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, you are offensive. I have never uttered those words to any homosexual person I have known, and I bristle at such low-brow comments.
I am not here to educate on gender roles. I am here to educate you that there are differences of opinion on this issue, which all should feel free to express, rather than to accept the monolothic pronouncements of the militant left regarding how we are all to conform to a single viewpoint.
For what it’s worth however, you may wish to study some of Wade Horn’s books on fatherhood, and you may find some other writings on male psychology here and there in your library and on the internet. I am not surprised that you found it difficult to think of or articulate any meaningful differences in gender roles of parents given the political and cultural environment you are dealing with as a modern American.
Wow Matt (97) – I can’t believe you unloaded on Mike like that.
Please don’t get so irate, I was actually starting to believe that you were compassionate, and not just egotistical.
Lee, please define your understanding of the term “separation of Church and State” and its origin. I see this term bandied about quite a bit, and I think that many people are not really clear on how it came about.
For instance, when Thomas Jefferson died, one of the 3 things he wanted to have inscribed on his tombstone was the fact that he was the author of the Statute of Religious Freedom, part of which I quote here:
“that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, that that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. ”
That seems to me a clear endorsement of the principle of freedom to engage in politics regardless of religious affiliation.
?¢Ç¨?ìThe experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.?¢Ç¨¬ù
?¢Ç¨ÄùJames Madison, Father of the Constitution and fourth president, letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec. 3, 1821
?¢Ç¨?ìWhen a religion is good, I conceive that it will support, itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, ’tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.?¢Ç¨¬ù
?¢Ç¨ÄùBenjamin Franklin, inventor, journalist and Founding Father, letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780
?¢Ç¨?ìGovernment has no more to do with the religious opinions of men than it has with the principles of mathematics. Let every man speak freely without fear, maintain the principles that he believes, worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing, i.e., see that he meets with no personal abuse, or loss of property, for his religious opinions….?¢Ç¨¬ù
?¢Ç¨ÄùJohn Leland, colonial-era Baptist minister and religious liberty advocate, The Rights of Conscience Inalienable, 1791 pamphlet
101# Your answer:
“Separation of church and state” is a common metaphor that is well recognized. Equally well recognized is the metaphorical meaning of the church staying out of the state’s business and the state staying out of the church’s business. Because of the very common usage of the “separation of church and state phrase,” most people incorrectly think the phrase is in the constitution. The phrase “wall of separation between the church and the state” was originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church’s business, not to keep the church out of the state’s business.
The constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion.
Mike (#99): “Matt, you are offensive.”
Probably. I should have checked my hyperbolic reaction in #97. Unfortunately, I let myself become provoked.
I’m just a little troubled by your worldview, which is very blunt and obtuse, all hard angles, with little or no nuance. You reduce Men, Women, Gays, etc. to cartoonish, lowest-common-denominator stereotypes.
You appear to divide Men into two camps: Real Men and “Wussies”.
Your Real Men come off like real knuckle-draggers… they spread their seed widely, they place their own selfish needs ahead of the environment, they let their aggression run unchecked, and they bully others. (As such, I’m a little surprised that you didn’t stick up for my aggressive, non-wussy reaction in #97?)
Unlike Real Men, men in touch with their feminine side are Wussies. Wow.
Women are nuturers, or caretakers for Men and Children.
Gays are suicidal, depressed, and promiscuous. Furthermore, their motivation for marriage is “gratification of the sexual desire”. Finally, you are “disgusted” by their “insidious” agenda to help promote tolerance and compassion.
Did I get anything wrong? I am basically quoting you in context.
So when you call my comments “offensive”… fine, but isn’t that a little like the pot calling the kettle black? Many Men, Women, and likely most Gays would find these characterizations “offensive.” I did. In any case, my comment was ill-advised, and it won’t happen again.
Lee, I don’t understand what your position is here. In # 95 you seem to be saying that the Church should stay out of politics and in your multiple later posts (for instance # 105) you point out that the Constitution does not place any restrictions on religions to engage in political action.
I think these posts are getting off point. It is clear that the Church is ENTITLED to take whatever political action it wishes under the United States Constitution. The question is whether it SHOULD. In the case before us (lobbying for a Constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage in California) I believe it should not. Others will certainly disagree. I’m not sure what you believe.
Mike thinks that in a democracy, the majority should be entitled to pass any law it wants, even if it is discriminatory against a minority. He is basically right, so long as it doesn’t violate a constitutionally protected right. Before the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, for example, the federal government was free to discriminate against African Americans and laws were passed that did just that. Were these laws morally right? I think not. Was Brigham Young legally justified in enacting laws to protect slavery in Utah? Certainly. Was he morally justified? I think not, but I recognize that it is difficult to apply current understandings of morality on the actions of individuals in past generations.
