Like 750,000 other California Mormons, I sat amongst my fellow ward members in our local chapel today as our bishop read the Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families memo over the pulpit. He followed that by reading a memo outlining the church's views on political neutrality. He closed by asking each of us to ponder in our hearts in the coming days and weeks how we could best follow the prophet and implement his advice.
There was no discernable reaction from the congregation ?¢Ç¨Äú no murmurings of disapproval, nor whispers of agreement; no heads silently nodding in assent, or shaking with quiet displeasure. The subject did not come up in our Gospel Doctrine class, nor during our combined Priesthood/Relief Society lesson. If there was discussion about the memo in the hallway, I didn't hear it.
My reaction? During the reading of the memo, and for most of Sacrament Meeting, my heart beat fast and my face slowly burned. What was my emotion? Anger? Disappointment? Sadness? Not really. Sure, I've felt those emotions with regard to this issue, but I've known about the memo for days, and I've always maintained a pragmatic, low-expectations approach to the issue: I'm optimistic that positive changes for Gays in the church will occur, but it won't happen overnight, and it will inevitably come about via the stumbling two-steps-forward-one-step-back process. This was yet another proverbial step back.
So if I wasn't feeling noticeable anger or sadness, why was my heart thumping like a pair of shoes in a Whirlpool washer-dryer?
It took me a few moments, but I finally realized what it was: Impotence. I wanted to do something, I wanted to say something. But do what? Say what?
According to Menlove:
In this story, the final performance appraisal reduces all criteria to compassion. There is not a whisper about creeds or doctrine. There is not a word about cursing, or attendance at church meetings, or homosexuality. Nothing about fame, knowledge, or fortune. It is so simple it's scary.
Actually, that's not quite correct. It does not simply reduce to compassion. The difference between the sheep and the goats is action. It is compassion with action. The goats are goats because of inaction. They did nothing. There is no indication they had hostility or any ill will. They didn't do anything wicked, they just failed to do good.
But the Bible is concerned not only with suffering but also with causes of suffering. In fact, it could be argued that 'the Bible is less concerned with alleviating the effects of injustice, than in eliminating its causes.' William Sloan Coffin puts it this way: 'Said prophet Amos, ?¢Ç¨ÀúLet justice' ?¢Ç¨Äú not charity ?¢Ç¨Äú ?¢Ç¨Àúroll down like mighty waters,' and for good reason: whereas charity alleviates the effects of poverty, justice seeks to eliminate the causes of it.'
It is a lot easier to talk about charity than about social justice. Social justice talk leads to political controversy. But ignoring social justice issues because they raise political issues is itself a very political position in favor of the status quo. We are called on to be more than an effective and compassionate ambulance service. It is important to save poor orphans from burning buildings, but it is also vital to work toward a society where orphans are not poor and buildings adhere to fire codes.
In other words, as followers of Jesus, we are called not only to care for those who are suffering, but also to transform the conditions that bring about suffering.
Postscript, July 18, 2008:
I had a wonderful meeting with my bishop last night.?Ǭ I told him I wanted to focus on the needs of our Gay brothers and sisters, and the feelings for Members who might not agree with the Church’s stance on this issue, rather than the political, social, or religious pros and cons of Gay Marriage, or the very complex nature of sexual attraction.?Ǭ
I’ll keep the rest of our meeting private, except to say that I think we both felt uplifted by the conversation, and that he appeared to be very touched by my “Care Package” (which included everything listed above, plus Carol Lynn Pearson’s “No More Goodbyes“).?Ǭ
He closed by thanking me again, and saying,?Ǭ”I wish every Bishop had a Matt Thurston in his ward.”?Ǭ Ha.?Ǭ That made me smile.?Ǭ Not that I doubted his sincerity for a moment, but that was one of those “Was that a compliment… or not?” statements. 🙂
Matt can you email me privately. I need to ask a question.
A P.R. firm has been hired by the church. So things about the P.R. firm have been found like the names of the owners and their political activity. Thought some of you might find it interesting.
Schubert Flint Public Affairs
1415 L Street, Suite 1250
Sacramento, CA 95814
FAX: 916 – 448 – 5933
Owners: Frank Schubert, Jeff Flint
Office manager: Ms. Kristy Babb
You can take a look at their webpage: http://www.schubertpa.com/
TEXT OF LETTER ON NET:
Letter from public affairs official in California regarding Sunday’s nnouncement encouraging LDS support of anti-Gay legislation
—-
Brothers and Sisters,
We have been informed that Sunday morning, June 29, after members have heard the letter from the First Presidency read from the pulpit, some news crews may attempt to interview members of the Church as they are leaving services.
While we cannot, nor should we, do anything to stop the media from interviewing rank and file members — who are not speaking on behalf of the Church, it would be against the guidance from headquarters for any such interview or for news cameras to be in our Church buildings.
Please note that SLC, and the California office of Public Affairs are both referring any media inquiries on the subject to the coalition handling the campaign. It is imperative that DPA’s and their Assistants do the same. Any institutional media inquiries on this issue should be referred to Frank Schubert or Jeff Flint at 916 448 4234 at coalition headquarters.
For further questions regarding the role of Public Affairs, please call Keith Atkinson @ 800 533 2444.
Thank you.
Keith Atkinson
=======
END TEXT
On the company website, they claim a 90% “win” record on getting voter initiatives passed. A listing of their initiative campaigns indicates that none of them have been on an issue such as this one. Jeff Flint’s former job was with a firm that provided PR services for “Move America Forward,” who’s purpose is to promote the war in Iraq.
Jeff Flint donated $2,300 (the legal limit for an individual) to the campaign of John McCain, and the receipt was dated June 30, 2007 (when Romney was still in the race). Mr. Flint’s address, as disclosed by the McCain campaign, is 1938 Ladera Drive, Lincoln, CA, 95648-7029.
In 2001, Jeff Flint signed a stipulation with the Fair Political Practices Commission, admitting to violating the Political Reform Act “by failing to report subvendor information,” and together with his co-defendants, having to pay an “administrative penalty” of $14,000.00 for his failure to follow some sections of California civil law. Jeff Flint was acting as a campaign manager for Curt Pringle. You can find the stipulation here: ttp://www.fppc.ca.gov/Agendas/December01/pringleStip.pdf
Here is another P.R. letter of instructions for Orange county church members that has interesting information.
To: All OC Public Affairs Personnel
Cc: Other Interested Persons
By now many of you serving in Public Affairs may have been invited by
your Stake Presidency to join other stake priesthood and auxiliary
leaders in attending a special meeting. That was to discuss points
that originated last Sunday, June 29, with a historic live interactive
telecast emanating from SLC among Elders Ballard, Cook, Wickman and
Clayton with CA Stake Presidents.
We have been asked to study out the above issue ?¢Ç¨Äú starting with the
First Presidency letter that was read in Church last Sunday and the
Proclamation on the Family. You should all have copies of these
items. As the year goes on, Public Affairs is apt to get ever more
involved, under proper Priesthood direction. This will be especially
true after Labor Day, when getting out the vote will be crucial.
Meanwhile we are asked to use ?¢Ç¨?ìour best efforts?¢Ç¨¬ù and to do ?¢Ç¨?ìall we
can?¢Ç¨¬ù to support this initiative with both our ?¢Ç¨?ìmeans and time.?¢Ç¨¬ù
To help you get prepared, here are some pertinent materials I have
gathered on this issue, for your summer reading.
