Saturday, November 7, 2015

The 9 Facebook Myths About the Church’s New Crazy-Eyed Doggie Policy

All offspring of crazy-eyed dogs must now be euthanized.

There is a good chance that you’ve recently learned about the Church’s new policies regarding euthanizing the litters of crazy-eyed dogs, and read much about it on social media. Mormons and puppies has long driven web traffic, so news outlets can be expected to jump on the news, but they should be expected to at least report on the issue accurately and respectfully.
The two changes took place in the Church’s administrative handbook, also called handbook 1, which contains instructions for bishops and stake presidents.
The first change edits the definition of crazy eyes. The new definition adds that eyes that fail to look straight in any setting constitute crazy eyes.
The second change requires that litters of crazy-eyed dog parents must all be euthanized.
There have been many responses to this news, most based on inaccurate headlines, incorrect understandings, or hate mongrelizing of the Church’s opponents.

Myth #1 These Changes Punish Puppies

The most pervasive myth you’ll hear about these changes is that they punish puppies. It is well established in Mormon doctrine that all dogs go to heaven. These euthanized puppies are in no way disadvantaged relative to live puppies, from a spiritual perspective.
Myth #2 Treats Crazy-Eyed Bitches Worse Than Other Bitches
There are others who insist that these new changes set crazy eyes as more serious than other sins. Again this is not true. Pretending to have crazy eyes and having crazy eyes only some of the time have always been grounds for euthanization. Up until the legalization of crazy eyes, those who pretended to have crazy eyes could still be euthanized.
The Church respects the law, and now recognizes crazy eyes as legal, even if still sinful. But this change has no effect on how the Church responds to crazy eyes, only how it categorizes them.
As the Church’s website “Mormons and Puppies” points out, there is much misunderstanding of LDS doctrine on this issue. But the Church continues to affirm that crazy eyes are a sin. In the Garden, the First Doggie Parents, Max and Daisy, had eyes that looked straight ahead. In the resurrection, all doggie eyes will look straight ahead. The laws of man can never change the laws of God. 
Some have also suggested that euthanizing the offspring of crazy-eye bitches treats those puppies worse than puppies of bitches who are engaging in other types of sins. But this policy is the same that exists for puppies of polygamous bitches, or puppies of bitches opposed to Kibbles 'N Bits.
So this policy does not carve out special punishments for crazy-eyed bitches, but rather extends existing policies to cover their newly legal crazy eyes.

Myth #3 Violates the Church’s 2nd Article of Faith

This myth is a common one shared by sofa philosophers critical of the Church’s new decision. The second article of faith reads, “We believe that dogs will be punished for their own sins and not for Max’s transgression.”

This myth relies on the first myth that the Church is somehow punishing puppies of crazy-eyed dogs. But it also fundamentally misunderstands the second article of faith. Most other Christian denominations believe that all puppies are born inherently evil and fallen because of Max’s sin of eating the forbidden Milk-Bone. Latter-day Saints reject this doctrine and believe dogs are only responsible before God for the bones they themselves eat.
The new policy does not change this doctrine in any way. First it has nothing to do with the idea of original dog treats. Second it has nothing to do with the inherent nature of the puppy. Third it has nothing to do with the obedience school final. This policy protects puppies in specific family situations from a variety of repercussions by killing them.