To the point before us: Merely because we have a RIGHT to discriminate against gays, does that mean we SHOULD? For me, the answer is “no.” For Mike the answer is “yes.” Again, I recognize that intelligent people can differ on this.
As the California Constitution is presently written, our state does not have a right to discriminate against gays. That is what the California Supreme Court decided, so it is the law of our state. It was a split decision, however, so again, reasonable minds may reach different conclusions on whether it should be the law. What the Church would now like us to do is override what the California Constitution says and pass a constitutional amendment that makes it permissible to discriminates against gays in the area of marriage. I believe that is morally wrong. Mike and Anon and others would disagree.
Mike feels that the decision by the California Supreme Court inhibits his free exercise of religion. I don’t see that it does. Nothing the Supreme Court has done will require the Church to perform gay marriages. Yes, his company is free to fire him if he engages in boorish behavior in the workplace, but it already has that right under laws that existed well before the Supreme Court’s decision.
Finally, Mike rails at the United States Supreme Court for failing to overturn slavery, claiming that it took an individual (Abraham Lincoln) to do that. This is an oversimplification of history. Remember that the 13th Amendment (abolishing slavery) and the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal rights) had not been passed when the Dred Scott decision was issued. Still, I would agree that the Dred Scott decision was wrongly decided. Later Supreme Courts have been much more activist in protecting civil rights — more than some people would like. But here we’re talking about a different court and different judges, so I don’t see that a comparison serves much purpose.
Also remember that Lincoln’s primary purpose in going to war against the seceding states was to save the Union, not to abolish slavery. Fortunately, slavery was ended and the 14th and 14th amendments were passed, and now the United States Supreme Court has laws upon which to base decisions protecting at least some minorities from majority tyranny.
Lynne (#96), your comment got hung up in moderation for some reason. Sorry about that. Thank you for sharing your story. I found it very eloquent and powerful.
Re #93 (Shelly M)–
I have heard of men being in prison camps for years and mentally preparing themselves everyday to live another day. I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t see where each of us are not capable of living the kind of life we want to lead.
The steeliness of this proclamation scares the living daylights out of me. Your gay son is a whole human being who will someday be capable of expressing love, passion and commitment for a beloved companion. He is not an inmate of a prison camp who must endure each day.
You say:
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.
Your portrayal is patently, even scandalously, false. There is a tremendous amount of genuine virtue (of the kind recognizable to any ethical human being) in the gay community.
Whether you approve or not does not diminish the intrinsic dignity of our lives.
Speaking from personal experience, I can say that what gay adolescents and young adults need from their parents is love, patience and a listening ear. This is what my LDS parents did for me some twenty years ago, and it made all the difference in my life.
We should NOT discriminate against gays!
Christ would have his arms open!
There seams to be a lot of fear on behalf of the religous institutions.
To Lynne:
Thanks for sharing your experience re: prop 22. I have worked with a few gays. Since I knew them and a little about their personal stories and I refused to participate in that effort. My wife did make phone calls, as requested.
My refusal took on greater significance when four years later my gay son came out to us.
Lee #12,
Prophets have made it clear to believers that God considers sexual intimacy between people of the same gender to be an abomination.
I am interested to know from those who are in favor of gay marriage – Are you saying that the church should embrace homosexuals and let them marry in the church, or perhaps the temple (as long as they abide by same standards as heterosexuals)? If so, could you agree that your position is: God is not opposed to homosexuality within the bonds of marriage?
Or, alternatively, do you acknowledge that God does consider the sexual acts of homosexuality to be sins whether in or out of a committed relationship (marriage in CA)?
Rick (generally) – I don’t reveal my own opinion because people get carried away and lose focus on the discussion by assuming they know what you think on the basis of who you are. That is lame. I try to focus on the content of the arguments raised, and I expect others to do the same. In fact, I haven’t revealed either who I am, or where I actually stand, yet people have STILL gotten carried away by assumptions. That is counterproductive in my mind.
Also – would you feel better if I called myself Anon44 to distinguish myself from the others? I only care because I don’t want much of an identity – because then, as mentioned, people stop focusing on what your saying (though, at this point, maybe I don’t have much to lose since people seem to do that regardless).
Anon (#114), my answers to your questions:
Yes, my position is “God is not opposed to homosexuality within the bonds of marriage.”
Yes, I would love to see the Church embrace Gays and allow them to marry in the church or temple, but that is just my opinion, my personal testimony. That said, I have never lobbyed for such changes. I recognize the right of the Church to define its own doctrine. I won’t impose my beliefs on the church.
In return, I don’t think it fair that the church take an active role in politics and impose its beliefs on others. I would say the same to Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, etc. We have to share this world with other Believers (and non-Believers). It is one thing for individual Mormons to vote their conscience, to vote against Same Sex Marriage. It is the same for individuals around the country, regardless of their religious affiliation. It is another thing for the Church to actively lobby and/or influence its Members to vote one way or another. This is my primary concern. Please re-read my comments #6 and #13.