1. In Re Marriage Cases. See attached PDF summary of these
consolidated cases, as issued by the Cal Sup. Ct. on 5-15-08. The
majority decision is 121 pages long plus concurring and dissenting
opinions. Essentially, the court has determined that any
classification based on sexual orientation is a ?¢Ç¨?ìsuspect
classification?¢Ç¨¬ù that requires ?¢Ç¨?ìstrict scrutiny?¢Ç¨¬ù under the ?¢Ç¨?ìequal
protection?¢Ç¨¬ù clause of the CA Constitution. It also found that the CA
Constitution has granted a ?¢Ç¨?ìfundamental right to marry.?¢Ç¨¬ù In 1948, that
enabled the court invalidate statutory restrictions on interracial
marriage. On these grounds, the court then proceeded to invalidate
the existing statutory restrictions on same-gender marriages that were
passed as Proposition 22 in 2000.
The Protectmarriage.com website. This is the key website of the
central coalition of churches and other organizations that have been
promoting what is now Prop. 8 for over a year. You will first see a
list of member organizations and sponsoring individuals belonging to
this coalition. Also see links on the left-hand side for ?¢Ç¨?ìFAQS?¢Ç¨¬ù and
some good talking points under ?¢Ç¨?ìWhy it is needed.?¢Ç¨¬ù
3. LDS.org Website. See this long but exceptionally important
and well articulated 2007 interview by Public Affairs with Elders
Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman on ?¢Ç¨?ìSame-Gender Attraction.?¢Ç¨¬ù It
is at:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction
4. Meridian Magazine. ?¢Ç¨?ìWhat difference will same-gender
marriage make to you??¢Ç¨¬ù See this link:
http://www.ldsmag.com/familyleadernetwork/080627marriage.html
Also see http://www.ldsmag.com/familyleadernetwork/080619ignore.html
These articles explore some of the possibly unintended consequences of
this recent Cal. Supreme Court decision.
5. NB Stake Talking Points. See attached PDF with some key
talking points created by my own Newport Beach Stake President
Weatherford Clayton. More official talking points will are being
prepared and will be provided through proper channels by LDS Church HQ
in Salt Lake City.
6. Church News Article. From 2004 issue on the benefits of
families raised within male-female marriages
HISPANICS AGAINST PROP 8. See first email attached above.
HISPANICS WHO SUPPORT IT. See email #3 attached above.
As the June 20th First Presidency letter said, more information will
be made available to you from time to time through local priesthood
channels.
You may also be aware that the new Managing Director of LDS Public
Affairs in SLC will be Michael Otterson. He has been serving as
assistant to Bruce Olsen and is originally from Australia. Brother
Olsen will be the new San Diego Temple President.
Most sincerely,
Joseph I. Bentley, Director
Orange County Public Affairs
61 Montecito Drive
Corona del Mar, CA 92625-1018
(H) 949/720-9777, (C) 949/500-9959
The “Letter” was read in my Ward here in Oregon this morning, (July 6). After a few moments, I walked out. I do feel that my action was a bit useless, but I couldn’t just sit there anymore. I’m nearly 60 years old, I have raised a family and toed the line all my life. I remain committed to my husband and . . . . . . . . .I have been gay all of my life. I won’t sit down for this one. In fact, I’m not sitting down EVER again.
Hey Eugene,
Per M. Gandhi, 7 deadly sins =
Wealth without Work
Pleasure without Conscience
Science without Humanity
Knowledge without Character
Politics without Principle
Commerce without Morality
Worship without Sacrifice
The last will surely mean different things to different people. To me it means that it’s OK that I’m sometimes miserable at church and that I’m often in disagreement with those sitting next to me or at the podium in front. I don’t mind sacrificing my comfort a bit here and there or being at odds. I don’t need my entire experience to be pleasant.
–Rick
Thanks Rick. Your explanation allows me to understand you and your point better. It also makes me think about a new hero of mine (in addition to Gandhi), a Russian Orthodox priest who exemplifies your point like no one else I know of or have read about. He lived between 1893 and 1973 and spent much of his life in the Soviet death camps. He is known as Father Arseny and his life is the definition of “worship WITH sacrifice”. I have been chastened and mellowed by his example.
Rick (#42) – I am not the one who says that Mormons should think/believe/feel the exact same way. What is religion if not an invitation to think/believe/feel the same way.
Also, I was never talking about people who disagree with me. I have nothing to do with it – and frankly, no one here knows what I believe on the gay issue – nor should they care.
I do know how the church feels about it (as clearly expressed by the letter – among thousands of other evidences). That, my friend, is the issue.
You also wrote:
If you could, would you make everyone in the church agree with you just by wishing it?
My response: uh . . . hello, agency.
You said:
That?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s dangerous stuff.
My response: What is dangerous stuff? Agency is dangerous stuff? Or, you didn’t know that that was how I was going to answer?
The pre-1978 analogy is totally ridiculous. Church leaders have always asked members to support them based on what they know, and the direction they’ve received from God (remember, Rick, it is not me asking that). Right now, church leaders have asked members to support the fight against the legal recognition of gay marriage. You and others on this board, apparently are not doing that. That doesn’t make you bad people. It just means you aren’t doing what the first presidency has asked in this particular regard. Can we agree on that much? I am happy to leave open the door and say that their direction could change and become more compassionate. But that doesn’t change the fact that they have asked something of the members – and you aren’t doing it.
See . . . this is dangerous stuff. Religion in general is dangerous stuff. Members are asked to obey orders from leaders. A member’s high-minded, “I’m smarter than the bretheren” attitude is something that they (not me) ask members to put on the alter of sacrifice.
My friend, Anon:
(why not at least use a pseudonym? We have so many anon’s that I get you all mixed up).
You seem quite upset, and I’m sorry if I further upset you with my reaction to your post.
I agree that obedience is an important part of worship and that we’re frequently asked to sacrifice our own best judgment and trust theirs. In the past, I’ve dealt with this by never speaking my mind on the issue (even with family) but still voting my conscience (in favor of gay marriage).
But now that the church is pushing harder, I’m stuck in a very uncomfortable situation–is it really right to submit to something I completely, totally disagree with? I’m not sure I have an answer for that. The two extreme answers (submit or protest) both seem wrong to me, and Matt’s thoughtful approach seems like a brave, constructive, and faithful alternative.
You’re wrong to discount the comparison with the pre-1978 racist ban. While no comparison is perfect, these are close enough to make an instructive case study.
If I believed in 1977 that black people were equal to me, that they had committed no pre-mortal transgression, that they weren’t the decendants of a “curse,” and that they belonged in all levels of participation in the church—I would have been in sharp disagreement with the leadership of the church. But I would also have been right. Even McConkie admitted that the church was clearly wrong.
Today I’m in a similarly tenuous positon. Worse in some ways. The church not only wants to limit the way that homosexuals can participate within its own organization (which it certainly has the right to do) but it even wants to control the activity of non-mormon homosexuals.
I can’t support that. On an issue this important, I’d rather make the gravest of errors than surrender my own best judgment.
Perhaps you are right and I am a worse member than you. But our history demonstrates that revelation is not just a top-down process. And troublesome as they may be, dissenting, questioning members have influenced the church for the better.
Great comment, Rick (#57)!!
This thread continues to generate many thoughtful comments both for and against the ideas expressed in the original post, all of which typify Sunstone’s maxim: faith seeking understanding. I thank everyone for their contributions and thoughts regarding this difficult and challenging issue. Please feel free to keep the dialogue going…
Rick (57) –
You wrote:
Perhaps you are right and I am a worse member than you.
My response:
How did you come to the conclusion I am member of the church?