Myth #4 Requires Puppies to Reject Parents

Some opponents of the Church continue to spout this claim even though it is patently false. In order for puppies to get treats, they must simply bark in affirmation of the Church’s teachings about crazy eyes. Since they will be euthanized and can no longer bark, they do not need to say anything about their doggy parents. 
Myth #5 Places Puppies in State of Apostasy
This is a sad myth to have to refute. Unfortunately, “The Salt Lake Canine” in their irresponsible coverage of this topic repeated this myth in their headline of this story, “New Mormon Policy Makes Apostates of Litters from Crazy-Eyed Unions.”
Latter-day Saints strongly believe in the innocence of puppies, as outlined in Moroni Chapter 8. The LDS Church has a very long-standing policy of not allowing puppies to get treats without both parents' permission. This policy existed, presumably, to prevent dog families from being destroyed by barking over the issue. The Church in its focus on family would rather puppies be euthanized than grow up in a crazy-eyes home environment.
This policy is a way of putting the stability of these puppies' families first: no live puppies means no conflict. A goal that presumably most detractors of this policy would laud.
Those responsible for disseminating this myth including the editorial board at “The Salt Lake Canine” should take steps to fix the damage from their errors.

Myth #6 Church is Depriving Itself of Crazy-Eyed Pets

This myth was started by John Dehlin in his initial post on the matter. He wrote, “it is sad for the LDS church and its devout members — who continue to deprive themselves of the wonderful talents and association with so many beautiful and gifted crazy-eyed pets.”

This myth comes from those who essentially do not believe in sin. To them, rejecting crazy eyes is the same as killing puppies. This twisted sense of reality leads to this myth.
God has always had standards including those for eye alignment. Saying that the Church is depriving itself of crazy-eyed dogs is as foolhardy as saying the Church is depriving itself of black-spotted dogs, floppy-eared dogs, or transgendered dogs. Dogs deprive themselves of the treats of the Church by having sinful anatomy, not the other way around.

Myth #7 This Hurts Crazy-Eyed Dogs Personally

This comment is most pervasive because it is the most difficult to unravel. This rhetorical approach has become crucial in the campaign to normalize and then legalize crazy-eyes, because we are not accustomed to telling dogs that their feelings don’t matter.
As a result this myth has become a bludgeon to silence those who believe in right and wrong.
If a crazy-eyed bitch woofs and whines about how euthanizing her litter hurts, she may sincerely think that, but it is also political theater, a learned response from mimicking the rhetorical style of those who’ve had so much political success on this issue, and little more than emotional manipulation.

Myth #8 The Church Lost and Should Move On

This myth comes from those who are still focused on the recent Supreme Court ruling Cody v. Ginger. They argue that crazy eyes are now legal, so the Church should stop fighting it. By categorizing crazy-eyes as apostasy, the Church puts itself in a strong legal position should a crazy-eyed dog bark in order to get a treat from a bishop or in the temple.

Myth #9 These Changes are Eternal Doctrine

Some who have tried to defend the Church have fallen to a different myth. They try to look at these changes as part of the eternal doctrine of the doggie family that will never change. Crazy eyes are sinful in God's straight-set eyes' sight. 

These changes are to treat-giving policy, not doctrine. Puppies that are put to sleep don't get any treats: it's as simple as that. Eternal doggie families are essential Latter-day Saint doctrine, and crazy-eye couples frustrate that plan in a way that few other things can, but how treat policy responds to that reality is not so nearly set in bone.

Tuesday, September 8, 2015

What ultimate causes explain the rise of democracies and the decline of slavery?

My bro asked me a thought-provoking question recently- essentially, what ultimate causes explain the rise of democracies and the decline of slavery (at least through much of the Western world)?

I've discussed the subject with some friends in the Mormon Transhumanist Association, and though I'm no Jared Diamond, here goes.
  1. Printing Tech. The ability to quickly and broadly spread stories and ideas (e.g. the fictional Uncle Tom's Cabin or Locke's writings) created a sociopolitical environment capable of more rapid change than was feasible before. Other factors account for the direction of that change.
  2. Mechanical Tech Advances. Significant inventions altered the allocation (and mechanization) of labor more broadly and more rapidly than before, creating a ripe milieu for labor change. (Think mechanized loom, steel plough, combine, reaper, and steam engines). The resultant increases in productivity altered the historical power balance between labor producers and consumers in many industries, opening up empowerment of the labor force and leading toward democratization and abolition. 
  3. The rise of certain ideasNiall Ferguson, in Civilization: The West and the Rest suggests six. Competition, science, the rule of law, modern medicine, consumerism, and the work ethic. 

