Episode #136 – Brandon Flowers, Mormons Salute You

35825 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fthisweekinmormons.com%2F2012%2F09%2Fepisode-136-brandon-flowers-mormons-salute-you%2FEpisode+%23136+-+Brandon+Flowers%2C+Mormons+Salute+You2012-09-12+20%3A21%3A08Geoffhttp%3A%2F%2Fthisweekinmormons.com%2F%3Fp%3D3582

1. John

   September 12, 2012

   

   Nice episode guys . . .

   Reply
   • TWiM

     September 12, 2012

     

     The ellipses are making me wonder if you are serious….

     Reply
2. JohnE

   September 12, 2012

   

   Congrats Jeff!

   On another note, I listened to Elder Holland's talk and at least for me it raised more questions than it answered. For me, it seemed like it was clear that he was making a veiled reference to marriage equality when he spoke about the restricting of others agency for the good of society. Like you guys mentioned he used the example of a stop light. Yeah sure it restricts agency but it is for the good of society.

   My question is what justification is needed to legally restrict someones agency? Is a justification based off of religious faith alone sufficient to restrict the agency of those outside of one's religion? The benefits of stops lights are demonstrable, logical, and agreeable for most everybody no matter what their religion is. However, marriage equality seems to be a bit more messy for me. I have studied the issue thoroughly and discussed it with many people and it seems like not allowing gays to get married comes down to following the prophet. I have found no convincing evidence outside of religious claims that it will in any way harm society. While there maybe some slippery slope arguments that claim that allowing gay marriage will one day violate the Church's rights, upon examination these prove to be inaccurate. It seems to me that the main reason people do not want to allow gay marriage is because it violates their religious faith.

   This seems to go straight to the heart of what Elder Holland was talking about and maybe points out why issues like gay marriage are not as simple as stop lights. How can we, who live in a pluralistic society, take away what some believe to be their rights solely because of reasons based on our own religious faith? I know that I would not want people taking away what I believe are my rights because they believe that God does not want me to have them. If I want to take away what someone believes to be their rights I better have solid reasons that transcend religious faith. If I claim what they are doing is bad for society I can not appeal to my religious faith when asked for evidence. That is the cost of living in a pluralistic society. That is the cost of having the protection from people using their religious faith against us.

   Our people have had first hand experience with those who wanted to take away our rights and freedoms because they believed they were on God's side. From the Missouri and Nauvoo persecutions to the Edmunds Tucker Act, the damages done against our Church and our forefathers are a monument to the dangers of people using their religious faith to legislate against an unpopular minority without sufficient logic and reason. I'm disturbed with how myopic we can be as a people.

   What is your take on this? Is it hypocritical to take away the rights of a minority for religious reasons alone? Does allowing for the public to violate personal religious rules mean you are "checking your religion at the door"? Are those some leading questions or what?

   Reply
   • TWiM

     September 12, 2012

     

     Thanks, John!

     I'm with you on how this is a bit of a murky issue. In watching E. Holland's talk, I thought to myself whether my political and religious beliefs, which I've mostly kept separate, need to be somehow enmeshed.

     I think of the example of Korihor in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon clearly states that while Korihor was an anti-Christ, he was protected under Nephite law to do as he pleased within the bounds of free speech guaranteed during the reign of the judges. He is never brought before a civil court, but goes before Alma, who at this point had no authority outside of the Church (We can get into my sometimes confused feelings about the Church seemingly proactively going after a guy who wasn't even among its rolls another time). I've always felt that that passage teaches a clear lesson – freedom of speech, even to the point of railing against the Church, was protected in the Book of Mormon, and this vignette was obviously meant to teach us in our day and age.

     Now, we could argue that protecting marriage is just as vital to the overall good of society as a stop sign, regardless of religious persuasion. I agree with you, though, that it doesn't seem as clear cut as that. We are all in general agreement that murder is also wrong, and that is solely based on Judeo-Christian morality. So maybe Elder Holland was arguing that protecting marriage (though we have to be clear that he never named a specific issue; we just assume he referred to something like gay marriage) is just as inherently moral and vital to our society, only a large chunk of society has somehow turned. What would we do if 55% of Americans decided murder was totally permissible? I'm sure we'd fight against it.

