SCOTUS Extends Civil Right’s Act to LGBTQ


Just_A_Guy
 Share

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I won’t even post a link, I’m sure you’ve seen them.

The Church’s supporting nondiscrimination legislation in Utah five years ago now seems . . . prescient . . .

Prescient, or helping to cast the very chains which put us into bondage and an inability to practice religion how one sees fit?

You do realize that now that homosexuality and transgenderism is a protected class legally the downstream effects are going to be enormous. The ability as a business owner to practice one's religion is now superseded by political ideology.

The pressure on the Church will increase 10 fold.

The Church tried to have it both ways by endorsing the "Equality for All" act and instead of fighting straight up, they ended up losing everything.  They wanted carve-outs specifically for the Church, i.e. it's administration offices, it's schools, etc.  The Equality Act was an act which protected big religious institutions from the law, but let others suffer under it.  

Instead of fighting for all-the Church only fought for itself and in the end lost everything-God is allowing this to happen because as a people and as a religion we are weak and do not care to lay it all on the line in defense of Him.  And thus we have cast the very chains which will be used to put us in bondage.

Any organization which previously was subject to the CRA will now be subject to this new interpretation.  BYU, COB, etc. if it's not a direct religious entity (i.e. a ward/branch/stake, etc.) it is now in the US subject to the CRA with homosexuality and transgenderism as a protected class.

Let the lawsuits start flying!

Edited by BobMaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an article on the Supreme Court ruling:  

https://www.rollcall.com/2020/06/15/15lgbt/

Any organization which previously was subject to the Civil Rights Act will now be subject to this new interpretation.  Brigham Young University and other organizations that are not direct religious entities are now in the United States subject to the Civil Rights Act with homosexuality and transgenderism as a protected class.  I agree with you Bob Master.  The lawsuits will start flying sadly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

Here is an article on the Supreme Court ruling:  

https://www.rollcall.com/2020/06/15/15lgbt/

Any organization which previously was subject to the Civil Rights Act will now be subject to this new interpretation.  Brigham Young University and other organizations that are not direct religious entities are now in the United States subject to the Civil Rights Act with homosexuality and transgenderism as a protected class.  I agree with you Bob Master.  The lawsuits will start flying sadly.

Bingo.  Gorsuch during the oral arguments telegraphed his decision and even said STE including this in the CRA will cause massive social upheaval.

It is almost assured at this point that the Church has very limited options in the next 10-15 years (if it takes that long, most likely no more than 4-5). Either do away with the Temple rites, allow homosexual "sealings", or face the wrath of the modern mobs-which choice does modern Israel want?

1964 CRA passed, 15 years later blacks in Temples and Priesthood.

As Nelson stated . . .time is definitely running out.

Edited by BobMaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Christ's restored church will get around the homosexual marriages in the House of Lord by simply not performing marriages at all in the temples anymore.  We will only do sealings and the husband and wife will need to go get married elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

I think Christ's restored church will get around the homosexual marriages in the House of Lord by simply not performing marriages at all in the temples anymore.  We will only do sealings and the husband and wife will need to go get married elsewhere.

That will almost definitely happen, but it's a stop-gap measure. When you simply forecast down the line, it is obvious it will not fix anything.  

Considering the riots, BLM, etc.  What would it look like to be a member of the Church today if blacks are not allowed in our leadership ranks and Temple rites?

You and I both know the answers, while we can technically still be a Church, individual members would be subject to such intense hatred, our buildings would be defaced, our Temples grafitied; people would be fired from their jobs.  Persecution would be intense and membership would shrink.  How many members would join a blatantly "racist" organization? 

We would be vitrified along the lines of Westboro Baptist Church.

What will happen in the future as homosexuality and transgenderism becomes more and more widely accepted? If the Church does not cave, you and I both know what will happen, individual members will be subject to intense hatred, our buildings will be defaced, our Temples will be grafitied, our people will be fired from their jobs.  How many people will join a blatantly "homophobic" organization?

The time for choosing which side we stand on and who we fear more is coming close at hand.  Do we fear God or man?

Which leads me to the other question. Are we willing to give up our Temples in order to continue to grow and proclaim the message of the Book of Mormon?

Nelson also hinted at this, this year.  STE "How would my life be different without the knowledge of the Book of Mormon"?

The very foundation of the Church is the Book of Mormon. Take away that and you have no religion. The very purpose of the Church is to flood the world with the Book of Mormon, everything else is a bonus.

So what would I personally be willing to give up so that the Book of Mormon can continue to be proclaimed throughout the Earth-everything but the Book of Mormon. If that would require the sacrifice of Temples of giving them up (or having them polluted to the point where they no longer hold any weight or value).

I would not give up the Pearl of Great Price, nor would I give up D&C-those are God's Words.  Anything and everything else . . .the Temples are symbols designed for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear and understand the deeper mysteries.  Destroy the symbols and the edifice doesn't matter anymore.