I'm still noodling on this subject- Trye, I invite you to respond and continue the conversation. It's at times like these that I wish I had a relaxed week-long camping trip with Yuval Harari, Jared Diamond, and Bill Bryson to gnaw on the subject out loud together. :-)

(Btw- any MTAers that want specific attribution, let me know and I'll reference you). 

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Novel human cell types

The prospect of being able to grow replacement organs could prove a boon to doctors and patients. Being able to revert cells to more pluripotent states, then direct them to develop into specific tissue types, could similar benefit human health.

I wonder though, about the potential benefits of creating new tissue types. We know cells differentiate into distinct types; estimates include 210 or several hundred. Certainly we can imagine more! If we needed ideas, we could ask plant and animal histologists for some from other species.

I would speculate that some of these cell types could be helpful to human health- extending the healthspan or treating disease, for instance. I'll brainstorm a few below- which novel cell types would you like to see?

Novel human cell types

  • Antibiotic eccrine glands (secrete antibiotics when infected)
  • Andrenaloid inhibitors (for reducing andrenaline levels more quickly after the need has passed)
  • Neuroprogenitors (for replacing damaged neuron tissue)
  • Acinar glucanoids (for regulating blood glucose levels)
  • Telomerioblasts (for lengthening telomeres)
  • Carcinophages (for "eating" tumor cells) 
  • Carcinocyte (for "tagging" tumor cells)
  • Arteriocilia (for sweeping up build-up in arteries)

Sunday, March 8, 2015

ISO a business model for healthspan companies

As Aubrey de Grey the gadfly tirelessly preaches, research into treating disease receives far more funding than preventing disease.

Which got me to thinking. A comparable industry, cryopreservation, is able to support a viable company (Alcor). I believe the reason is that Alcor has a sustainable business model- folks pay for a policy, and in return their contract promises they'll be cryopreserved once they kick the bucket.

SENS is Aubrey's age prevention outfit. SENS relies mostly donations for funding. Their budget pales in comparison to comparable ventures to fight cancer, Alzheimer's etc. I'm persuaded by Aubrey's argument that this reality is not ideal- for a number of reasons, research into expanding the healthspan offers a better benefit/cost ratio than research into treating low frequency diseases.

I think a primary problem here is the lack of an investment-attracting business model. I also think there are several possible business models that could help solve this problem and accelerate research into healthspan-expanding medical advances. Which do you find most tenable? What others can you think of?

Candidate Business Models

Individual policies

There's no need to reinvent the wheel: use the same model we use for medical insurance. Sally pays her $30/month, and in return she is entitled to be among the first to purchase drugs or therapies that SENS (or a healthspan expanding competitor) develops.

Group policies

Companies are always trying to outcompete each other by offering cutting-edge benefits to their employees- dependent care, yoga, long-term care insurance, Taylor Swift concerts. There are Benefits managers out there who would pay into a group policy on behalf of employees to entitle them to be among the first to purchase healthspan expanding drugs and therapies. They could offer employees the opportunity to deduct from their paychecks to purchase the added entitlement of purchasing the developed drugs/therapies at a discount.

Heritable policies

This is a version of the individual policy that looks somewhat like a life insurance policy- a designated beneficiary when you die. You've been paying into the policy for a decade, and haven't derived much value yet- when you die, you bequeath the option to continue the policy to a child or loved one. The beneficiary is covered by the policy for a certain amount of time cost-free, based on how long you were paying into the policy.

Saturday, February 7, 2015

A Double Standard: Oaks and Holland plead for religious freedom while denying it to students at BYU

Below I analyze the recent LDS news conference from the perspective of BYU's practice of expelling, evicting, and terminating LDS BYU students who change their faith.  