And now, a few, sincere questions for you…
1.) How do you think Revelation is received by Prophets? How much communication is flowing between the Prophet and God, and what form does it take?
2.) Do you think it is possible that prophets are sometimes wrong? Or don’t yet understand the big picture? And if they are wrong, how would we know?
3.) What is your explanation for the 1978 Priesthood revelation? A.) Were prophets right in 1977 and in 1978? In other words, God changed his mind and lifted the ban. Or, B.) Were prophets wrong in 1977, but figured it out in 1978, and finally realized God never intended for Whites to exclude Blacks from His church, that the Priesthood Ban was due to limited understanding, prejudicial cultural influence, and years of ingrained and difficult-to-change policy?
Just curious. Thanks.
Anon44 (#114) said, “In fact, I haven?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t revealed either who I am, or where I actually stand, yet people have STILL gotten carried away by assumptions.”
I don’t think people are so much making assumptions about you, as they are responding to your points. If you don’t believe or agree with your own points, but are simply arguing them for rhetorical effect, or for some kind of intellectual exercize, that is your decision, not ours. It is a normal part of conversation to assume the other person means what s/he says, unless s/he prefaces it with some kind of disclaimer.
In any case, why don’t you just say where you stand?
Thanks for answering Matt (115). I needed the user-friendly summary.
Here are my answers – though I could and might give them more thought later.
1. I think there is a spectrum of revelation. I’ll call one side “guesses” (best guesses, trial and error, etc.) and the other side would be “eye to eye with God”. Stuff in the middle would include, line upon line, study it out in your mind, this has worked best, the spirit whispered to me, the scriptures say, etc. I think the extremes are more rare: I don’t think they either guess or confer directly with God all that often.
2. I think that if you look back on prophets throughout the ages you could say they are either wrong or limited in their knowledge. The picture is probably bigger than what they see. (McConkie has spoken on this, I believe.) How do we know when they were wrong? For me the answer is: when they admit it, or maybe when they change church policy to contravene prior church policy. Even then, it does not show that they were necessarily wrong – but perhaps that the Lord had not directed or instructed them on a particular point.
3. The blacks in the priesthood thing is difficult, of course. I do believe the “it wasn’t their time” line. I also believe that the membership of the church cannot be “ready” for certain blessings (white members weren’t ready to obey). I readily acknowledge that in many many conversations “blacks in the priesthood” could appear to be replaced with “gays marrying in the temple”. I think there are a few key differences – some of which have been discussed on this board – which make the two totally un-analogizable. (I can expound those difference at a later time, perhaps – if anyone cares.)
I also think that regardless – even if we knew for sure that gays would be married in the temple by 2020, we should still obey the prophet’s counsel today. Shoot me. That is what I believe it takes to be a member of the Mormon faith. I believe that by far and away the majority of the time (like, 99% or more) God would never hold us accountable for following the prophet’s orders – even if later order showed that the prior order to be wrong.
The reason I have such a black and white attitude about all of this is that I think that God is the creator of the church, and that, it must have certain rules to exist and function properly. The church, with as much assistance from God as it can get, writes the rules and makes the definitions for what counts as obedience. I understand the church’s definition of “sustain” to mean recognize and obey. As in, recognize prophets are called of God, and obey their counsel.
A person wouldn’t walk into a complex organization and try to redefine one of their terms of art. (I wouldn’t tell a contractor what a “ship-ticket” is, and by telling him change the definition.) Same with the church – they have spoken on what it means to sustain the prophet – and as members, we are asked to abide by their definition. I take these things on faith. I feel every bit as capable of being critical, uncovering the inconsistencies, discovering the gray zones and looking beyond the viewpoints shared by the bretheren as anyone on this board. But I don’t do it because I have faith. I have faith that they are called of God and faith that if I obey them (even in their shortcomings) I am glorifying God and doing his will.
This is of course, what prompted my first post. I believe that we are in the church and we should play by its rules. Some on this board appear to be trying to be in the church, but play by the world’s rules (I don’t know you, it just seems that way – doesn’t mean you are bad people – I am trying not to judge). Either that, or they are telling the church their business and trying to rewrite the rules from the inside. I decided that I was either go to play along (and I don’t mean to trivialize it by using the word “play”) or not play at all. I confess that I wish other people would make that same choice.
My reticence in stating where I stand is because people (traditionally) tend to respond to who they think you are rather than what you are actually saying (I am probably guilty of this).
Anyway – my last post explains where I stand. I believe I stand as one who, after taking a long and perilous journey, looks back and says, “turns out that the church was right all along.”
Now I worry that people will respond with assumptions rather than directly dealing with what I say – please, by all means, prove me wrong.
