NOM

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900 ... ities.html

I have so many swirling reactions to this. I'd love others thoughts:
1) Putting religious identity on the same plane as racial, gender, and sexual identity seems wrong. You aren't born with a religious identity. It clearly develops. And it clearly is a choice. He posits that reducing it to a "simple choice" indicates you can just check your religion at the door. Well, no one said it was a simple choice. But didn't Elder Anderson give an entire GC talk saying that faith is a choice. Sure, it is a very complicated choice with so many social and other pressures, but at the end of the day it is a choice. If it weren't a choice, wouldn't it by definition follow what we were taught was Satan's plan in the pre-existence? Perhaps it may be true that we can be born with a spiritual identity that needs protecting on the same plane, but "religious" isn't the right word IMHO
2) If we as a church believed that religious identity were truly a non-choice part of an individual's identity, why in the world would we so actively try to get everyone to "change" their identity to adopt our own? If religious identity were really on the same plane as race, gender, and sexual identity, then wouldn't missionary work be just as absurd as trying to proselytize to black people that they should become white? There is clearly a significant difference. I get the feeling that although Elder Whitney is saying that we as a church respect and understand all peoples' "religious identity" our actions indicate that at the foundation, we don't believe their identity is valid, and "ours" is.

So many other thoughts, but this is a good start...

My point is that misconstruing religious faith as a mere choice or preference, as something that can be adopted and discarded at will, radically misconceives the nature of religion in the lives of millions of faithful people.

How about we twist that quote just a little bit:

My point is that misconstruing sexual orientation as a mere choice or preference, as something that can be adopted and discarded at will, radically misconceives the nature of being human in the lives of millions of good people.

And to your point JB - religion is not something you are born with, it's indoctrination, pure and simple; people had to be convinced it was a way to live. Being gay is just the opposite, it's not something they get taught to be their whole lives from a young age or are convinced, through much evangelizing and nurturing that it is how they need to be, most of the time it's in their biology and genetics. In the past religion has tried to argue against this, but they are wrong.

That article was hard for me to read. Once again, it seems like the church wants it both ways. He tries to make it sound like the church was all about supporting gays when it's simply not. It was only after the church lost the battle over gay marriage that it tried to quickly switch gears and show outward support, at the same time talking out of the other side of its mouth by trying to secretly change it's policies in it's handbook, taking on the opposite position. The COB recently did the same thing in the celebration of the priesthood ban revelation, trying to make themselves look all progressive and inclusive and denying the real facts of the source of the ban.

The COB wants all this protection for religious freedom and the financial protection of being an incredibly rich non-profit corporation, yet it won't disclose it's finances. There are so many other example of this two faced behavior.

Follow the prophet
he knows the way
but if he's ever wrong
he was just speaking as a man
but he'll never lead you astray
because of our religion we can have it both ways

Stick that in your new hymn book you pious cobblers!

Did you read about the example he gave of Mary Anne Sause? He said that her rights were violated because police wouldn't allow her to pray in her own home, as if they were going door to door to stop people from praying. What happened is they came to her house because of a noise complaint and then started praying instead of cooperating. The case against the police was dismissed.

Is this seriously the kind of lying nonsense the LDS church is peddling? Describing this case, in that way, is straight up propaganda and they should be ashamed. Very few people will look up the details. Most will walk away thinking the government is about to make them stop praying in their homes like Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar. It's deception.

Also, if a religious person who works for the government feels as if their beliefs prevent them from providing services and equal protection under the law to everyone they serve, then I think a valid compromise is to allow them to step aside so someone else can provide the service. What they can't do is use their beliefs to justify the removal of rights contrary to the law. If you won't sign a marriage license, then let someone else in your office do it. What kind of "religious protections" are we talking about here? If it's the elevation of religion over the constitution, then it's anti-democratic and absurd.

He also says that religious identity is equal to racial identity. Even if we won't get agreement that sexual orientation isn't a choice, race is definitely not a choice. The fact that Whitney thinks that his religion can't be chosen, either to join or to leave apparently, says a lot about how he approaches his faith. There's nothing healthy about a religion that doesn't recognize the existence of individual choice on the matter.