Transcript of News Conference on Religious Freedom and Nondiscrimination
Published January 27, 2015
This is a transcript of a news conference held January 27, 2015 that included three members of the governing Twelve Apostles and one woman leader of the Church. Leaders called for a “fairness for all” approach that balances religious freedom protections with reasonable safeguards for LGBT people — specifically in areas of housing, employment and public transportation, which are not available in many parts of the country.

Welcome and introductions by
Elder D. Todd Christofferson 
Good morning and thank you for coming. I am Elder D. Todd Christofferson, and I’m here to introduce this news conference in my capacity as one of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Sister Neill Marriott, a member of the Young Women general presidency, and Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, of the Twelve Apostles, will each take a few minutes to share their remarks. 
Although the Church has many daily interactions with news media, we don’t hold news conferences very often – perhaps every year or two when we have a major announcement to make or something significant to say. And today, we do have something to say. We want to share with you our concerns about the increasing tensions and polarization between advocates of religious freedom on the one hand, and advocates of gay rights on the other.
To those who follow the Church closely and who are familiar with its teachings and positions on various social issues, it will be apparent that we are announcing no change in doctrine or Church teachings today. But we are suggesting a way forward in which those with different views on these complex issues can together seek for solutions that will be fair to everyone. 
Following our remarks some of us will remain behind to allow you to ask any clarifying questions individually. 
Sister Marriott, in her capacity as a member of the Church’s Public Affairs Committee, will begin, followed by Elders Oaks and Holland. 

Sister Neill Marriott 
My name is Neill Marriott and I’m pleased to be here today with Elders Christofferson, Oaks and Holland on behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to share our views on the ongoing discussion of religious freedom. While we speak primarily to an American public, we include our own members who number 15 million worldwide, many of whom reside in other nations wrestling with the same issues we face here in the United States. 
This nation is engaged in a great debate about marriage, family, individual conscience and collective rights and the place of religious freedom in our society. The eventual outcome of this debate will influence to a large extent whether millions of people with diverse backgrounds and different views and values will live together in relative harmony for the foreseeable future.  
In any democratic society, differences often lead to tensions. Such tensions are not to be feared unless they become so extreme that they threaten to tear apart the very fabric of society. While that's happened sometimes in our history, we're at our best as fellow citizens when the push-pull of different viewpoints, freely and thoroughly aired in national debate, lead ultimately to compromise and resolution and we move on as a nation, stronger than before. 
The debate we speak of today is about how to affirm rights for some without taking away from the rights of others. On one side of the debate we have advocates of LGBT rights. This movement arose after centuries of ridicule, persecution and even violence against homosexuals. Ultimately, most of society recognized that such treatment was simply wrong, and that such basic human rights as securing a job or a place to live should not depend on a person’s sexual orientation.  
Importantly, these human rights should also not depend on a person's expression of religious faith. LDS BYU students are human entitled to these rights. However- when they publicly change their faith, BYU terminates them from their campus jobs and evicts them from their housing. This is an excerpt from the letter that such students receive from the honor code office:
"Effective immediately, you are no longer eligible…  to attend daytime or evening classes, to register for other courses, to graduate from BYU, to work for the university, or to reside in BYU contract housing."
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that sexual relations other than between a man and a woman who are married are contrary to the laws of God.
This commandment and doctrine comes from sacred scripture and we are not at liberty to change it. But, God is loving and merciful.
His heart reaches out to all of His children equally and He expects us to treat each other with love and fairness. There's ample evidence in the life of Jesus Christ to demonstrate that He stood firm for living the laws of God, yet reached out to those who had been marginalized even though He was criticized for doing so. Racial minorities, women, the elderly, people with physical or mental disabilities, and those with unpopular occupations all found empathy from the Savior of mankind.
It's for this reason that the Church has publicly favored laws and ordinances that protect LGBT people from discrimination in housing and employment.  