I should probably clarify that there is room for curiosity as to why we are commanded to do certain things. I also thing one can disagree with commandments received through the prophets. I think that person is still accountable for their obedience. So, sure – I do a lot of thinking about how and why and what if etc., but it doesn’t affect my obedience (personal weaknesses, of course, do affect my obedience). I follow the admonition of the bretheren to think freely and analyze everything I hear, etc. – but that was never intended as a license to disobey.
If I were to pick something the prophets and leaders have said to disregard or think is wrong, it certainly wouldn’t be something so serious as allowing gay to marry.
We are not obligated to give that title to anyone! No matter how compassionate it my sound. I like what someone said above, “gay relationships are not a part of the plan, because they do not continue the human race…”
The part about us being scared of being asked to perform marriages in our churches and temples, it is already happening – take a look.
Adoption services: Because the Catholic Church in Massachusetts refuses to place children with same-sex couples as required by MA gay marriage law, Catholic Charities has been forced to close its adoption program.
Housing: As a Jewish institution, Yeshiva University in NYC banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory on religious principle. New York’s highest court invalidated the schools regulations as a form of unlawful discrimination..
Medical services: A gynecologist in California refused to give a lesbian patient in vitro fertilization treatment on the basis of his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to another physician.) The doctor has been sued and is likely to lose.
Wedding services: A photographer in New Mexico declined to shoot a same-sex commitment ceremony. The New Mexico Human Rights Commission fined the photographer $6,600.
Wedding facilities: A Methodist association in New Jersey refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. New Jersey has now revoked a portion of the group?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s tax exemption after the couple sued.
Most Americans believe that gays and lesbians are free to live as they choose, but they don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society. But we are living in an era when adhering to the common sense definition of marriage ?¢Ç¨Äú for the sake of kids ?¢Ç¨Äú is increasingly a punishable offense.
To: MoHoHawaii #111
Your honest, perceptive and wise response to Shelly M #93, together with the remarkable on-going energy of this entire thread, reminds me of a dream from years ago, just weeks before Dialogue was first published in 1966.
It occurred near the beginning of a long wilderness period, which resulted from a series of profound, surprising and life changing experiences during the summer of 1965. One of these never-to-be-forgotten experiences was a “revelation” on the Negro, which set in motion the events and circumstances that would lead to my first excommunication in April the next year.
I believe the dream, which occurred on 13 February 1966, is particularly germane to this thread. I will tell it to you and what it has taught and continues to teach me.
At the time I was homeless, having lost everything dear since the previous summer. These losses included family, church, career, possessions, friends, reputation–you name it. I was now searching for new direction.
In the outer world I had just met with a new group of open-minded people, some of whom, unknown to me, were gay.
In the dream I am somewhere in Utah sitting on the ground in an open field without structures with others sitting in a closed circle where a woman is leading the conversation. She turns to me and asks if I am LDS. I answer yes. She then asks others in the group, but with an insistent tone, whether they know of the LDS. I interrupt with intensity to say that the more important question is whether they are at all interested.
The scene changes to a near-by corral-like structure. The woman leader is standing inside the corral preaching to those outside the fence. She speaks of spirituality, spiritual experience, and matters of the spirit in general. I reply energetically that those who speak of spiritual experience in this way are fakes and then proceed to ask penetrating questions, which soon become blunt and angry. Those around me are startled at my intensity. Some, who had once applauded my defending their right to be respected, are now stunned and silent. I soon find myself alone and in pain, but know I must proceed with intense questioning to be true to my convictions and sense of duty. My energy and strength begin to diminish.
Suddenly, I become aware of arms flung around my midriff from behind. It is “L”! She is with me. My strength and courage begin returning?¢Ç¨¬¶.
End of dream.
In the outer world, “L” and I had just met at a metaphysical group setting. She had given me a place of refuge in my wanderings. I did not know it at the time but “L” was a professional Jungian analyst and was thus able to understand the strange things I was saying in those days that so troubled family and church leaders. L was also gay. Eventually she became my second wife and the mother of my fifth son [now a successful documentary film editor in NYC]. Far more than a place of refuge, I began and experiencing and learning from her the meaning of love and self-respect.
The dream, although long ago, continues to provide insights and lessons to be learned, such as in this thread. One of the first lessons I had to learn was to understand the source of my fury with pious LDS church people, especially self-righteous women. A second lesson was to learn how to understand and transcend this fury and integrate its energy. The dream also gave me courage to commit to a relationship with L and learn from her.
Even though L and I legally divorced a few years later, she and our son remain valuable and beloved members of our extended family.
In light of these intimate and enduring family relationships, LDS Church pronouncements such as “The “Proclamation on the Family” with its preoccupation with politics, as well as the 1978 “revelation on the priesthood” all seem contrived and distant issues. It is difficult for me to take them seriously.