I agree with a lot of what he said. I think his thinking is faulty in two respects, though, and I worry about what he wants.

First, where he goes most wrong, like jb pointed out, is in harboring contradictions; i.e. doublethink. If people everywhere suddenly recognized religion as a class deserving of as much protection as race, how would they interpret proselyting? ("Brother Investigator, will you become white by being baptized?") Would regarding your people as God's elect be equivalent to racism? Would the church's addiction to bearing false witness against apostates be hate speech? What about exerting tremendous social pressure to stay in the boat? If Mormons internalized this, what would they think about moral agency?

My answers to those questions are actually consistent with much of Elder Clayton's message: proselyting is blind arrogance, tribalism is as bad as racism, the church's teachings on apostates are basically hate speech, Mormonism's social pressures sometimes turn into hate crimes, and we have little direct control over moral choices. Maybe I want his message to be widespread within Mormonism, in the hope that Mormons get slowly pulled toward the same conclusions, doublethink or not.

Second, there's room for better understanding of religious identity that I don't see in Elder Clayton or his cherry-picked opponents.

Gender, sexuality, race, religion, and other sources of identity are all social constructs: things that are assumed to be real by consensus. But gender, sexuality and race differ greatly from religion in the nature of their anchors to reality.

Just by surveying a few world religions, it becomes clear that the belief part of religion is anchored to physical reality only weakly. Recognizing this is one way Elder Clayton's cherry-picked opponents justify insisting that religion is easy to choose or should be switched on and off based on context. Not recognizing this is one way that religious people justify the opposite.

A person's religion, in its values, beliefs, behaviors, expectations, etc., does tend to be strongly anchored, not to physical reality, but to other social constructs: family, community, stories, ideology, learned wants and needs, learned interpretation of history, learned interpretation of feelings, and much more. For many religious people, these anchors are as strong as the physical anchors of gender, sexuality and race. Recognizing this is one way they justify insisting that religion isn't easy to choose and shouldn't be switched on and off based on context. Not recognizing this is one way Elder Clayton's cherry-picked opponents justify the opposite.

So... on the one hand we have classes like gender, sexuality and race, which are socially constructed and strongly anchored to an individual's physical reality (e.g. genetics, amount of prenatal masculinization, etc.). On the other, we have religion, which is also socially constructed, and often strongly anchored to an individual's social reality - which of course is also socially constructed, but is psychologically no less real.

It might sound like I'm making Elder Clayton's case for him, but I'm really just pointing out what he's right about and why.

I think he still needs to explain why he thinks this one class anchored in social reality deserves as much respect and legal protection as classes anchored in physical reality. Is its psychological reality enough reason, as suggested by his metaphor of faith as bone marrow? Its relative importance to identity, as stated? Its stability as a core part of identity, as stated? Its function as a source of self-worth and family identity, as suggested by his relating of personal history? For all of these possible reasons, why are they reasons, especially for legal protection?

That's it for faulty thinking. Now, how about what Elder Clayton wants?

As a society, I think we definitely should recognize that religion is often a core part of identity. We shouldn't discriminate based on core parts of identity any more than we have to, whether these parts are in-born, indoctrinated, or chosen after careful study. In most Western countries, this good behavior already has strong legal support. For example, the US has the establishment clause and has made religion a protected class. As a lawyer, Elder Clayton knows this. He didn't contradict it. In fact, it seems that part of his talk was reminding Mormons of the legal protections they already enjoy, and his take on why.

But here are a couple of quotes with my emphasis on phrases that worry me.

It takes [a religious] identity that for millions is vastly more important and profound than race, color, ethnic origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, education, profession, wealth and so on and dismisses it as trivial or something to grow out of, like a childhood belief in Santa Claus.

True enough. I even agree with his speaking out against trivializing religious belief. It's only worrying when considered alongside this quote:

If you believe public and private institutions should credit the dignitary claims of racial, ethnic, gender and sexual minorities, then please consider that many of the same reasons for doing so apply with equal or greater force to the dignitary claims of religious believers.