You may or may not have some way of knowing that, but I think my status has nothing to do with it whatsoever. We are talking about what the Mormon religion requires of its adherents. Why can’t you get that?
(no need to worry that I am getting “quite upset” – does anyone really get upset over internet discussion boards? If so, they should have their head checked.)
anon (56):
You say, “Members are asked to obey orders from leaders.” I don’t view the current Church authorities as giving “orders” in the sense that term is usually understood.
Perhaps in Brigham Young’s time the concept of “giving orders” had a bit more validity. The nineteenth century Church was headquartered in a relatively isolated corner of the world and local Church leaders usually doubled as civic leaders. Even then, however, BY didn’t give “orders” nearly so often as popular culture assumes. Generally he gave “counsel” and those who had faith that he was God’s annointed one (or who just wanted to fit into the community) tended to follow it.
I do not believe “the Mormon religion requires of its adherents” that they toe the line on this issue or leave the Church. The letter from the First Presidency says, “We ASK that you do all you can to support … (etc.) (Emphasis added.) I hope this will not become a litmus test for membership. Indeed, I feel I can truthfully say that I “sustain Thomas Monson as a prophet, seer and revelator” and still believe he is human and may have erred in taking the political position that California needs a “preservation of marriage” constitutional amendment. Our religion does not require us to believe our prophets are infallible.
I think we’ll learn that a small (but significant) minority of members will not vote for the proposed amendment and will not work for its passage. There is probably a larger minority who will question (at least in their own minds) whether the bretheren are right on this issue.
Unlike Rick, I was an adult member of the Church before the revelation extending the priesthood to all black members and I did not agree with that position. I did not leave the Church because I felt there was much good in it and I continued to sustain its leaders. I was content to wait for change, but didn’t hesitate to let my acquaintenances know how I felt about the issue. Perhaps I should have done more. I was relieved when the revelation finally came, but felt it was much too late.
I feel the same way about the gay marriage issue. I don’t expect the Church will change its position anytime soon, but since I’m convinced its position on this issue is wrong, and since I know the brethern have human failings just like the rest of us, I’m content to wait (if impatiently) for the change. It may not come during my lifetime, but I believe it will. I recognize that others may differ and I also recognize that I may be wrong. But this is a possibility I’m willing to live with. I suppose only time will tell.
anon #59. You say, “does anyone really get upset over internet discussion boards?” Yeah, I think some do and bring their vulnerability to the table. I salute them. Sorry you feel you have to hide and play cat and mouse games. It does our dialogue–especially this particular thread–disservice.
Fair (60):
Thanks for your comment. I don’t have time to give you the response you deserve. I would just say that there is a difference between agreeing with the bretheren and sustaining them. I used the word “support” intentionally in my comment (56).
Eugene (61):
I don’t get upset because I know that 99.9 times out of 100 I would be friends with whoever I am addressing / responding to on a discussion board – especially this discussion board.
Discussion board aggression makes about as much sense (maybe less) than road rage.
Also, to respond to your #45. You said: How can you possibly be so narrow and ignorant of such historic artistic blessings?
My response: Why do you think that my answer would be “yes” to the question I posed in #40? I feel like people have made a few unwarranted assumptions in connection to my comments (that, I believe is a disservice).
As an LDS father of a gay son, I met with our entire stake presidency, after much persuasion. It was the result of meeting with two bishops of my ward (they changed about the time of my son coming out) and a former bishop, former lds chaplain. None of these men had anything helpful to say at all. Education is desperately needed. I met with the stake presidency to share our situation (which includes having our gay son and his partner live with us while they struggle through school). As for your bishop package, Carol Lynn Pearson’s “No More Goodbyes” is a very helpful. The personal stories in there will generate compassion in all except the unreachable. Although not universally accepted, something about the Kinsey scale is very useful helping people understand that change is possible for some, not for others.
No, the church will not change it’s position on this one. It is so central to the core of our doctrine “about the family” that for them to change would cause the church to break apart and lose it’s authority.
I am thrilled thee brethren have spoken out. It stops all the “I don’t know how to feel” crowd from having misplaced compassion and doctrines that change with the wind. I don’t have a problem with God being the same today as He was yesterday. I don’t have a problem with Him changing the rules when He wants to. I don’t have a problem with Him calling prophets to keep the line of communication open.
I for one, am not afraid to stand up and pronounce that homosexuality is wrong. Being gay is not, only practicing is. I have a gay son. I have more tender feelings towards him because of his struggle than I do my other children. I have no doubt the Lord has these very feelings. However, He as a more eternal perspective than I do and I must patiently wait for more comfort, confirmations and instruction as how to finish raising my son. Until then, I will seek the counsel of the brethren.
I do like the comment posted above that marriage elevates the status of families and provides protections. If gays are going to continue to break God’s commandments, then we should provide a status for them that provides protection and benefits of marriage (because of the children), but not the religious title that God gave to heterosexual couples since the beginning of time. I just see it as a mockery to God. It is not our title to re-define. It is not their privilege to take.
Brian (#63), Thanks for your comment, and your recommendation to buy CLP’s No More Goodbye’s. I actually ordered two copies of the book from Barnes & Noble this morning, one for me and one for my bishop. I’ve almost bought the book at past Sunstone Symposiums, and again when I saw it on sale in the foyer of her former son-in-law’s one-man play, “Confessions of A Mormon Boy,” which I saw last year in Los Angeles.
Anon (#62), please delineate between “agree,” “sustain,” and “support.” Because I’m not following you. I think Trying to be Fair and Rick Jepson have done a fine job of demonstrating how one can support and sustain, and still disagree.
There is ample historical evidence that even the various members of the Q12 have often disagreed with each other, while still supporting and sustaining each other. Prince’s David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism and Bergera’s Conflict in the Quorum come to mind.
Think Widstoe and Talmadge vs. Joseph Fielding Smith on Evolution. Think Hugh Brown vs. McConkie, Peterson, and Benson on Blacks & the Priesthood. Think Orson Pratt vs. Brigham Young on Adam/God. These were major doctrinal issues, easily on par with the issue of Defining Marriage. If Apostles can’t agree with each other — but still find it within themselves to support and sustain each other — why should we agree?
I’ll close with a quote by Apostle Orson Pratt:
“[I am] not a man to make a confession of what I do not believe. I am not going to crawl to Brigham Young and act the hypocrite. I will be a free man… It may cost me my fellowship, but I will stick to it. If I die tonight, I would say, O Lord God Almighty, I believe what I say.”
I think many of us feel the same way.
anon, it’s too bad that you don’t seem to want to engage in the meaningful discussion.
We won’t get very fair so long as you crouch behind anonymity and answer every single post with “you don’t know who I am” instead of speaking to the substance.
I know you disclaim anger, but you seem very full of emotion and very inflammatory. I’m sorry that I probably added to that. It’s a very thorny issue and I find myself overwhelmed by it.
TryingtobeFair: Thanks for your last post. It explained my feelings much better than I did myself.
Matt, thanks for the quote and for (finally) getting a really stirring thread here on the underused forum.
Matt, what the ref on that O. Pratt quote?
thanks.
Matt(65)-
I am sorry I have apparently given myself to rampant mischaracterization. I never said that one must AGREE with the bretheren on everything. I’ve only said that they have to “fall in line” or “get on the bus.” These are my synonyms for “sustain” or the interchangeable “support.”
“Agreement” with the first presidency appears to rarely if ever be a requirement of the Mormon church. So I will concede that one can disagree with the first presidency and still sustain them (this accounts for all of your examples cited above).