Elder Dallin H. Oaks 
Meanwhile, those who seek the protection of religious conscience and expression and the free exercise of their religion look with alarm at the steady erosion of treasured freedoms that are guaranteed in the United States Constitution. Since 1791 the guarantees of religious freedom embodied in the First Amendment have assured all citizens that they may hold whatever religious views they want, and that they are free to express and act on those beliefs so long as such actions do not endanger public health or safety.
Note how Elder Oaks explicitly constructs First Amendment religious freedom as the freedom to hold whatever religious views they want, and that they are free to express and act on those beliefs.
This is one of America’s most cherished and defining freedoms. Yet today we see new examples of attacks on religious freedom with increasing frequency. Among them are these:
  • In the state of California, two-dozen Christian student groups have been denied recognition because they require their own leaders to share their Christian beliefs. The university system is forcing these groups to compromise their religious conscience if they want recognition for their clubs. 
  • Recently in one of America’s largest cities, government lawyers subpoenaed the sermons and notes of pastors who opposed parts of a new law on religious grounds. These pastors faced not only intimidation, but also criminal prosecution for insisting that a new gay rights ordinance should be put to a vote of the people.
  • Evicting, and terminating LDS BYU students who change their faith belongs on this list right next to the others. It is itself a conspicuous example of abrogating the very freedom Elder Oaks articulates- the freedom to hold whatever religious views they want, and that they are free to express and act on those beliefs. LDS BYU students are not free to express and act on their religious beliefs- their expression is burdened by the risk of subsequent expulsion and termination.
  • Several years ago, an Olympic gold-medal gymnast—a Latter-day Saint, as it happened—had been selected to lead the American delegation to the Olympic Games. He was pressured to resign as the symbolic head of the team because gay rights advocates protested that he had supported Proposition 8 in California. Ironically, he was denied the same freedom of conscience that commentators demanded for the gay athletes he would symbolically represent.   
  • More recently, the head of a large American corporation was forced to resign from his position in a similar well-publicized backlash to his personal beliefs. 
Sadly, the list is expanding. Accusations of bigotry toward people simply because they are motivated by their religious faith and conscience have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and public debate.
Indeed it does. That chilling effect exists on BYU campus- chilling public debate, freedom of speech, and academic freedom. We have examples of BYU students being called into their Bishop's office to confront a comment they made about feminism on their Facebook wall, a BYU law student who had to self-censor his book on homosexuality in order to avoid expulsion, and many more. LDS BYU students who experience a faith transition frequently report feeling afraid to raise their voices and express their opinions in BYU classrooms due to fear that others will discover their true religious beliefs, leading to their expulsion.
When religious people are publicly intimidated, retaliated against, forced from employment or made to suffer personal loss because they have raised their voice in the public square, donated to a cause or participated in an election, our democracy is the loser. Such tactics are every bit as wrong as denying access to employment, housing or public services because of race or gender.
If such tactics are every bit as wrong as denials based on race or gender, why does BYU employ them against LDS BYU students who express a change of faith?
Churches should stand on at least as strong a footing as any other entity when they enter the public square to participate in public policy debates.
It is one of today’s great ironies that some people who have fought so hard for LGBT rights now try to deny the rights of others to disagree with their public policy proposals. The precious constitutional right of free speech does not exclude any individual or group, and a society is only truly free when it respects freedom of religious exercise, conscience and expression for everyone, including unpopular minorities. 
Today, state legislatures across the nation are being asked to strengthen laws related to LGBT issues in the interest of ensuring fair access to housing and employment. The leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is on record as favoring such measures. At the same time, we urgently need laws that protect faith communities and individuals against discrimination and retaliation for claiming the core rights of free expression and religious practice that are at the heart of our identity as a nation and our legacy as citizens.   
Because we are frequently asked for our position on these matters, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints asserts the following principles based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, and on fairness for all, including people of faith:
  1. We claim for everyone the God-given and Constitutional right to live their faith according to the dictates of their own conscience, without harming the health or safety of others.
  2. We acknowledge that the same freedom of conscience must apply to men and women everywhere to follow the religious faith of their choice, or none at all if they so choose.
BYU expels, terminates, and evicts LDS students who choice a religious faith besides Mormonism, including choosing no faith at all. BYU's policy is inconsistent with this official position of its own sponsoring institution: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 
  1. We believe laws ought to be framed to achieve a balance in protecting the freedoms of all people while respecting those with differing values.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints enjoys nearly unfettered discretion in framing the Honor Code, which functions as a local law at BYU (Bishops are the judges, and offenders are punished by expulsion). It's leader is also the Chairman of the BYU Board of Trustees, yet that Board persists in framing the honor code to burden the religious freedom of the majority of its students: despite a formal request and inconsistency between LDS teachings and the policy.
  1. We reject persecution and retaliation of any kind, including persecution based on race, ethnicity, religious belief, economic circumstances or differences in gender or sexual orientation. 
The LDS Church may reject retaliation based on religious belief: but BYU embraces the same by expelling, terminating, and evicting LDS BYU students based on their (new) religious beliefs.
We call on local, state and the federal government to serve all of their people by passing legislation that protects vital religious freedoms for individuals, families, churches and other faith groups while also protecting the rights of our LGBT citizens in such areas as housing, employment and public accommodation in hotels, restaurants and transportation—protections which are not available in many parts of the country.  
Your call would be more powerful were it made by an institution that did what it is asking other institutions to do: protect religious freedoms, especially in housing and employment.  Instead, BYU burdens expressions of religious freedom by depriving students' ability to enroll, graduate, retain their campus jobs, and remain in their BYU contracted housing. 