Get that? He wants religion as a class to be at least protected as gender, sexuality, and race. Probably more protected.

That worries me greatly. I worry that in Elder Clayton's ideal world, religions could even more easily escape scrutiny over dishonesty and consequences from abuse. I worry about religions that are already like fiefdoms becoming even more insulated and dictatorial, especially cults. I worry about creating taboos that silence criticism of religion and stunt research on it. I worry about religion always winning when it goes head-to-head against other protected classes.

More generally, I worry about protecting harmful collective attitudes on the basis that individuals have inherited those attitudes from the collective. That seems like a recipe for regressive entrenchment and disaster.

I was very put off by this.

Week after week in the D News editorial section, stuff like this. I can't read it any longer.

The editorial board follows this pattern: Post a story supporting an opposing view of the D News and Corp. a few days before (usually a simple story, with lots of missing information and holes, easy to pick apart). Then, do an op-ed opinion piece breaking down the simple strawman piece they wrote/syndicated the day before.

Build a small stick tower, then knock it down with a sledgehammer. The unfortunate part, the story deserved to be a steel building with a lot more information and nuance.

I can't touch it anymore...even if their sports section is much better than the alternative.

Wow! Somebody is still gunning for a spot in the Q15!!

Reuben wrote: ↑Sun Jun 24, 2018 8:45 am

It takes [a religious] identity that for millions is vastly more important and profound than race, color, ethnic origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, education, profession, wealth and so on and dismisses it as trivial or something to grow out of, like a childhood belief in Santa Claus.

Okay this quote actually really bugs me. He is a white, cis-gender, straight man. How is he claiming that religious identity is vastly more important than "than race, color, ethnic origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, education, profession, wealth and so on..." for millions of people? It's like he is assuming he knows what it is like to be black or gay. Or he is assuming he knows how a black or gay person would "order" the various aspects of their identity. He's so arrogant!!!

MoPag wrote: ↑Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:49 am Wow! Somebody is still gunning for a spot in the Q15!!

MoPag wrote: ↑Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:49 am

Reuben wrote: ↑Sun Jun 24, 2018 8:45 am

It takes [a religious] identity that for millions is vastly more important and profound than race, color, ethnic origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, education, profession, wealth and so on and dismisses it as trivial or something to grow out of, like a childhood belief in Santa Claus.

Okay this quote actually really bugs me. He is a white, cis-gender, straight man. How is he claiming that religious identity is vastly more important than "than race, color, ethnic origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, education, profession, wealth and so on..." for millions of people? It's like he is assuming he knows what it is like to be black or gay. Or he is assuming he knows how a black or gay person would "order" the various aspects of their identity. He's so arrogant!!!

We can quantify the relative importance of sexual orientation as an identity vs. Mormonism as an identity. If I remember the estimates right, about 3/4 to 4/5 of LGBT members leave the church, suggesting that to most of them, sexual orientation is more important and profound than Mormonism. If you account for Mormonism's often extreme social pressures, I would say that almost always, sexual orientation is vastly more important and profound.

So at least one of his arrogant assumptions is probably wrong.

Reuben wrote: ↑Mon Jun 25, 2018 9:10 am We can quantify the relative importance of sexual orientation as an identity vs. Mormonism as an identity. If I remember the estimates right, about 3/4 to 4/5 of LGBT members leave the church, suggesting that to most of them, sexual orientation is more important and profound than Mormonism. If you account for Mormonism's often extreme social pressures, I would say that almost always, sexual orientation is vastly more important and profound.

So at least one of his arrogant assumptions is probably wrong.

I agree that his assumption is wrong. But Elder Clayton's sincere desire is that religious identity takes a place along side race and sexual orientation in the pantheon of Sacred Distinctions. This implies that there is a "Mormon gene", but it also leads to the conclusion that if sexual orientation is changeable, then so is religious identity...

How would you guys explain all the people born under the covenant as Mormon Republicans?