I believe that to sustain/support the first presidency means to recognize that they are called of God and obey their counsel.
anon, comment 69 was refreshingly engaging.
Thanks.
Rick (#68), that colorful quote, and many others, can be found in Gary Bergera’s book, Conflict in the Quorum.
Pratt also said, “We have hitherto acted too much as machines… as to following the Spirit… I will confess to my own shame [that] I have decided contrary to my own [judgment] many times… I mean hereafter not to demean myself as to let my feelings run contrary to my own judgment… When [President Young] says that the Spirit of the Lord says thus and so, I don’t consider [that]… [and] all we should do is to say let it be so.”
I think what he is trying to say is that when the prophet speaks, we shouldn’t just say “let it be so,” but that we should seek our own independent spiritual guidance as well. It’s like Hugh B. Brown said:
“Preserve the freedom of your mind in education and in religion, and be unafraid to express your thoughts and to insist upon your right to examine every proposition. We are not so much concerned with whether your thoughts are orthodox or heterodox as we are that you shall have thoughts.” [emphasis added]
Of course, Heber C. Kimball articulated Anon’s and Shelly’s point of view:
“Brother Orson Pratt has withstood Joseph [Smith] and he has withstood Brother Brigham [Young] many times and he has done it tonight and it made my blood chill. It is not for you to lead [the prophet],” Kimball continued, “but to be led by him. You have not the power to dictate but [only] to be dictated [to].”
What makes my blood run chill is the concept that I am only “to be dictated to.” But these debates have been waged since the dawn of man. I’d like to think both Brigham Young and Joseph Smith were BETTER prophets for having a guy like Orson Pratt in the quorum, someone who would speak his conscience and not simply be “dictated to,” or who would just “get on the bus.”
And I hope we have Orson Pratts in the Q12 today, but something tells me we don’t, at least not on this issue.
But really, we may. In our children’s or grandchildren’s view of history, there may be another Brown or Pratt in the 12 quietly arguing points or nudging things along. I think only time can reveal this.
But I get the impression that Elder Faust had a great deal of that in him. And I suspect a few others.
Rick, your comment (66) was strange – and it would take longer than it is worth to set you straight – but I will if you want, but you never answered me.
In the meantime – let me try clarifying. To “sustain” in the context of this dialogue is to 1. recognize that the first presidency is called of God (no one seems to have a problem with this), 2. Obey their counsel (ah – there’s the rub).
Do you all agree / disagree that, in the context of this dialogue, that is a fair definition of “sustain”?
In my view, accepting this definition has a lot of implications for this discussion.
1. “Sustain” and “agree” are two different things. We are instructed to sustain our leaders, even if we don’t agree with them. Agreed?
2. Those of us who oppose the first presidency’s position as articulated in the letter on gays, and those of us who hope for the success of the very thing which they have asked us to oppose are NOT sustaining the first presidency (on this issue). Can we admit that much?
3. I realize that “sustain” is probably not an all or nothing thing – (although (as demonstrated by my previous posts), I believe that people should endeavor to have it be all or nothing (to quote Matt T. Sh*t or get off the toilet)). That said, I think you could sustain the first presidency on 8 of 10 issues and still be deemed to sustain your leaders (subject to all kinds of circumstances not included herein). (Further, I am guessing guys like Matt and Rick are in that boat – it seems. Matt’s bishop is probably happy as a clam to have Matt break bread for the congregation- in spite of (or perhaps because of) his quandary.)
4. The “blacks and the priesthood” thing is not that instructive. Yes, it may provide an example of where they said X, but changed it to Y. But it doesn’t change what we are supposed to do, which is to sustain them. At best, it goes to whether we agree with them.
5. Matt- your quotes about q12s disagreeing with each other goes to the issue of AGREE, not to SUSTAIN.
6. I am trying to make this an issue of SUSTAIN. Can you disagree w/ the first presidency and still sustain? Yes. Can you disobey and still sustain? No. Is going against what they ask us to do disobedience? Probably. Is it excusable or justified? I don’t know. But, let’s not confuse what we are really talking about.
And, quit pretending like you all know where I stand on this. When you pigeon-hole a contributor you are a traitor to your own stated objectives. I am a little surprised that those who so earnestly seek to be understood don’t appear to return the favor.
What would Jesus do? I don’t think there is an obvious answer. It seems to me that we are told on the one hand not to be judgmental and to be tolerant, and on the other hand, if we disagree with the viewpoint that homosexuals should have “equality”, i.e., that they should have ‘marriages’ with all the same rights and priveleges as heterosexual couples, then we are met with indignation and even fury.
I think that everyone has the right to enter into contracts – but I think that we should recognize, not minimize the distinctions between the gender roles. We should not be forced to accept the feminization of our young men. Neither should we be indoctrinated into masculinizing our young women. They are fine just as they are, they need no re-education, and neither do we adults. We should not be forced in our public policies to regard masculinity and feminity as equals. YES – we should VALUE them equally, but that’s an entirely different matter – it doesn’t mean to blind ourselves to the obvious differences. I think every child deserves the masculine and feminine models in his development. I believe that development is essential to everyone, and can only occur when there are distinctly different but equally valued gender roles. Mothers are nurturers, fathers are individualists. This is not pigeonholing; it is recognition . We are all still free to be whoever/whatever we wish. But we should not go to such extremes of misguided “equality” that we ignore the fundamental masculine/feminine energies and what they mean to society and culture. For far too long we have labored under the demands of political agendas that we blind ourselves to direct observation. We don’t have to fault ourselves or believe that it is blind prejudice to observe that men and women are different and that that polarity is there on purpose and (in my estimation at least) for a divine purpose.
It seems to me that to institute gay marriage against the wishes of society would be to compel us to believe that marriage is solely for the purpose of gratification of the sexual desire. It seems to me that it cheapens marriage, places it firmly on the plane of physical attraction and nothing more.
If you believe that gay marriage is the right thing to do, upon what principle do you then prohibit other marriages that people may be interested in consummating, say, a man and his horse, (see Caligula), or a man and his thermostat?
Marriage is for the development and refinement of our character, it is more than a cathartic release or a discharge of sexual tension. I believe that when God created Male and Female, he provided that opposition or polarity for our ultimate good, and perhaps in no other way could we achieve our ultimate character building potential. Now, what evidence exists that the Lord will bless the union of two males together, or two females? Are you asserting that at some point the Lord will reveal to us that we are to permit such marriages in His Temple?
I am tired of being judged as lacking “compassion” because I have a different viewpoint. I am tired of the incredulous stares I get from the progressive liberals when I tell them my beliefs about sexual identity and sexual development. Why is it any concern of theirs what I believe or how I view this issue? It’s a private matter, and I am disgusted to no end when I see how the gay agenda far too often permeates our popular culture all with the insidious motive of changing our minds to one of acceptance, and so-called ‘tolerance’. If I have to tolerate your viewpoint, then you have to tolerate mine. So let’s see how much compassion you really exercise.
The Supreme Court of California apparently has no compassion or tolerance for people who believe anything other than gay marriage is a Constitutional ‘right’. I guess that makes me the stupid rube that fell off the turnip truck.
Sorry, Anon #62 re #40, you lost me. But it looks like Rick #70 got found. 🙂 Nice to see some “stick-to-it-ness.” Lots of energy still in this thread!
Shelly M #64, I sincerely hope your sensitive son has a healthy inner self-image despite the judgment you clearly have on him. He has an uphill struggle not to take that on. I know this struggle myself. Does he really confide in you? Have you read CLP’s book, “No more goodbyes”?