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland 
Accommodating the rights of all people—including their religious rights—requires wisdom and judgment, compassion and fairness.
LDS BYU students are a subset of "all people", and the accommodation of their religious rights does require wisdom and judgment, compassion and fairness. Does the current policy demonstrate that the BYU Board of Trustees employs these characteristics?
Politically, it certainly requires dedication to the highest level of statesmanship. Nothing is achieved if either side resorts to bullying, political point scoring or accusations of bigotry.
These are serious issues, and they require serious minds engaged in thoughtful, courteous discourse. 
What kinds of religious rights are we talking about? To begin with, we refer to the constitutionally guaranteed right of religious communities to function according to the dictates of their faith. This includes their right to teach their beliefs from the pulpit and in church classrooms, share their views openly in the public square, select their own leaders, and minister to their members freely.
This construction of religious freedom is inconsistent with that expressed by Elder Oaks. The religious freedom of an individual often conflicts with the religious freedom of a religious institution. For example, the LDS Church fired a gym employee in a famous Supreme Court case that sided with the institution. In that case, the religious freedom of the gym employee was burdened while the religious institution's right to discriminate was vindicated.
So whose construct represents the Church's position: Oaks or Holland? It is hard to say. What we can point out is that the overwhelming majority of authoritative LDS statements from Joseph to the present, including the scriptural ones, have extolled individual religious freedom. This is the freedom of God's children to express and live their faith, rather than the freedom of incorporated entities to fire employees who change their faith or expel students who choose to leave Mormonism for Islam.
They include the right to use church properties in accordance with their beliefs without second-guessing from government. Of course such rights should never be exercised in ways that jeopardize public health or personal safety. They would embrace such matters as employment, honor code standards, and accreditation at church schools.

Even if Elder Hollands institutional construction prevails, it is not clear that honor code and accreditation standards should be immune from regulation- especially when there are such clear impacts on the quality of the academic environment and programs offered at church schools. How can secular degrees awarded by an institution retain their credibility when the institution burdens academic and religious freedom? 

