SALT LAKE CITY — LDS Church leaders made national news this week when they called for balance between gay and religious rights, drawing strong criticism from conservative churches and progressive LGBT groups.
Two days later, Mormon leaders said those reactions proved their point that churches should not seek an all-or-nothing approach that considers religious rights to be absolute and LGBT groups should avoid an uncompromising pursuit of absolutes in gay rights that infringe on religious liberty.
However, others hailed the LDS Church's announcement that it supports laws providing civil rights protections for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people if religious freedom protections also are ensured.
Jonathan Rauch, a gay rights advocate, said The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was making "a startling offer to gay and lesbian America: If you will support reasonable religious-liberty exemptions for us, we will support expanded civil-rights protections for you."
Rauch, an openly gay Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, wrote an opinion piece in the New York Daily News saying gay rights leaders should seize the LDS "olive branch."
"Mormon support for expanded civil rights can be a game-changer," he wrote, adding, "the right way to read the Mormon statement is as an invitation to talk, not as a final offer. The statement calls for 'understanding and goodwill, including some give and take.'"
Gays feel stung by what Rauch said appear to them to be a "take all the marbles" mentality demonstrated by religious conservatives. He cited recent attempts in Kansas, Arizona and Mississippi to pass laws that would have exempted religious objectors from obeying anti-discrimination laws, even though such laws that don't exist in those states.
The law passed in Mississippi.
On the other hand, evangelicals believe some gays want to completely do away with the idea of religious conscience and religious exemptions.
"What we are now witnessing is a radical acceleration of the movement to redefine religious liberty so that (it) means almost nothing," said Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
In fact, Mohler spoke at LDS Church-owned Brigham Young University 16 months ago and said evangelicals and Mormons might go to jail together defending religious freedom. He has met several times with Mormon leaders.
Mohler said the LDS Church was asking for what gay advocates would have accepted three years ago, but in the past 18 months, the number of states where gay marriage has jumped from 13 to 36 and a U.S. Supreme Court decision on whether states can restrict marriage to between a man and a woman is due in June.
Mohler said the reaction of gay advocacy groups to the LDS announcement proved his point.
New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal said the "war on religion" is fake and that LDS Church leaders "wanted legal permission to use their religion as an excuse to discriminate." (Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles responded directly to Rosenthal, saying he "would be ashamed to make a comparable statement saying that nondiscrimination is just trying to wipe out religious freedom.")
Human Rights Campaign legal director Sarah Warbelow said the nation's largest LGBT advocacy group shares the church's commitment to religious freedom but awaits "the day the church embraces that fully, without any exceptions or exemptions.”
Mormons have what Elder Oaks termed a "conscious parallelism" with leaders from many faiths and other national and international thought leaders on issues of marriage and religious freedom. In November, a senior LDS leader spoke at a Vatican conference on marriage.
One conservative Catholic publication said the LDS announcement left Catholics and Southern Baptists alone in opposition to work and housing protections for gays and lesbians.
But Crux also offered a brief defense of Mormons against the harsher gay critics who said LDS leaders want a license to discriminate: "A less cynical view is that Mormons are joining many mainstream Protestant denominations in recognizing the need for anti-bias laws — even if they themselves aren’t on board with gay marriage."
The U.S. conference of bishops as a whole has opposed the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act and similar laws, but separately, many are supportive of a moderate path. Bishops who oppose nondiscrimination laws fear increasing claims of bias against Catholic institutions from schools and charities to hospitals and universities, Crux said. The LDS Church operates four universities and multiple charities, but relative to Catholics has far less exposure.
"With the Supreme Court set to rule on same-sex marriage this year," Crux noted, the Catholic Church may find itself embroiled in more fights with gay and lesbian employees and their supporters."
The Catholic archbishop of Philadelphia, Charles Chaput, visited last week with LDS leaders in Salt Lake City and spoke at BYU, where he said of Mormons and Catholics, "We have reached a point of friendliness, I think we've kind of been forced to it by circumstances. If we don't hang together, we'll hang alone, individually."
LDS leaders said this week they cherish their relationships with Mohler, Chaput and other faith leaders and will continue to work with them to defend religious freedom.
But now it is even clearer that they are advocates for nondiscrimination laws protecting gays from discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodation like hotels, restaurants and other businesses — if those laws safeguard religious liberties.
They previously had declared their position during Prop 8 in 2008 again in 2009 when they supported a successful Salt Lake City nondiscrimination ordinance.
Now it remains to be seen how much influence the LDS leaders' proposal will have. Elder Oaks said they will be disappointed if it doesn't make a difference.
It may not change many minds among LDS legislators around the country, but it will does help church members who support nondiscrimination. The majority of Americans do, and Mormons are more likely to if told beforehand about a specific statement of support by their church leaders, according to a 2012 survey for the new book “Seeking the Promised Land: Mormons and American Politics.”
“What this does is it empowers a whole litany of LDS members,” Arizona state Rep. Ed Ableser, a Democrat, told the Washington Post. “When I propose policy, it gives me a little bit more strength, a little bit more courage, a little bit more backing."
Two days after the church's announcement on Tuesday, the Idaho Legislature's state affairs committee, which included LDS legislators, voted 13-4 to hold a nondiscrimination bill. But it wasn't a sign Mormons wouldn't vote for nondiscrimination. Instead, legislators questioned whether the bill included enough safeguards for religion.
Email: twalch@deseretnews.com