Your comment: ?¢Ç¨?ìIn other words, as followers of Jesus, we are called not only to care for those who are suffering, but also to transform the conditions that bring about suffering.?¢Ç¨¬ù
Transformation starts with the self. It is an inward realization of an outward expression. It is interesting to read your struggle with your outward surroundings! Relax?¢Ç¨¬¶take a deep breath and realize that your struggles are no different than anyone?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s else. The may differ in what you choose to give meaning to, but they are all the same. They all are ?¢Ç¨?ìFEAR?¢Ç¨¬ù driven! Why? Because this is the level of consciousness we so freely choose to exist at.
Sure we are all sheep or goats. It is the meaning we choose and give to our existence of who we choose to be. Some have forgotten who we really are and love to play the game, ?¢Ç¨?ìSomething is broken so I must fix it!?¢Ç¨¬ù Christ came to show us not what we can become, but came to show us who we really are. Were we not made in the exact image of our heavenly father? We stress so incredibly hard about being right so that someone can be wrong and never stop to realize the game we are all playing. Is not the message really about ?¢Ç¨?ìinfinite-unconditional love?¢Ç¨¬ù instead of some institution being right and the others wrong! That is a zero sum game and there is no possibility.
In the beginning G_D gathered his sheep and his goats and shared an incredible plan called salvation. We all gathered, listened carefully and raised our hands to the square and agreed to the great plan! We exercised our free agency and gave meaning to an awesome plan that transcends time and has no end. Go ahead and pinch your cheek. Are we not here breathing and continuing to give meaning to this incredible existence we all agreed to? Did we not also by agreeing to the great plan of salvation also give meaning to the hereafter?
In the great plan we also gave meaning to the law of marriage. We all agreed that man and women would come together unto this institution ordained by G_D. Marriage is designed to help us all learn about our relationship with G_D and further our understanding of the relationship of our roles as ?¢Ç¨?ìCo-Creators?¢Ç¨¬ù. So, here lies the question in this blog! Why is it said that man and man and women and women are an abomination unto G_D? Is it perhaps man and man and women and women joined together cannot co-create? If there was no creation, then ultimately there would be no us and if there is no us then there would be no G_D, because there would ultimately be no us to give meaning to G_D and thus G_D would cease to exist and we would cease to exist!
Maybe one day we all will be able to walk past our fears and realize that G_D loves us unconditionally. Perhaps we will rise to the level of love that our savior so fervently taught. I am willing to give meaning to that. Are you?
Eugene, you are out of line. To suggest that I have a “judgment” on my son is mighty arrogant of you. He is not homosexual, he is gay. He is a prodigy piano player and a genius in math. He is struggling with the pseudo labels that society thrusts on anyone who is not like themselves (especially at school). However, we talk constantly about those “boundaries” and how important it is to follow Christ first.
Yes, I have read Carolyn’s book along with “Goodbye, I Love You.” I read almost everything I can get my hands on. I have taken this issue to prayer and fasting, and I can tell you that each of us has a struggle to bear. Being gay is one of the deeper ones, but not something that can’t be overcome through Christ.
I watch my son on a daily basis make small corrections and move in a direction that enhances his abilities to make choices that are conducive to the teachings of the Savior. There is no force, only a recognition and education that through Christ all things are possible.
I think that is where the gay community gives up. They think they are doomed to be this way, or even born this way. In reality it is like all the other tribulations we are “blessed” with to forge our spirits into becoming more like the Savior when we triumph over them.
The difference between humans and animals is that we all have impulses, but as humans we can decide whether we want to act on them.
anon said: “And, quit pretending like you all know where I stand on this.”
This is your own fault, but the solution is simple, stop hiding behind anonymity and start sharing your view and your person. So long as you refuse to open yourself up in dialogue, you won’t get far and no one will have notion of your stance aside from your critique of others.
Mike:
“but I think that we should recognize, not minimize the distinctions between the gender roles”
If they were only so well defined as you seem to imagine.
“It seems to me that to institute gay marriage against the wishes of society would be to compel us to believe that marriage is solely for the purpose of gratification of the sexual desire.”
If it were just about sex, do you really think homosexuals would be pushing for marriage?
“If you believe that gay marriage is the right thing to do, upon what principle do you then prohibit other marriages that people may be interested in consummating, say, a man and his horse, (see Caligula), or a man and his thermostat?”
One word: consent.
“Are you asserting that at some point the Lord will reveal to us that we are to permit such marriages in His Temple?”
Who has argued for this? I’ve not seen it on this thread anywhere. What the church does with its temples is clearly its business. But when the church weighs in on public policy–and implies that good membership is based on compliance–there’s a problem.
“The Supreme Court of California apparently has no compassion or tolerance for people who believe anything other than gay marriage is a Constitutional ?¢Ç¨Àúright?¢Ç¨Ñ¢.”
Translation: The Supreme Court has no compassion for intolerance. Shame on them.
We have checks and balances because the popular vote can lead to mob rule. If a majority of Californians wanted to re-institute slavery or set up separate bathrooms for black people, the Supreme Court could and should prevent them. That’s its function.
Shelly M #76, your passion for this subject comes across powerfully to me and I want very much to respond to your comments as clearly about it as I can. But before doing so, please explain your understanding of the difference between the terms “gay” and “homosexual”. I have long been under the impression they were synonymous. Obviously I need correction so that we are both on the same page. I don’t want us to preach to each other. I’d rather that we simply know each other’s stories. I, too, have a talented gay son in whom I have the deepest respect and confidence. He teaches me much. I mention him in one of CLP’s stories in “No More Goodbyes”.
Shelly – Is there a difference between someone who is gay and someone who is homosexual? My dictionary says they are synonyms. Is it the same sort of difference as between an American who is black and an “African American?” Is it a question of political correctness, or do you intend something more profound when you say your son is not homosexual, but gay?
I’m just looking for clarification.
anon, I have no idea which anon you are. And you have the right to remain anonymous even if it hampers your own ability to discuss (which doubles back and upsets you).
We have had a lot of anon’s here at sunstoneblog, and I’ve know who most of them were. I know for sure that you’re not the one who attacked Eugene irately a few months ago. (And who also posts with three or four different names even in the same thread to gange up on people). And I hope to hell that you’re not who I think you might be: J.
If you are J, you’re a lot better than your behavior on this thread, and you should knock it off and just be yourself.
If you’re another, new anon. Welcome. : )
But really, do yourself a favor and open up. Look at Eugene. We disagree on probably 95% of everything in the universe. But I sure never doubt where he stands, so our exchange is straighforward and symbiotic.
Hey Rick #81! Really 95%?? C’mon, let’s see if we can whittle that number down a bit. 🙂
I exaggerate! I’m sure it’s not more than 94%.
Ha!
But really, of course we agree on more than that. We also disagree about a whole, whole lot. Not even just in data, but in perspective.
And….that’s the beauty of a forum like this. Two wildly different people can exchange ideas to the mutual benefit of each.
Gay – Having feelings of same-sex attraction. Having tendencies outside of the societal norms.
Homosexual – Acting on those feelings and tendencies through sexual behavior.
I’ve not seen that deliniation before, but it helps me understand your post. Thanks for the clarification.
To Shelly M:
I appreciate reading of your faith. I too am LDS and have a son who is gay (I don’t distinguish between gay and homosexual). I emphathize deeply with your comment that you “read almost everything I can get my hands on.” That has been my life for the last 2+ years. My resolution of the situation has been different than yours, however.
I do have questions that I hope you will feel free to answer. You use the term the “gay community”. What does that term mean to you?