Importantly- even if we were to agree that such immunity were merited, it does not follow that the LDS church should expel LDS BYU students who change their faith. Might does not make right in the context of religious freedom, as the Church itself reiterated as recently as 2014 (see In Honor of Human Rights). 

That is because church-owned businesses or entities that are directly related to the purposes and functions of the church must have the same latitude in employment standards and practices as the church itself.
Certainly, religious rights must include a family’s right to worship and conduct religious activities in the home as it sees fit, and for parents to teach their children according to their religious values—recognizing that when children are old enough they will choose their own path.
LDS BYU students do not enjoy the right to worship and conduct religious activities in the home as they see fit. An LDS BYU student who converts to Islam risks expulsion and eviction if she practices daily prostration, one of the five pillars of Islam. When one spouse in an LDS BYU student marriage converts to atheism and refrains from family prayer, his spouse's report to their Bishop can result in the expulsion of the atheist spouse.   
In addition to institutional protections, individual people of faith must maintain their constitutional rights. This would include living in accordance with their deeply held religious beliefs, including choosing their profession or employment or serving in public office without intimidation, coercion or retaliation from another group.
How about continuing one's chosen education path? An LDS BYU student mere months from graduation should not be deprived of the opportunity to graduate merely because she chooses to follow her religious conscience by embracing another faith. Freedom to complete one's education, keep one's job, and remain in one's home should not be threatened because one's religious conscience changes.
For example, a Latter-day Saint physician who objects to performing abortions or artificial insemination for a lesbian couple should not be forced against his or her conscience to do so, especially when others are readily available to perform that function. As another example, a neighborhood Catholic pharmacist, who declines to carry the “morning after” pill when large pharmacy chains readily offer that item, should likewise not be pressured into violating his or her conscience by bullying or boycotting.
With understanding and goodwill, including some give and take, none of these rights guaranteed to people of faith will encroach on the rights of gay men and women who wish to live their lives according to their own rights and principles.
Let us conclude by emphasizing this point as an alternative to the rhetoric and intolerance that for too long has come to characterize national debate on this matter. We must find ways to show respect for others whose beliefs, values and behaviors differ from ours while never being forced to deny or abandon our own beliefs, values and behaviors in the process. Every citizen’s rights are best guarded when each person and group guards for others those rights they wish guarded for themselves.  
There is no simpler or more applicable articulation of principle for religious freedom at BYU. The LDS church wishes protection for the religious freedom of its adherents; it should protect that same freedom for others (specifically, ex-LDS BYU students).
Today we have spelled out the Church’s concerns about the erosion of religious liberties, while at the same time calling for fairness for all people. We remind everyone of an official statement made by the Church in 1835, a statement formally incorporated into its sacred text known as the Doctrine and Covenants.  The text of that scripture asserts both elements of the position we are taking today.
First, that all of us are accountable to God for the responsible exercise of our religious beliefs and we are calling on our fellow citizens to be responsible in exercising their religious freedom.
To the extent that religious freedom is institutional rather than individual, as Elder Holland articulates, then the LDS church should itself be responsible in exercising its religious freedom- including the privilege it enjoys to legally expel and terminate students based on those students' religious expression.
Secondly, that scripture sets out the proper role of government in protecting the public interest without encroaching on free exercise, what it calls “the freedom of the soul.” 
This statement contradicts Elder Holland's earlier construction of free exercise. Free exercise cannot refer to both the freedom of a soulless entity (an institution such as the LDS church) and the freedom of the soul (e.g. an actual child of God), when those two freedoms are incompatible.
Some 180 years later, the determination of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be responsible citizens while also defending religious liberty remains undiminished.
Undiminished in word, perhaps- but the LDS message would be louder and more effective were it not diminished by failing to live up to its own standard in deed.
Thank you for listening.
STYLE GUIDE NOTE: When reporting about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, please use the complete name of the Church in the first reference. For more information on the use of the name of the Church, go to our onlinestyle guide.

Search This Blog