And what's more, is those very symbols found in the Temple can be found in God's Word, if one is attentive and diligently searching.

Edited by BobMaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BobMaster said:

Prescient, or helping to cast the very chains which put us into bondage and an inability to practice religion how one sees fit?

As pertains to the Church leadership, I think I’ll stick with “prescient”.  Given that this was coming either way, we are politically better positioned having not completely been dragged into it kicking and screaming.  And there’s still a lot the Church can do within the contours of the law at BYU, which—for example—has long deterred non-Mormon students from enrolling by charging them significantly higher tuition rates.

But sure, it’s very possible that the Church’s spiritual power has been stunted by such developments as a critical mass of the membership relying on (say) the Supreme Court, or on Trump, for their salvation.  All the Church’s lobbyists and amici briefs will make no difference as long as we have a sizable fifth column within the Church itself that is actively seeking to turn the membership away from the oracles of God and from their duty.  

Quote

The very foundation of the Church is the Book of Mormon. Take away that and you have no religion. The very purpose of the Church is to flood the world with the Book of Mormon, everything else is a bonus.

So what would I personally be willing to give up so that the Book of Mormon can continue to be proclaimed throughout the Earth-everything but the Book of Mormon. If that would require the sacrifice of Temples of giving them up (or having them polluted to the point where they no longer hold any weight or value).

Statistically, yeah, it’s almost a certainty that we’ll lose some—maybe many—temples before the end.  But to suggest that we can or should deliberately give them up wholesale so we can continue circulating the Book of Mormon is kind of a false dichotomy (especially in this internet age).  The same President Nelson who has taught the Book of Mormon, has also recently reiterated the importance of the sealing covenant and was recently re-quoted in conference as saying that “The earth was created and this Church was restored so that families could be formed, sealed, and exalted eternally”.


Of course, it’s not an either-or thing. If it comes down to that, we can print scriptures and operate temples beyond the jurisdictional reach of the American authorities.  

[Edit:  last paragraph in the quote box above, should go here.  I don’t know what weird HTML voodoo my phone is up to, but I apparently can’t fix it via Safari . . .]

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As pertains to the Church leadership, I think I’ll stick with “prescient”.  Given that this was coming either way, we are politically better positioned having not completely been dragged into it kicking and screaming.  

But sure, it’s very possible that the Church’s spiritual power has been stunted by such developments as a critical mass of the membership relying on (say) the Supreme Court, or on Trump, for their salvation.  All the Church’s lobbyists and amici briefs will make no difference as long as we have a sizable fifth column within the Church itself that is actively  seeking to turn the membership away from the oracles of God and from their duty.  

Quote

“The willow submits to the wind and prospers until one day it is many willows - a wall against the wind.”

 -- Frank Herbert

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And there’s still a lot the Church can do within the contours of the law at BYU, which—for example—has long deterred non-Mormon students from enrolling by charging them significantly higher tuition rates.

I think it is better explained as giving members of the church a lower tuition rate, rather than saying non-members are charged more. Even then, the rates for non-members are still quite favorable for a university of BYU's caliber. For example, non-members at BYU can get 12 credit hours for less than half the price of non-resident students at the U of U...and the U of U is still cheap compared to schools in other states. And, you won't find a better Law School anywhere that has prices even close to BYU. I think their prices actually entice outside graduate students to come.

Unfortunately though, I can see lawsuits coming in the future over member vs non-member prices as many lgbtqxyz folks will never be able to qualify for the lower rate. (even though they don't actually want to go to school there, and just want to be a sjw) I believe that when President Nelson states many changes in the church are coming, not all of it is due to the work progressing per se, but also due to the adversary's efforts being quadrupled over the coming years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As pertains to the Church leadership, I think I’ll stick with “prescient”.  Given that this was coming either way, we are politically better positioned having not completely been dragged into it kicking and screaming.  And there’s still a lot the Church can do within the contours of the law at BYU, which—for example—has long deterred non-Mormon students from enrolling by charging them significantly higher tuition rates.

But sure, it’s very possible that the Church’s spiritual power has been stunted by such developments as a critical mass of the membership relying on (say) the Supreme Court, or on Trump, for their salvation.  All the Church’s lobbyists and amici briefs will make no difference as long as we have a sizable fifth column within the Church itself that is actively seeking to turn the membership away from the oracles of God and from their duty.  


Of course, it’s not an either-or thing. If it comes down to that, we can print scriptures and operate temples beyond the jurisdictional reach of the American authorities.  

[Edit:  last paragraph in the quote box above, should go here.  I don’t know what weird HTML voodoo my phone is up to, but I apparently can’t fix it via Safari . . .]

I get it. Better be on the "right" side rather than fight tooth and nail for what is right.  Ultimately, all that means is that what you believe is right, really isn't part of your core beliefs.