You stated that they (the gay community) “think they are doomed to be this way or even born this way”. What are your feelings on “born this way” and how have you arrived at them?
I ask because my wife and I are convinced my son was born gay. We had these feelings since he was very young. When he came out to us, it did not surprise us. My reaction to his coming out surprised me, however. When he said the words, my immediate reaction was of complete and utter sadness. Not because of lost dreams of ours as his parents, but that because of the expectations placed on him as an LDS youth he had been living a lie, never being able to be himself or even open up to us during his entire teenage years. I had told my wife for years that he was a “walking defense mechanism”. The years of deflecting our questions finally made sense. I cried for days because of the pain he must have been suffering, not because he was “gay”.
Your faith tells you this is “not something that can’t be overcome through Christ” and you mention “it is one of the deeper ones”. What I have come to struggle with is how our leaders sometimes do not even acknowledge “it is one of the deeper ones”. They sometimes dismiss it with comments that compare it to a tendency to anger, etc. Marginalizing the one aspect of humanity that has the largest affect on human nature will not help people to deal with homosexuality. I also struggle with the reluctance of leaders to say this may be God-given and it the cross to bear that gay people have. Given my belief that most gays (not all) are “born this way”, that is the only thing that makes sense to me. Anyone who has extensive experience in dealing with gays, realizes that “changing” rarely happens.
My disappointment stems from the fact that the church was the first place I looked for answers. I not only found no answers, I found the hostility of some of the brethren, not the least of which was chapter 6 of Miracle of Forgiveness.
I realize that you will disagree with much of what I have said. I post here in the hope of learning from you, since your faith has been able to withstand things that mine has not. I hope you have not abandoned the discussion here.
What we have here is a very chilling effect on religious freedom – what happens if an LDS bishop, or anyone else for that matter, religious or non-religious, refuse to marry gays together out of personal philosophical grounds? What if an unwed parent wishes to put up her child for adoption, and specifies that it be a heterosexual couple, because she desires the best future for her child?
I think there are quite a few unmasculine men in our nation, largely to the confusion of sex roles promulgated by a minority of folks who insist upon seeing things in terms of their own philosphy, and everyone else’s philosophy takes a hike.
A small minority of homosexual people are railroading the rest of us, against the wishes of the majority. What happened to majority rule? What happened to the idea of democracy? I guess only if you can convince a certain category of people that they are suffering “discrimination” can you then qualify to inflict your desires upon the masses. Such has happened in this case, to the detriment of religious freedom, and to the erosion of basic societal structures, such as the family.
No matter how “heroic” you claim that such an effort is, you have basically thwarted democracy, and NOT promoted it. I believe that is because hormones are calling the shots, and not the higher influences such as compassion, and/or tolerance, despite your efforts at camoflaging your real motives.
The liberal party is promoting feminine values and emasculating men in America. It’s time as a society that we shed our abhorrence of drawing true distinctions between the genders (yes, they DO exist), and celebrate them, not repress them, or try to assert that they are “equal” when what we really mean is that while we VALUE them equally, there are distinctions and differences. And those differences are there for a reason.
Mike (#74) said, “I think every child deserves the masculine and feminine models in his development.”
I agree, I think. Unfortunately, a significant percentage of children do not have both masculine and feminine role models in the home. And another significant percentage have male and female role models in the home, but not good ones.
To me, “Gender” as a necessary characteristic for parenthood falls well below such characteristics as Love, Nuture, and the ability to provide for the emotional, spiritual, educational, and financial wellfare of the child. After that, the idiosyncracies of “Gender” — whatever those are?? — are merely a bonus.
I don’t know, the more I think about it, the less I’m convinced that gender is all that important. What are the ideal or necessary masculine and feminine qualities that need to be modeled for a child? I honestly don’t know. Can we even define them? People are so complex. For example, I’d describe myself as a strong “0” on the Kinsey Scale, but I’ve also always felt I possessed certain characteristics Western society would classify as “feminine”: i.e. ability to nuture, being in touch with my feelings/emotions, an eye for fashion, design, etc.
Does that make me a worse role model for my children? Would they be better off if I were the iconic strong, silent, stoic, type of male? Would they be better off with a father who, I don’t know, chops wood, shoots deer, drives a truck, and has to shave his beard three times a day?
Gender just feels far too complex and varied to have an “ideal”. It’s like saying the ideal father should be 6’2″.
Mike, I am also bewildered by these very troubling hypothetical questions. I can’t claim that this is a topic I’m completely comfortable with or that I can even begin to understand.
However, I’m not comfortable being asked by my church to vote a particular way even if I agree with it (and it’s harder in this case since I actually support gay marriage).
I’m a little alarmed by your statement about “feminine values” and hormone-driven policy. That’s sounds amazingly mysoginistic; did you maybe not mean it the way it has come across to me?
The truth about gender is that it just isn’t as concrete as we act. These conversations would be easier if it were, but that’s just not the case.
There isn’t any suitable social, behavioral, anatomical, or even genetic definition of gender that doesn’t seem to me to be fraught with glaring exceptions. So while the Kinsey scale may not be universally accepted, it at least seems right to look at gender as a continuum rather than two distinct categories.
The role of legislation is compulsion. It is to force people to behave in accordance with a standard. To those of you who wish not to enforce your standards upon others, I wish you would see the Supreme Court decision in its true light: A force to compel everyone under its influence to behave in a preapproved way.
What is marriage? It’s a relationship – one that to many people, is sacred and holy, and to others, although they may not consider it sacred, it at least has some significance, or meaning, which places it above every other earthly relationship. Is it a piece of paper, or does it transcend earthly records? I think the answer is clear: it is a transcendental relationship, which doesn’t rely upon an earthly or material record for its existence.
What then is the impetus behind the demand for the ‘right to marry’ on an equal footing with heterosexual relationships? It can be argued that it is to obtain some of the legal and financial advantages enjoyed by the heterosexuals, but those advantages can be obtained by means other than an official sanction by the state.
I think that it more properly springs from the desire to force our society to accept something we don’t wish to accept and actually voted against: that the homosexual relationship is to be valued and revered on an equal basis with heterosexual relationships, and this is to be enforced by law. Even if we have alternate opinions, those are proscribed by judicial fiat – and the Supreme Court decision imperils philosophical and religious freedom of thought.
It turns out that compassion, enforced by law, and tolerance, again enforced by law, paradoxically tramples on both compassion and tolerance, by eliminating any refuge to any viewpoint other than total acceptance of homosexual marriage as proper and mainstream, despite our personal viewpoints, diverse though they may be.
This is all very interesting to me since my great, great, great grandparents and their fellow Mormons argued quite passionately that the government had no right to define marriage.
Because the American majority disagreed, my GGG-grandpa spent his life hiding in the mountains and hardly knew or provided for his three families. He was also incarcerated…for no other reason than that the majority disagreed with his definition of marriage and felt that his definition had a destructive influence on society.
Would you say that, because they were the majority, they were justified in their persecution?
Brian, your post is sincere and I hope I can respond in brief, as I could write volumes at this point.
Let me start with a few comments about how I perceive the relationship between the gay individuals and the leaders/members of the church.
I am a member, but I will defend my son fiercely against well-intentioned, but misguided church members. Never will I expect other church members to love my son as I love him. Some may, but most are as imperfect as I am and have fear and insecurities. They have no exposure to the realities of the problem. I prefer they retreat to their silence rather than spew words of inaccuracy or condescension.
With homosexuality on the rise, and more dialog about it, we can expect more truth and research to surface. We can expect comments made by church leaders to be more sensitive without compromising the core doctrines.