What I can take most seriously, however, is the issue of gayness and the struggle gays experience in being understood and accepted in and by the world at large. Would you be surprised or shocked by my assertion that, as the result of my particular experience with L and a remarkable LDS gay man the year previous to our marriage, as well as the example set by my wonderful and sensitive 6th and youngest son, who is also gay, I now believe that the ideal balanced state for human beings is, after all, an “androgynous” mystery.
As Jesus said, “Fear not.”
Shelly, quoting someone else, said “gay relationships are not a part of the plan, because they do not continue the human race…”
So what does that say of married heterosexuals who do not have children, either by choice, or by due to medical circumstances? Does their marriage not count? Should they not be allowed to marry because they will not, or cannot, continue the human race?
Shelly said, “common sense definition of marriage ?¢Ç¨Äú for the sake of kids”
Clearly marriage is seen today as having extremely important functions beyond the mere production of offspring. As to the ?¢Ç¨?ìnurturing?¢Ç¨¬ù aspect, it is undoubtedly true that a loving marital relationship is the ideal for nurturing children, but we validate single-parent families in the Church (both those that are unavoidable and those that are the product of divorce). Who is to say that a loving long-term same-sex couple cannot provide at least the same quality of nurturing (and perhaps even better) than single parents?
Matt, you never look past “today”. The gospel of Jesus Christ has provisions for childless couples in the next life. The standard is for families in the gospel of Jesus Christ is for hetersexual couples, not homosexual couples.
Gays have been around for a long time, and somehow, 4000 years later, we think society has it all wrong and we need to change the definition of marriage.
After reading the posts here, it is obvious that everyone wants to believe what they have experienced is the “truth”. As for me, I’ll stick to the gospel of Jesus Christ and take my chances.
I am certainly wasting my time on this board. There are more bigots here than the closed minded LDS.
Matt,
Marriage is eternal – and has as a central purpose infinite and eternal offspring – all of the scenarios you described aren’t denied those eventual blessings. Gays on the other hand, don’t have the essential equipment (body and soul) to accomplish that crucial eternal purpose.
Mine is an obvious response to your post, but it also underscores one of the reasons why gays marrying in the temple isn’t like blacks having the priesthood.
With blacks and the priesthood, it was because of something that happened in the past. With gays, it has to do with what can’t be done in the future.
“4000 years later”
Um…later than what? Sorry, I’m lost.
anon, attributing the ban on blacks participating in the church to “something that happened in the past” is horribly naive of the history.
Perhaps this is why the two cases look so disimilar to you.
Shelley #124, you say: “I am certainly wasting my time on this board. There are more bigots here than the closed minded LDS.”
Did you enter this board to preach or to learn? You remind me of the woman in my 1966 dream. [See #121] Did that pass you by? And, has it never occurred to you that your version of “the gospel of Jesus Christ” may in fact NOT be what Jesus of Nazareth taught?
Matt, thank you for your thoughtful post. I really wouldn’t know what to tell a bishop because my experience trying to talk to church leaders about this issue was traumatizing. So, what ever I said, don’t say that:)
There are a lot of people expressing what they would like to say to a bishop over on http://www.signforsomething.org. Some of the letters you might not agree with, but there are some really thoughtful ones that might give you ideas.
Rick
Elaborate on “horribly naive” – I am speaking of the asserted doctrinal basis. They attributed blacks not being entitled to the priesthood to a curse that happened because of something in the past.
I think we must be talking over eachother here – because the doctrinal basis for the ban was backward looking, not forward looking.
I love the part where you say “horribly naive” – it is almost caricature-like in its condescension. I am sure you are not as huffy, smug, appalled and elitist as you sounded in that last comment. (I am not mad, by the way. Though I’ll happily act that way if it will satisfy you, since I see little other motive in your responses to me.)
Throw me a bone here – (a phrase not used lightly when discussing this subject matter) – will no one respond to my arguments?
Sorry that my response was out of line. I was actually surprised by your statement because I honestly didn’t think people really still believed in either of the two myths you might have been referring to: 1. curse of cain or 2. fence-sitting in the pre-existence.
If you really believe that cain was cursed with black skin and that contemporary black people are his descendents, then I can understand why you don’t recognize parallels between the Church’s previous racist ban and current feelings about homosexuality, women, etc.
But also, if you accept that folklore as actual history and as an acceptable basis of the church’s descrimination, I don’t know that we’ll end up understanding each other on very much of anything. Although I’d certainly still like to try.
Another possibility is that I misunderstood you entirely. If so, let me know.
I’d also argue that even in the context of your position, you’re clearly wrong: church members definately look backward when they discuss homosexuality. All of the talk of an established pattern between a man and a woman, etc. That’s all looking at the Garden of Eden as a literal, historical account and using it as THE proof text for what “marriage” means.
Or like Shelly says, something apparently happened 4000 years ago that’s very important to this discussion.