     So I assume that is the point being made, and this would obviously go along with the initial arguments against gay marriage – that it is a moral issue and has nothing to do with politics.

     But I, like you, struggle to see it so simply and so clearly.

     On a final note, I've definitely noticed a growing voice from within the ranks of the General Authorities that religious freedom must be preserved. The Brethren have mentioned this much more over the past two years or so than at any other time in recent memory. I've always been all for affording everyone the same civil rights and protection under the law, but I get the impression that the Brethren see things going too far and eventually costing us our own freedom to worship as we choose.

     Let the back and forth begin!

     -Geoff

     Reply
3. JohnE

   September 13, 2012

   

   Thanks for the response Geoff.

   First, on a bit of a side track, I've always wondered about Korihor. If it was not a civil trial I am a little bit disturbed that "they took him, and bound him, and carried him before Ammon, who was a high priest over that people." For doing this the people we praised as being wise, even though a few versus earlier it said that people were free to say whatever they wanted to under the current government. I'm not sure how they had authority to bind Korihor if they didn't have some sort of civil authority. I guess it could have been some sort of righteous mobocracy, but that doesn't seem right either. Anyways, I digress.

   There are a few areas I would have to push back a little bit on your response. First, you said "We are all in general agreement that murder is also wrong, and that is solely based on Judeo-Christian morality." From what I have read, murder being wrong is not solely based on Judeo-Christian morality. In fact, I think that is a great example of a moral that is near universal and based on solid and demonstrable logic. From eastern forms of government to even Sharia law, murder is considered immoral and illegal. Making murder illegal is an easy one for everyone to get on board with because of the obvious dangers of living in a society that does not prohibit murder. Even if society changed and 55% of the people wanted to legalize murder, we would still not have to rely on religious faith to back up the argument that allowing murder in a society is dangerous and not a good thing. True morals are not abstract. True morals are not something that can only be set by God. True morals are well reasoned codes of conduct that are required for a healthy society to function. God can help us gain insight on why something is a moral, but appeals to God alone are not sufficient reasoning for why something is a moral. That is why many of the atheists I know are dogmatically ethical — because true ethics and morals are required for a healthy society. Many atheists actually claim that religionists don't have a good record of morality. Morality in the name of religion has changed drastically over time. They often claim that Christians have a variable morality, not the secularists. They would say that Christian morality depends on what they think God is telling them to do, not some solid unchangeable moral code. You only have to look as far as our Holy Writ to see example of people doing things that most would say are unethical because God told them to (ie genocide, slaying a drunk man, sacrificing your son).

   Even in our Church, Brigham Young used religion to justify slavery. While God may not change, certainly man's interpretation of scripture and revelation does. The only disturbing part is that man (which includes our good but still human leaders) often dogmatically assume that their interpretation of revelation and scripture is inerrant. The truth is that even the Prophets do not receive revelation in a vacuum. They bring their own understandings and prejudices into their interpretations of spiritual experiences (ie race, role of woman, birth control, polygamy). If you don’t think our morality has change I encourage you to study the 1850-1890 Utah period of Mormon history. It is quite clear that they defined morality much different than we do today.

   If gay marriage was demonstrably and significantly bad for society I then I feel like there would a case against it. However, so far the only non-religious reasons against gay marriage seem to be based on some fear that in some dystopian future churches would be forced to perform gay marriages or that by allowing our gays neighbors to be in committed, loving, and legally recognized relationships under the name of marriage will somehow unwind the fabric of our society. Neither of these are legally supported and they seem to appear more to fear than logic.

   I too have noticed the increase in rhetoric about the threats of religious freedom. I would be very interested to see some significant examples. I tend to think that this also is a reference to marriage equality. However, as I have expressed, I do not see how our religious freedom is damaged at all by marriage equality. In fact, the only religious freedom I see threatened in that case is the gays who believe that it is their religious right to be married. I just don’t see how it is our religious right to define the rules for marriage for those outside of our religion.

   That was long winded but I think I can conclude by saying religious faith alone is not enough of a reason to take away another's right in a pluralistic society. If you want to live in a society that protects you from others taking away your rights because they belief God told them to, then you have to be willing to play by the same rules when you are on the other side of the argument.

   Reply