What I understand from reading plenty of history on the Church and journals is that there is a core belief above other beliefs, and that core belief is to ensure the Church grows-it is the "temporal salvation".  The Church will jettison "core" beliefs when those "core" beliefs become such a massive dead-weight (or will shortly do so) that it will impact the Church's growth.

When you understand that the Church will dump "core" beliefs, then the only question you can ask yourself is, what is the major core belief of the Church. As far as I can see, the major thing, in fact the only thing that sets us apart from other Christian denominations is the additional canon of Scriptures, and when push comes to shove (as the culture shifts and it's coming rapidly now), the Church will dump everything that is seen as dead-weight except for that and concept of Temples. Nelson already proved that Temple rites can change dramatically it's not a big deal, that the Church can reverse course almost 180 in a short span of time and it's no big deal.

I have no problem with the claim of Prophets, I yearn for it; but telling me you received a revelation about xyz is not the same thing as producing the Revelation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BobMaster said:

I get it. Better be on the "right" aside rather than fight tooth and nail for what is right.  Ultimately, all that means is that what you believe is right, really isn't part of your core beliefs.

I will freely admit that refusing to deal with sinners in a professional context is not now, and never really has been, a “core belief” of either myself or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.   

Quote

What I understand from reading plenty of history on the Church and journals is that there is a core belief above other beliefs, and that core belief is to ensure the Church grows-it is the "temporal salvation".  The Church will jettison "core" beliefs when those "core" beliefs become such a massive dead-weight (or will shortly do so) that it will impact the Church's growth.

When you understand that the Church will dump "core" beliefs, then the only question you can ask yourself is, what is the major core belief of the Church. As far as I can see, the major thing, in fact the only thing that sets us apart from other Christian denominations is the additional canon of Scriptures, and when push comes to shove (as the culture shifts and it's coming rapidly now), the Church will dump everything that is seen as dead-weight except for that and concept of Temples. Nelson already proved that Temple rites can change dramatically it's not a big deal, that the Church can reverse course almost 180 in a short span of time and it's no big deal.

Hmm.  I would say that the Church’s “core belief above other beliefs” is that Jesus Christ died for our sins as prophesied in scripture, was buried, and rose again from the dead on the third day.  Closely affiliated “core beliefs” include the “first principles and ordinances of the Gospel”, the necessity of priesthood authority to officiate in those and other ordinances and to guide the Church generally, the existence of the true gift of the Holy Ghost, the belief that God continues to speak—both to the leaders and members of His church—in ways not accepted by the leaders of the mainstream Christian denominations as of 1830, and—yes—the idea of gathering the people of God into a Zion society.

It’s really easy for us to take other Gospel-related teachings or practices and confuse them for “core beliefs”.  There’s even a subset of folks in the Church who pursue the cheap thrill of “I-know-something-you-don’t-know” by picking through nineteenth century Church literature and then lambasting Church members and/or Church leadership for not doing or saying some things precisely the same way that it Used To Be™. 

Of course, as people who accept the idea of continuing revelation, we should expect evolution in both gospel theology and gospel practice.  If we didn’t, we may as well join our Protestant brethren in extolling the virtues of sola scriptura.  But the fact is, we worship a God who gives further light and knowledge for no other reason than because He wants us to have it.  We worship a God who intervenes in our lives in thousands of ways, great and small, to increase our joy.  We worship a God who sees traps that we didn’t know about, and gives us instructions so that we don’t get caught up in them.  We worship a God who, yes, wants the number of people on the covenant path to grow; but also—wants the Church as an entity to just plain survive.

As pertaining to the topic at hand:  God just helped us, as a people, to dodge a bullet.  It’s puzzling to me that some folks would find me pointing that out and saying “Thank you, God!”, to be so objectionable. 

Quote

I have no problem with the claim of Prophets, I yearn for it; but telling me you received a revelation about xyz is not the same thing as producing the Revelation.

You telling me that you have a child is not the same thing as you showing me a video of the moment your child emerged from your wife’s womb.  But of course, I would never presume to demand you produce the latter; because that is your experience, not mine.  All I need to know, is that the kid exists.

We’ve established that elsewhere that you define “revelation” in a way that is stilted, artificially narrow, and scripturally and historically untenable; so as to rule out anything you consider to be insufficiently grandiose.  We should be careful that we’re yearning for true revelation, rather than demanding a spiritual peep show—throwing open the sacred experience of a third party for to our own scrutiny and pleasure, and insisting the performance be set in the context of a plot we found titillating the last time we saw it.

There’s a regrettable affinity for “revelation porn” in the Church.  Left unchecked, it can render us so obsessed with the revelatory experiences of others that we completely lose interest in, or refuse to value, the direct and personal communion with God that He promises can be ours for the asking.  

God is trying to take us higher as a people.  We should let Him do it.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
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