Mary D., you’re not related to Peter Danzig are you? He was in my ward in the avenues years ago and was a wonderful friend and tremendous influence on me. I’m still very much touched by our brief acquaintance.
If you’re his relation, please tell him I say hello. (And he’ll say, “Who the hell is Rick Jepson?”)
anon, I appreciate what you’ve posted in the discussion above. But you’ve accused people like me of trying to re-define the church rules or trying to act above the rules (or the leadership).
The thread doesn’t seem to me to be about that at all, but instead about what to do when you find yourself in the horrible, painful situation of being at complete odds with the church you love and otherwise feel a part of.
This new announcement–that I should be voting a certain way and dedicating my time and money to convince others to do so–has been very, very hard for me. I love the gospel and the church and would never, never want to be separated from it or to lose my ability to attend the temple, to bless my children, etc.
In the past the Church had an obvious stand on homosexual marriage that I disagreed with. I made it a point not to discuss my dissent and instead quietly voted my conscience. Now I’m being compelled to a whole new level…to a point that compliance would make me feel like a hypocrite, a coward, and a liar.
This is overwhelming for me. And I want to find my way through it as best I can. I have no desire to protest outside of temple square, to stomp out of meetings, or to force the temple doors open to homosexual marriage.
I also don’t profess to fully understand the issue on any level (biologically, socially, legally, etc.) and can certainly concede that I may end up being wrong.
But to say that someone like me is just trying to re-write or throw out rules is it’s own charicature…and I believe it’s used deliberately to reinforce your positive opinion of your own stand.
“Throw me a bone here – (a phrase not used lightly when discussing this subject matter)”
Wow. Classy.
anon, for a good discussion on our church’s history on race, check out
http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2008/06/some-thoughts-on-racismchris-buttars/
A little too much emphasis on C. Buttars. But read the whole thread to find some wonderful insight into this unfortunate history. Perhaps then you’ll understand my drawing parallels to our current culturally-driven stands on women and homosexuals.
Okay, okay – I’m out of my league. This thing has run its course for now.
Matt, I sympathize with your plight. When the Lord says things through his prophets, it is for a reason. I’ve worked hard to understand those reasons. If I were in your plight I would start with the assumption that the first presidency is completely right, and that you are completely wrong – then, just focus my efforts on understanding why. (Eugene probably has a dream to correpsond to the attitude I am displaying – or a nightmare.)
Rick- any number of my gay friends would have applauded my joke. later.
Nice try on the dream thing, anon #135. Keep smiling. I would be more interested in YOUR dreams regarding these issues than in trashing mine. Dreams bypass egos. That is their value, nightmares included. Can you not stay the course?
Hi Rick! There were two Peters in the avenues ward. One Peter is my father in law and the other is my husband. I grew up in that same ward in the avenues so maybe our paths crossed to? I will pass on the greeting to both of them. I know they will be glad to hear from you.
Mary,
It was your father that I knew. But I believe I met you and your husband and daughter when the three of you played a wonderful violen trio at a ward event. I also read with some sadness an article in the SL Trib covering your struggle with this same issue.
Please do tell your father that I say hello. My wife and I were newlywed dummies (the way only newlyweds can be) and taught gospel doctrine in the ward. If he’d like, I’d love to hear from him at jepsonrick at hotmail dot com.
He’s been an interesting figure for me because as the years go on, I appreciate and understand him more and more.
–Rick
Anon (#117), I share your view of revelation, though I lean more heavy towards the “guesses” and “middle” (i.e. study out in mind) side of the spectrum. I’m not sure about the eye-to-eye stuff. I guess I don’t think prophets receive revelation any different than we do. That isn’t to say they aren’t receiving revelation on behalf of the church, I just think the channels of communication to the heavens are open for everyone, on any subject, including the one we’ve been discussing in this thread.
Your possible reasons for the Black/PH Ban are problematic: “I do believe the ‘it wasn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t their time’ line. I also believe that the membership of the church cannot be ‘ready’ for certain blessings (white members weren?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t ready to obey).
It esteems whites above blacks. It makes blacks supporting players in the story of the whites. The whites weren’t ready? So let’s penalize the blacks? No, can’t accept that. And it makes no sense. Since when does God wait for people to be “ready”?
Were the early Saints ready for the Law of Consecration? Didn’t matter, God ostensibly commanded it. Were they ready for Plural Marriage? No, an angel with a flaming sword commanded it upon penalty of death. And polyamy was afar greater leap of faith for puritanical 18th century Mormons than accepting blacks into full fellowship in the church would have been. Was Nephi ready? Was Abraham ready? Was Moses ready? Was Jonah ready? The examples are endless.
“I believe that by far and away the majority of the time (like, 99% or more) God would never hold us accountable for following the prophet?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s orders – even if later order showed that the prior order to be wrong.”
I disagree, which is what this blog post is about in the first place. I cannot go against the burning of my conscience/spirit. Like the Orson Pratt quote I reference in #65, “I will be a free man… If I die tonight, I would say, O Lord God Almighty, I believe what I say.”