Never will I expect the church to change its core doctrine about marriage and the family being central to the plan of salvation. There is room in the middle, that is safe and peaceful.
When I refer to gay individuals, I refer to those who are “in the struggle” of having feelings of same-sex attraction. When I refer to the gay community, I am referring to a group of individuals who are organized, politically active and only want immediate acceptance of illicit behaviors (gay pride parades, porn, etc.)and other activities that are degrading and repulsive. These same activist try to disguise these demands by emulating a community as loving adults who want families and marriage.
Now to address your questions: I believe children are born with tendencies that are extreme for their sex. Unfortunately, we as a society have drawn lines (pink is for girls, blue is for boys, boys don’t cry, girls don’t…). Without these extremes we will miss out on some of the greatest contributions in music, math, the arts, etc., There is nothing wrong with those extremes.
It is when those extremes are left unchecked, (given guidance and direction as to appropriate boundaries) the child progresses to the next level and fully develops stronger emotions and feelings found within gay individuals.
I watched my son struggle, yet when gently correcting his course, he has chosen to adopt more conventional behaviors. For instance, he loved to wear nail polish and he loved to wear his sister’s panties when he was younger. We taught him that it was okay to be goofy, but when we go to school we don’t wear nail polish and we wear boys underwear. I know this sounds “simplistic”, but it can be applied to more complicated scenarios.
During the course of our gently guiding him back to the center, we have also discussed the boundaries the Lord has set for sexual behaviors. We talk of the Apostle Paul not being married, but not visiting brothels either. We talk of women who never married, but remain virgins to keep the commandments. For most, this would seem an impossibility. They do not have themselves anchored in Christ and trust that he can and will help them through these circumstances.
We will know in a few years as he sets a course for the remainder of his life whether he will continue to make disciplined decision and follow a course through Christ, or if he will succumb to the emotional pressures that haunt him daily, but I have watched him progress leaps and bounds.
I have heard of men being in prison camps for years and mentally preparing themselves everyday to live another day. I don’t see where each of us are not capable of living the kind of life we want to lead.
I watched my adult brother make so many choices that pulled him away from his wife and children that he reached a point of no return. I truly believe if he had not waited 30 years to try and turn his life around, it would have been much easier.
Do gays deserve to marry? We as a society need to cross that bridge. If we are a godless society and do not base our laws on spiritual principles, then the secular argument is the correct argument. If we are a religious society and truly believe God has a plan for us, then we will not grant something that is in contradiction to his plan. It only hurts the individual to continue down a path that will push them further away from their divine potential.
These changes in society also explain why the Savior is coming back at this time. We will literally need to be saved from ourselves.
Thank you for your response. Your thoughts on not expecting much from those who do not experience homosexuality personally or in a loved one is essential in maintaining one’s peace in the LDS community, especially in CA where I live, given the amendment process we will be in for the next few months.
Does it bother you that leaders of the church have, in the past, not risen much, if at all, above the common ideas of their day when discussing homosexuality?
On this issue, I haven’t read anything remotely resembling “watchman on the tower” vision, especially during the 1960s and 1970s.
There is no proper comparison between polygamy and other proposed forms of marriage, such as same gender “marriage”. At least in polygamous marriages there are still strict gender roles, something our society has denigrated to the point that most people are wildly inarticulate in their confusion about gender. Maybe you don’t see much distinction, maybe the social experimentation you have been subjected to has nearly stamped out the distinction, but does that mean that those who are clear about gender roles must conform by law to the prevailing wisdom? Heaven forbid. I don’t tell you what to think but neither should you tell me I have no freedom to think and to express those thoughts, which I fear is what the High Court is presuming to tell us.
Only on the surface can these two versions be classed in the same category. If nothing else, was polygamy ever legalized in the US?
But the similarities are far less than the dis-similarities. Obviously polygamous marriages produce offspring. They were practiced in the Bible. They were condoned by the Lord. Coincidentally enough, polygamy seems to suit the innate characteristics of each gender, the male – as individualist – seeking to sow his seed widely with his priority being the individual over the environment – the female – as the nurturer, caretaker, relationship oriented entity is the perfect complement to the male – with her priority being the relationship over the individual. Such a perfectly complementary creation, these two whom the Bible indicates should become one.
What is marriage? I have asked this before. To find happiness you must look in the right places. God pronounced it good that men and women have the companionship of each other. The problems of the homosexual will not ameliorate because you give them a piece of paper officially sanctioning their relationship. Their relationship exists whether the government confirms it or not. They will still experience the same human experiences as before, only now they will have a legally binding contract enforced upon us all by the state. As many proponents of homosexual marriage have claimed, not much will change – for them maybe, but a lot of religious expression will of necessity have to change to be acceptable to the “High Court”. One wonders why they need this piece of paper to sanction their relationship. Their stated goals and their actual goals may or may not be the same. I think much of the accomodation efforts are targeted at silencing dissent, and gaining acceptance and approval. And possibly some of it may be for the purpose of spite – against fundamentalists, or even for the purpose of furthering the political aspirations of those who have something to gain by seeming to be against those narrow-minded religionists.
Certainly the finding of a constitutional right in the law for such is breathtakingly outrageous and a blow to religious and philosophical freedom. Now that the law men in black robes have condoned it, it won’t be long before it will be unlawful to speak your own mind in any way shape or form against it. You may find it difficult to have your own opinion even in your career, please note that people have been known to lose their job over expressing their disapproval of company policies promoting the gay agenda and lifestyle, and now the encroachment will only deepen.
It is not the place of government to define compassion and to compel us to practice it. We define what we feel is compassionate and whether or not to express it in our behavior. Compassionate behavior is up to our discretion and freedom of choice. It is not in the realm of secular judges to pretend that they set the standards of compassion and to be the thought police and compel us to accept a lifestyle choice which is against our own moral conscience.
I do not envy the homosexual community their plight, I truly do not judge them for their choices – but I do judge the effect of the law upon the rest of us.
The gays have their own problems, high promiscuity and suicide rates, high rates of depression, shorter lifespan, etc. Now, suppose I believe that homosexuality is maladaptive behavior? Am I free to express that at my company event “celebrating” Joe and Steve’s relationship? Can I be found in contempt of society and in contempt of law? Judging by the reactions of those who support the gay agenda, I have no free agency to choose my own opinion any more – I am somehow less enlightened, less loving, and I find that it ironic that those who claim to be standing up for the victimized – are themselves victimizing others and apparently not even willing to consider the full consequences of their actions.
I use the 80-20 rule in my discussion of gender. Actually it may be more like 95-5 or 90-10, but as long as you don’t hold me to a 100 percent standard, I can make some broad generalizations. I believe that the masculine role in society has been something which has been socialized out of us by the anti-patriarchal postmodernists. In their misunderstanding, and casting all males as brute, aggressive chauvinists they have taught us all that the most important thing a male can do is to get in touch with his inner feminine, and curb his aggression, play fair, don’t bully others, don’t engage in hazing rituals at the college level. In short, don’t be a male, be a wussified version of a male. I’m sorry if the term wussy is offensive to anyone, but its pretty descriptive of what I’m trying to say.
This philosophy gets promoted in a political and cultural movement, and no wonder that so many men are feeling at a loss as to their identity and role in a postmodern society. They constantly feel they have to make themselves over in an attempt to be acceptable to the female culture, and hang their heads in shame at doing anything male. Just look at the TV set and see how many times males are made to appear goofy, inept, incompetent, impulsive, you name it. They are taught to give away their power because it is unacceptable today to be too powerful as a man.
