I watched the video associated with this lesson about how to talk to people that do not accept "the Lord's standard of marriage". I have some commentary.SS lesson scheduled for May 19th.
https://www.lds.org/study/manual/come-f ... 9?lang=eng
1) the protagonist was verbally attacked for her religious beliefs by another student. This was in a public setting moderated by a professor but at least it wasn't the college professor that did the attacking as in the "God is not dead" movie.
2) protagonist talks to bishop. This happens during an activity making hygiene kits. Appears to be a student ward. Bishop appears to be in his 30s with a blue button down shirt. no tie, no jacket. When protagonist asks to talk he says to have a seat in his "office" but this must have been in jest because they just sit on the stage in full view of everybody. I am wondering if the producers of the video are thinking that the optics of having a young woman going into and older gray haired man's office alone for advice might not be great. The bishops advice is pretty phenomenal. He basically says to listen and try to understand where the antagonist is coming from. He says that rather than try to "win" the conversation, the ultimate goal should be to achieve respectful space to have our beliefs as we respect others to have the same space. Bishop also recommends reading scriptures for more than just 10 minutes a day.
3) montage of protagonist reading scriptures.
4) conclusion discussion between protagonist and antagonist. Protagonist asks antagonist to explain motivations. Antagonist talks about moral code and fairness for all. Protagonist says that she is all about fairness including standing up for Gay rights and that gay people should not be discriminated against in cases of employment or housing. She then goes on to make a religious liberty argument that appears shaky to me. She equates the right to be gay with the right to be religious and says that a nurse with religious convictions about abortion should not be required to assist that procedure. Also that a marriage therapist the believes in traditional marriage should be able to politely decline to take SSM patients. The religious beliefs of these persons should be accommodated similarly to the accommodation afforded to gay individuals. You get to be openly religious just like a gay person gets to be openly gay. This is presented as being "fair to everyone."
I wish the antagonist could have shared the story of a gay family member that was finally able to marry after many years of being denied. That would have made a better argument and serve to humanize the antagonist. This would have better explained why the antagonist was so vocal and passionate about the issue (rather than just being an atheist with a chip on her shoulder) but that is probably not the intent of this 12 minute video.
I am having a difficult time understanding how the protagonist came up with these religious liberty talking points after reading the scriptures. I also find the religious liberty argument presented here inconsistent. A marriage therapist should be able to deny patients in SSM relationships because of religious convictions? Does it matter if the marriage counselor is the only counselor in town and the closest available alternative is a long drive away? Why does that not extend to employers that do not wish to hire openly gay individuals or landlords that do not wish to rent to openly gay individuals? Do employers and landlords not get to express their religious convictions?
The video ends on a reconciliatory tone between the protagonist and the antagonist where the antagonist seems to be thoughtfully and respectfully considering the religious liberty argument.