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this conversation.
Matt – #139
I don’t mean this flippantly, but why should we even have prophets at all if it’s okay to simply disregard their counsel when we strongly disagree with it and believe the spirit or our conscience is leading us another way?
Perhaps it is an oversimplification of the issues we face in this complex world, but I tend to believe the Lord’s words in the Doctrine & Covenants where he stated that whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants the prophets, it is the same. I also believe, as Wilford Woodruff taught, that the Lord will not allow his prophets to lead the people astray. “It is not in the program.” I think this disproves your apparent “disagree[ment]” with anon that God might hold us accountable for following the prophet.
That being said, I’m fine if people have an opposing view and cannot subscribe to my view of things. And I’m perfectly comfortable with the conclusion that, in the end, neither viewpoint will be deemed “wrong.”
Sorry this is a long goodbye, but Matt (139) was responsive enough that I feel like responding. First, Jason, (140) I totally agree with what you said, but if that viewpoint were accepted here, there would be no “here” and we’d all be posting on a sports-related discussion board like the good Lord intended.
Matt – as much as I appreciate that you responded directly to my comments, your response illustrates one thing I don’t like about this board. It seems like you are more interested in proving me wrong, or disproving my arguments, than you are in giving them any kind of reasoned consideration.
You said:
Your possible reasons for the Black/PH Ban are problematic: ?¢Ç¨?ìI do believe the ?¢Ç¨Àúit wasn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t their time?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ line. I also believe that the membership of the church cannot be ?¢Ç¨Àúready?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ for certain blessings (white members weren?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t ready to obey).
It esteems whites above blacks. It makes blacks supporting players in the story of the whites. The whites weren?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t ready? So let?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s penalize the blacks? No, can?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t accept that. And it makes no sense. Since when does God wait for people to be ?¢Ç¨?ìready?¢Ç¨¬ù?
Were the early Saints ready for the Law of Consecration? Didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t matter, God ostensibly commanded it. Were they ready for Plural Marriage? No, an angel with a flaming sword commanded it upon penalty of death. And polyamy was afar greater leap of faith for puritanical 18th century Mormons than accepting blacks into full fellowship in the church would have been. Was Nephi ready? Was Abraham ready? Was Moses ready? Was Jonah ready? The examples are endless.
—
Matt, why didn’t you bother providing any examples that support my point? Are there none? Are you more interested in proving me wrong than you are at studying out what I am trying to say?
Weren’t the gentiles (at least at first) supporting players in a story about Jews? Is God’s timing for dispensing the gospel a matter of “esteem” or superiority? What of all the people in the dark ages – didn’t he love them? You’re a smart guy Matt – surely these questions didn’t escape you.
This goes to the heart of why I say that I am out of my league here. In my hypothetical “league” of discussion participants – we don’t compete, we evaluate together.
You said: Since when does God wait for people to be “ready”?
Surely, among the many examples you could have thought of, you recall this scripture in Alma:
10] And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.
[11] And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.
I was suggesting that perhaps the Lord withheld from us his word: the privilege of opening the priesthood to all worthy males, because the church’s membership had too hard of hearts to receive that portion of the word. (this, of course, could be wielded in support of your gay marriage stance)
There are plenty of examples: the word of wisdom wasn’t given on the first day of the church’s organization, and remarkably, it wasn’t really enforced until decades later. At very least, it shows that people aren’t ready for certain commandments and corresponding blessings. The Lord will bring his people along until they are ready to believe and receive more. (vicarious work for the dead, Joseph receiving the plates, all the things in section 76 which Joseph and Sidney couldn’t tell us- I’m just thinking outloud here)
What about polygamy and consecration? Don’t both of those examples show what happens when the Lord gives commandments that we aren’t ready to receive and obey? That supports MY argument – not yours. We couldn’t obey them – we, and our society, weren’t ready. Having demonstrated such and incompetence for receiving and believing, I’m just glad we finally did get the blessing of extending priesthood to every worthy male.
Anyway – the blacks, the gays, – it is problematic. It is a test of faith. I understand and feel your dilemma now, and I am sure that those thoughts and feelings would be greatly intensified if one of my own had same-gender attraction. But I can’t see how any of those painful convictions would affect my disposition towards obeying men who I believe are called of God and speak on his behalf.
(no time to edit)
It has been a fun read and enlightening in many respects. I guess, like anon, I feel at a disadvantage when trying to support my position because the only things I really have to fall back on are the scriptures and the words of the prophets (which I believe are in theory supposed to be the same thing).
