral choices and preferences.   I am offended when someone implies intelligence in the human species but denies that human behavior can be and is intelligently managed, controlled or altered. 

I also understand that there is a binary gender, necessary for propagating the human species.   I am also aware that this binary gender can and will experience genetic variations where a particular gender is not fully genetically formed or when both genders are genetically present in a single individual.  But I am offended when someone confuses genetics (gender) as an excuse for behavior.

Though there are some communication problems similarities with Mormons being rejected by Christians and being straight opposed to gay and other things – there are also very profound differences.  Because of the differences I am somewhat concerned with the thinking of those that insist on considering only the similarities or only differences.

 

Thanks

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 10:37 AM, Sunday21 said:

I hear you! Since becoming Lds, I live in a muddy moral world

Sometimes we try to force our views on others.

Sometimes others force their views on us.

Sigh! I try to be pleasant and hope that my liberal & conservative worlds don’t implode on each other!

 

The only purpose or reason for any society to have or pass any law is in order for one segment of that society to force their morals and ideas on the rest of that society.  If everyone agrees – then there is no law or sense in the law.  The great reason and purpose of government is to define what part or segment of the society has the power to define their morals as law.

 

The Traveler

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

The only purpose or reason for any society to have or pass any law is in order for one segment of that society to force their morals and ideas on the rest of that society.  If everyone agrees – then there is no law or sense in the law.  The great reason and purpose of government is to define what part or segment of the society has the power to define their morals as law.

 

The Traveler

 

That's a muddy way of putting it.  A clearer illustration for the role of government is to govern a society of 7 wolves and 2 sheep as they decide what to have for dinner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎7‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 2:05 PM, anatess2 said:

That's a muddy way of putting it.  A clearer illustration for the role of government is to govern a society of 7 wolves and 2 sheep as they decide what to have for dinner.

 

How is this clearer?  - Sooner or later a wolf will have a sheep for dinner - that is what wolves do - it is their nature and their moral purpose.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

How is this clearer?  - Sooner or later a wolf will have a sheep for dinner - that is what wolves do - it is their nature and their moral purpose.

 

The Traveler

EXACTLY.  That's the purpose of government.  To protect the sheep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

EXACTLY.  That's the purpose of government.  To protect the sheep.

 

And starve wolves to death?  Which would include forcing them to eat grass like sheep.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

And starve wolves to death?  Which would include forcing them to eat grass like sheep.

 

The Traveler

Hah hah.  No.  Wolves can eat other living things who are not part of the governed.  Like the deer or the gazelles or the opposums...  They're not in the society and, therefore, not under protection of government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Hah hah.  No.  Wolves can eat other living things who are not part of the governed.  Like the deer or the gazelles or the opposums...  They're not in the society and, therefore, not under protection of government.

 

Wow this is the harshest view of immigration (non-citizens) I have ever encountered.  :blush:  Actually I believe I understand where you are going - just that I do not understand the view as being different from my initial indication.  Also I want to emphasize the notion that laws are secondary as to the problem of maintaining a just society - it is not about laws - as much as it is about the morality of the people with the power to create and inforce laws.

It is my opinion that a foolish society (like our current one) will trust immoral politicians thinking (or in hope of - like sheep) that they are getting the "safe" laws they want.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Wow this is the harshest view of immigration (non-citizens) I have ever encountered.  :blush:  Actually I believe I understand where you are going - just that I do not understand the view as being different from my initial indication.  Also I want to emphasize the notion that laws are secondary as to the problem of maintaining a just society - it is not about laws - as much as it is about the morality of the people with the power to create and inforce laws.

It is my opinion that a foolish society (like our current one) will trust immoral politicians thinking (or in hope of - like sheep) that they are getting the "safe" laws they want.

 

The Traveler

So, you'd rather the wolves eat citizens  ;) .  A foolish society elects foolish representatives to govern or influence them.  Power hungry people manipulate foolish representatives and foolish people of influence to keep the society foolish so they keep electing foolish representatives - especially those that look and sound moral.  Power hungry people can control what people DEEM as moral.  Hence, you get the manufactured "moral outrage of the day" news cycles.

And that's why you limit government to things such as "What's for dinner" in a society of wolves and sheep.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So, you'd rather the wolves eat citizens  ;) .  A foolish society elects foolish representatives to govern or influence them.  Power hungry people manipulate foolish representatives and foolish people of influence to keep the society foolish so they keep electing foolish representatives - especially those that look and sound moral.  Power hungry people can control what people DEEM as moral.  Hence, you get the manufactured "moral outrage of the day" news cycles.

And that's why you limit government to things such as "What's for dinner" in a society of wolves and sheep.

If I were a sheep I would never trust any government that fostered and declared that going to dinner with wolves was safe and a great idea.  If I were a wolf - I would be so happy that the government just made my life and what is for dinner much easier - knowing full well no one would miss such stupid sheep.   Even from a religious sense - Jesus warned his sheep about inviting wolves to dinner - or anything else with the flock.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

If I were a sheep I would never trust any government that fostered and declared that going to dinner with wolves was safe and a great idea.  If I were a wolf - I would be so happy that the government just made my life and what is for dinner much easier - knowing full well no one would miss such stupid sheep.   Even from a religious sense - Jesus warned his sheep about inviting wolves to dinner - or anything else with the flock.

