Now that Oaks has declared what he declared, is that now an official position of the Church?
Based on what Oaks et al stated they wanted:
...should any Church leader currently engaged in work that is involved or supports, in any way, something which the Church is against - alcohol, tobacco, immodest dress etc Should that Church leader be now encouraged to find alternative employment else face sanction?
For instance, let's say a Church leader was employed in a managerial position for a company that had a policy not to discriminate on the basis of sexuality. He has a vacancy for which the best candidate who has applied is openly gay. Should that manager now be able to not employ the individual on the basis that it is a violation of his religious freedom to have to employ them? If the manager chooses an inferior candidate on the basis that they are the best 'straight' candidate for the job, is the employer entitled to fire that manager on the basis that he has violated the companies anti-discrimination policy, and if they did fire him on that basis would he have legal recourse against the company for firing him for exercising his right to religious freedom?
Well it would most likely depend on how profitable the enterprise or general type of business it is and the amount of tithing it contributes to the pile. If enough money is involved it becomes a matter of being an offer they can't refuse and they can let the apologists figure out how to justify it later so they as usual can sidestep offering any genuine moral guidance beyond the usual bromides.
18 And the man said: The woman thou gavest me, and commandest that she should remain with me, she gave me of the fruit of the tree and I did eat. Moses 4:18
Hope all is well! Nice piece. Goes to show what happens when religious extremism rules the day.
In the TribTalk session a day or two after the press conference I thought it was interesting that when the gal asked Elder Oaks and Christofferson about specific examples where things might get a bit messy Elder Oaks made it clear that the church teaches principles and then the community and the larger population sets the standards/laws. Kind of along the line of teach correct principles and let them govern themselves. I'm sure that they are well aware that when the rubber meets the road there are going to be lots of compromises made.
The doctor in your parody made his own decisions based on principle, but it sounds like he was better off losing most of his patients. A bit too hardline for mainstream medical practice. Your parody made it clear how funny/sad it can get when something is taken to to the extreme. But it does happen.
mentalgymnast wrote:Hey Runtu, ... Your parody made it clear how funny/sad it can get when something is taken to to the extreme. But it does happen.
Regards, MG
---funny/sad --- >>>
--- funny --- The best way to stress the stupidity of an extreme is making a joke about. Making a parody (Runtu here), creating a musical (Book of Mormon), drawing a caricature (Hebdo). Some extremists can not take it --- they kill, bomb, blast even by their children.
--- sad --- it does happen
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
A bit too hardline for mainstream medical practice. Your parody made it clear how funny/sad it can get when something is taken to to the extreme. But it does happen.