I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m new to this thread, but have been following the discussion with interest. I think gays want marriage for the same reason the rest of us want marriage rather than merely a ?¢Ç¨?ìliving together?¢Ç¨¬ù relationship: It is an historically and culturally recognized covenant between two committed, loving adults that has the approval and blessing of society. To deny gays fulfillment of that desire seems little different than the dehumanizing way colonial plantation owners ignored their slaves?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ family ties when it suited their own interests. Slaves were ?¢Ç¨?ìless than?¢Ç¨¬ù?¢Ç¨Äùso their needs could be ignored. I think many people pushing for this amendment have had little personal experience with gays beyond the stereotypes shown in the media. Deep down they view them as flamboyant, copulating, DNA embarrassments best sidelined and re-closeted so they don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t have to deal with them. I believe the majority of gays are trying to be decent, hard-working, law-abiding human beings, just like the rest of us, with the same human needs for acceptance and equality.
My brother was gay. He came out when he was 18. Until then he was what many in our ward considered the ideal Mormon boy, the kind most parents would want their daughters to marry. He played the piano in priesthood and Sacrament Meeting, attended seminary, and participated in all the youth events. He was the kind of kid who was asked to speak in stake conference because he did it so well?¢Ç¨Äùarticulate and self-assured, an example for other youth. And so it was shocking to many when he came out. I have to say that I wasn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t blown away when I heard the news, because there was always something a little different about him. Effeminate? Overly emotional? Artistic? It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s hard to put it in words, but it was there all along. I think my parents did a fairly good job accepting my brother after the initial shock. This was two decades ago, when gays weren?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t as visible, when there were fewer resources available to help families adjust. However, my brother must have felt a need to find a place where he could be himself, because we lost touch with him for eight years?¢Ç¨Äùuntil he called me one Sunday night to tell me he had AIDS. After that I had many occasions to become part of his life, making trips to San Francisco to be with him as his health declined. He had joined another church, I discovered, a church within the gay community. My brother had become a kind of minister there, which didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t surprise me. I was struck by the devotion my brother?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s many friends showed him during his illness. They were like family. I was with him the day he died and was amazed at the flood of male friends who came to the hospital to say goodbye. When he passed, about a dozen of them stood with me in a circle around his bed, one offering a prayer in behalf of all of us. It was a moment I thought I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢d never forget.
But I did. A few years back when our ward members were being marshaled into a political action group to garner support for Prop. 22, my bishop asked me to head the campaign for our ward. I was the media specialist for the Stake Public Affairs committee at the time and it probably seemed like a good fit. I was a good Mormon Church worker who never turned down a calling, and so I accepted the assignment. I felt uncomfortable about the whole thing and kept thinking I would tell the bishop I couldn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t do it. But time passed, and I never did. And so I participated, put a Prop. 22 sign in my front yard and canvassed our neighborhood. I had a teenage son who was struggling with his testimony at the time and thought the Church?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s position on the issue was seriously un-Christian. He came to Church infrequently in those days, and it seemed like every time he showed up, someone was talking about Prop. 22 from the pulpit. He ended up not going on a mission and leaving the Church. Prop. 22 wasn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t the only factor in his decision, but I believe it played a part in it.
Some of us learn our lessons slowly. I guess this post is my effort to be less of the goat that Matt referenced. I have had enough. This time I will not take part in any political efforts to sideline gays and lesbians.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has long held to the doctrine of separation of church and state originating in part from the long antagonism local and state governments have had towards their faith. Mormon writings have affirmed “[n]o domination of the state by the church; No church interference with the functions of the state; No state interference with the functions of the church, or with the free exercise of religion; The absolute freedom of the individual from the domination of ecclesiastical authority in political affairs; The equality of all churches before the law. The Church’s official Articles of Faith, which outline the basic beliefs of the church, state that: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law”.[36] [37]
1. Clark, James R. (1965). “Messages of the First Presidency”. Brigham Young University, Department of Educational Leadership & Foundations. Retrieved on 2006-11-30.
2. ^ “Political Neutrality”. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (2006). Retrieved on 2006-11-30.
I find the letter to our Californian members disturbing. We are continually told by our leaders to become more Christ like. How can we betray our commitment! I am not homophobic and have two friends that are openly gay. I am married and a father of two children, one 15 and the other 11. I do not tell them that they are bad! I do not run in my house and hide when I see them. I do not judge them and put myself on a higher pedestal. I hold open the possibility of Christ like love and fully living the gospel.
I am ashamed!
Shelly M #84 & #92: “?¢Ç¨¬¶ These changes in society also explain… We will literally need to be saved from ourselves.”
Thank you for this clarifier of a significant difference in our understanding. Please read my comment to Rory’s excellent post on May 9, 2007 called “This I believe”.
I didn’t want this exchange to become a theological debate, but I believe a major difference between us is that the God I have discovered, and whose love is a constant companion after a lifetime of wonder and search, does not save us *from* ourselves, but rather teaches us in Life with Love how *to be* ourselves.
Hope to see you at the symposium in August. Please introduce yourself. I’m presenting on Thursday afternoon.
Mike, Wow. I’m having difficulty deciding if you are for real or not.
Basically, it sounds like your argument boils down to the fact that you are ticked off that you can’t make fun of Queers and Faggots at your office party. That, and you want to let your aggression run unchecked, play unfair, bully others, and engage in hazing rituals at the college level.
What, did they outlaw “dodge ball” at your local schools?
I’ll probably regret asking this, but what are your “clear gender roles”? Please provide examples.
So if I may summarize what I hear the proponents saying in favor of this proposal:
1. It’s inevitable
2. It’s enlightened
3. It’s compassionate
4. It’s the duty of the Supreme Court to step in and overturn the voice of the people, IF such people wanted to do something such as practice slavery, that’s their job, (see post 78)
As we all know, slavery of a whole race of people is accompanied by an irrational prejudice, and rooted in an economic advantage for slave owners in the early history of our nation.
Ironically, in the case of slavery, the Supreme Course UPHELD it, see the Dred Scott decision. It is precisely due to the fact that an individual stood up, coupled with the power of our nation behind him, against judicial tyranny, that slavery eventually was done away with, and we know that Abraham Lincoln was that individual, and the Supreme Court was wrong in that decision as they are in this.
Besides, no one is suggesting that we discriminate against homosexuals based upon their skin color – what we ARE suggesting however, is that it is BEHAVIOR that we discriminate against. That is the province of the law, to regulate behavior based upon the best wisdom of our collective values. Why is it that on several occasions now, we have seen attempts to overturn existing law, and in several cases to ignore it and proceed upon individual initiative – with respect to this particular issue? We all know the mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, permitted the issuance of marriage licenses to otherwise unqualified homosexual partners, approximately 4,000 of them, – in defiance of the written law. We seem to see a number of folks taking matters into their own hands here – I am aware that lawyers representing the ACLU and the homosexual-rights group Equality California filed a petition asking that voters not be allowed to vote on propostion 8, a duly filed petition signed by over 1 million California voters, (approximately 400,000 more than necessary), in an effort to prevent the express will of the people. Effectively what they want – is legal status with or without voter consent.
They may eventually convince the voters too – and then they may actually enact laws to prevent the freedom of religious expression against those laws. They are so busy fighting AGAINST others who they view as obstructing them, they seem to have forgotten their real fight is within.
In my view if they have to force people to approve of and accept their lifestyle – how much joy will that bring them ultimately? It’s not as though winning marriage certificates magically changes the hearts and minds of people.