 

The Traveler

You completely missed the juxtaposition.  Dunno if it's on purpose or not.  In any case, it has COMPLETELY nothing to do with Jesus' parables concerning wolves and sheep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You completely missed the juxtaposition.  Dunno if it's on purpose or not.  In any case, it has COMPLETELY nothing to do with Jesus' parables concerning wolves and sheep.

My grandfather was a sheep herder - I have a good understanding of sheep and wolves.  My concern is those that think government is the solution for keeping sheep safe when wolves come for dinner.   The government has no business until a sheep is dinner- it is the notion that laws make wolves nice to sheep - that concerns me.  At the very best such thinking does not take into account what happens when wolves are hungry.  History has proven many times over that in any conflict the survivors will always tout their morality as good and right - and when there are no sheep left in the society - who will hold the wolves to account?

My point is that who ever has the power to control the laws - will use exclusively their own morality to justify every law they make.  I am putting forth that regardless of what everybody else thinks - if those in power to enact laws have unjust morals to them - they will only experience unjust laws to come of it.  The only laws man can legislate and inforce are the morals of who ever is in charge.  To hope or believe in anything else is a fantasy and pure foolishness.   If you have any valid exception in history or any current society - I would be very interested.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2018 at 10:47 PM, Fether said:

https://www.google.com/amp/fox13now.com/2018/06/21/utah-couple-says-foster-agency-denied-them-due-to-their-mormon-faith/amp/

I sympathize with their sadness, but some commenters on the Facebook page I read were absolutely furious and angry at the organization. My thought? “So it’s ok for us to cry religious freedom in not allowing same sex couples adopt from our adoption agency, but when it is done to us it isn’t ok?”

If the adoption agency is a "faith" based agency (i.e. Catholic, Christian, etc...) then they have every right to deny a adoption according to their values and morals. If the adoption agency is a public agency then they should follow the laws of the land and not discriminate. So I agree with the sentiment you have provided; although, I would agree with this couple in letting other Mormons know that if they are looking to adopt they can look at other agencies beside this one -- especially if the only reason is because they were Mormon.

On 6/27/2018 at 8:11 AM, SpiritDragon said:

I would much prefer an upfront honest policy of, ``we don`t allow Mormons to use our services`` so that people would know. It`s the same with the same-sex wedding cake business, I have no problem with a baker telling someone that they won`t make the cake, I do have a problem with them letting them believe they will make the cake and then at the last minute stating they won`t.

This is an excellent point, and honestly they should be able to openly say religions they do discriminate against without any unjust recourse. They can discover this through online application or even paper applications. They can provide this as a notification.

Sadly, there are organizations and agencies who are looking for opportunities to bring out a litigation if they feel discriminated against due to their personal decision of life choices. Our world is drawing closer and closer toward the following verse of scripture, "Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility." In connection with the following, "And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
10 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

If the adoption agency is a "faith" based agency (i.e. Catholic, Christian, etc...) then they have every right to deny a adoption according to their values and morals. If the adoption agency is a public agency then they should follow the laws of the land and not discriminate. So I agree with the sentiment you have provided; although, I would agree with this couple in letting other Mormons know that if they are looking to adopt they can look at other agencies beside this one -- especially if the only reason is because they were Mormon.

Are LDS still involved in adoption? I was adopted though Catholic charities, as was my sister. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Are LDS still involved in adoption? I was adopted though Catholic charities, as was my sister. 

Yes, LDS family services in Utah (unless a change occurred I am unaware of at this moment) provide adoption services.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 minute ago, Anddenex said:

Yes, LDS family services in Utah (unless a change occurred I am unaware of at this moment) provide adoption services.

Heartwarming. Adoption is a truly beautiful thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

Yes, LDS family services in Utah (unless a change occurred I am unaware of at this moment) provide adoption services.

I thought they got out of that a few years ago. Will have to go do some research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2018 at 11:47 PM, Fether said:

https://www.google.com/amp/fox13now.com/2018/06/21/utah-couple-says-foster-agency-denied-them-due-to-their-mormon-faith/amp/

I sympathize with their sadness, but some commenters on the Facebook page I read were absolutely furious and angry at the organization. My thought? “So it’s ok for us to cry religious freedom in not allowing same sex couples adopt from our adoption agency, but when it is done to us it isn’t ok?”

Set aside politics and religion for just a moment and look at a very practical and logical reason why denying adoption to (or fostering by) a gay couple would be perfectly reasonable and why adoption to an LDS couple would be ideal.

Stability.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 6/25/2018 at 10:47 PM, Fether said:

https://www.google.com/amp/fox13now.com/2018/06/21/utah-couple-says-foster-agency-denied-them-due-to-their-mormon-faith/amp/

I sympathize with their sadness, but some commenters on the Facebook page I read were absolutely furious and angry at the organization. My thought? “So it’s ok for us to cry religious freedom in not allowing same sex couples adopt from our adoption agency, but when it is done to us it isn’t ok?”

is it private or publicly funded. if private I agree... but if public then it has to be in line with that which is a can o worms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share