Professors defend Church's stance on Salt Lake City ordinance

With the LDS church’s recent endorsement of a gay rights ordinance in Salt Lake City, many have begun speculating that the church is on its way to changing its policy on same-sex marriage. Not so, say BYU professors of religion and political science.

Last week, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints publicly endorsed a city ordinance that bans housing and employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The BYU professors interviewed said that although the church supports tolerance and equality, it does not approve of homosexuality.

Kent Jackson, associate dean of Religious Education, said the church is not contradicting its previously-stated positions and that it has always been in favor of equality.

“The church’s response to the Salt Lake issue was not a surprise, nor a change in direction, because it is consistent with the position already expressed,” Jackson said.

Richard Davis, a professor of political science, said the church’s endorsement highlighted an important distinction in its teachings and policies.

“The LDS Church is distinguishing between being opposed to gay marriage and being opposed to any effort to end discrimination against gays,” Davis said.

Davis also said this endorsement may be a means for the church to be viewed in a more positive light on this issue.

“The church’s position on issues related to same sex marriage have been interpreted as an anti-gay stance,” Davis said. “The church is attempting to draw a line at gay marriage, but not at other aspects of the agenda of the gay rights movement.”

“This will go a long way in signaling to church members that we should not be anti-gay and acknowledging that the gay rights movement has some very legitimate complaints about how gays are treated in society and under the law,” Davis said.

Randy Bott, a professor of religion, said although the church is endorsing anti-discrimination of gays, it is not changing its policy on homosexuality.

“I hope you can see the difference between the church endorsing agency of all people to do whatever they choose and the church adopting a policy contrary to the revealed will of God,” Bott said.

When asked how this issue compared to when the church gave the priesthood to African-American males, Davis said this incident is different because it does not reverse a church-wide policy.

“That was a dramatic reversal of church policy,” Davis said. “This is not a dramatic reversal of church policy in that sense.”

However, professors that this is still a significant incident because it’s the first time the church has actually expressed support for legislation that bans such discrimination.

From the article: Davis also said this endorsement may be a means for the church to be viewed in a more positive light on this issue.

Well, there's a rather frank admission...that the PR-happy Lds bureaucrats were motivated by pure public relations' considerations. (What will they yield on next?)

From the article: “This will go a long way in signaling to church members that...the gay rights movement has some very legitimate complaints about how gays are treated in society and under the law,” Davis said.

So the Lds church has become the gay rights' legal advocacy catalysts?

From the article: Randy Bott, a professor of religion, said although the church is endorsing anti-discrimination of gays, it is not changing its policy on homosexuality. “I hope you can see the difference between the church endorsing agency of all people to do whatever they choose and the church adopting a policy contrary to the revealed will of God,” Bott said.

Yeah...the Lds church has now endorsed cross-dressers and any other "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" under the sun in forcing businesses to capitulate to cross-dressing, males in female work bathrooms, gender-bending in the workplace, and a whole host of other "sexual orientation" people to step up & claim similar workplace "rights."

Professors defend Church's stance on Salt Lake City ordinance

...and we expected something different???

Temple Recommend Questions:

1 Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?

2 Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?

3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

5 Do you live the law of chastity?

6 Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

8 Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?

9 Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?

10 Are you a full-tithe payer?

11 Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?

12 Do you have financial or other obligations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?

13 If you have previously received your temple endowment:

Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?

Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?

14 Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?

15 Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?

The Church is opposed to discrimination in all its ugly forms. That’s all.

Then why did it wait 170 years or so to allow Blacks MEN to become priests? Why don't they let women be priests too? Why do they sit in judgement upon the poorer members and not allow them to have a temple recommend while the rich fat cats like Marriott (largest porn distributor in US) stroll right on in. You argument is pretty hollow.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.