For example, my post #140 could easily be discredited because both of the sources I cite in support of my position – the D&C and Wilford Woodruff – are simply prophetic statements. (I had thought the D&C was pretty much understood as being the Lord’s voice for the most part, but it was really just communicated to Joseph Smith, who was, after all, just a prophet like Thomas S. Monson.) I suppose that gives us license to discredit the pronouncement in D&C 1 that, whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants it is the same (if we believe the spirit or our conscience is leading us in a different direction).
From my perspective, that leads us down a rocky path. I do not believe the Spirit will lead us astray from the counsel the prophets have given us. I think there is still some wiggle room. Nephi could be cited, along with others, as an individual who was legitimately inspired by the Spirit to do something inimical to clearly stated commandments (killing Laban). I am not prepared to put myself on par with Laban, and I believe those are the very rare exceptions, not the rule.
I could go own, but I better get to work.
Edit to #142
Should read “I am not prepared to put myself on par with NEPHI.”
I also do not wish to be put on par with Laban because I value the fact that my head is attached to my body…
🙂
Jason and Anon, this all boils down to the fallibility or limitations of prophets. There will never be a perfect answer. There are rules, and exceptions to the rules. There are examples, and exceptions to the examples. This is one of those paradoxes, or what Gene England called “proving contraries,” and solving the paradox, or proving the contrary, is one of the purposes of this life, I think. We will all come to different answers.
You both feel “centered,” or “peaceful,” or “at right with the world/universe,” when your views are in accordance with the prophet. You feel validated. I understand that.
I tried for years, but couldn’t pretzel my thoughts and feelings on a number of subjects to make them line up with the views of the prophet. My head/heart/spirit said one thing, the prophet said another. Living your life according to certain ideals you feel no positive emotion or testimony for is a bizarre experience. You feel empty, and worse.
Once I made the scary decision to trust in God and myself, to weigh information received from all sources equally, the emptiness was filled with light, something the church calls a “burning in the bosom.”
If there is a next life, and it turns out you were both right, and I was sadly deluded, I will gladly embrace my shack in the Telestial Kingdom with the other “less valient” souls of the world. I will harbor no ill will for your mansions in the Celestial Kingdom. That is because, to truly own oneself, I’ve found there is no price high enough that I wouldn’t be willing to pay. Not even death. Free agency is that fundamental.
Fortunately, enough of my personal testimony re the “purpose of life” lines up with my inherited faith tradition (Mormonism), that I still consider myself an active member of that family.
Interestingly enough, Times & Seasons is engaged in a discussion along these same lines. One of the quotes almost sounds like Anon wrote it. It will be interesting to see how that discussion plays out…
Thanks for sharing Matt. I think that is a respectable job of explaining the irreconcilable differences (though I trust our similarities are still so numerous as to make us friends). I did not post on Times and Seasons, but I am totally curious about which brilliant, considerate, irrefutable and I dare say poetic comment is mine. Do tell.
There are many points in my previous posts that I would love to have you respond to – but, one could spend all day on here. Sorry I can’t get to everything in your post, either.
In other news- I knew you and I would never agree when you called Mormonism your “inherited faith tradition.” You can probably guess that I consider it more than that (namely, the truth as it actually exists in the universe).
One funny thing you said:
Once I made the scary decision to trust in God and myself, to weigh information received from all sources equally, the emptiness was filled with light, something the church calls a ?¢Ç¨?ìburning in the bosom.?¢Ç¨¬ù
The application of this exact same formula to my life has led me again and again to the same answers. You never said it didn’t. But, I just wanted you to know that sunstone doesn’t have a monopoly on conscientious, searching, fearless, “owning oneself,” members of the church. You never said it did.
There is an absolute brilliance, goodness, light and general “rightness” in the church and the church leadership which I feel has been completely ignored – even to an intellectually dishonest extent – by the sunstone crowd. That is a generalization, I know – but I have been so richly blessed by embracing the visions of Christ and his gospel as expressed by church leaders that I would love to have everyone experience the same blessings. Alas – you, and others appear unwilling to accept that there is a higher intelligence and design at work in the leadership of the church.
Sometimes I wish we had more time or opportunity to discuss this stuff.
Matt – it comment 21 on the other board? Wasn’t me, but you got to admit the guy has a point. (I have a sneaking suspicion that your not about to concede that.)
When you put down the “sunstone crowd”, can I just ask if you’ve ever been to a symposium or how regularly you read the journal? My guesses are 1. never, and 2. once or twice in your life.
I fully recognize the intelligence and design of church leadership and I don’t believe that every organization can or should be a democracy. I can’t even imagine an army batallion or a football team working without people giving up their own opinions/convictions and following their leaders. I assume that Matt feels the same way on this and that the other “sunstone crowd” largely does as well.
At the same time, there are certain issues that are so significant personally that it challenges my conviction to step in line. This is doubly painful because I do believe that I’m sinning by disobeying….but still feel compelled by my own convictions to disobey.
(It’s like Huck Finn not turning in Jim to the authorities even though he knows he’s sinning by not complying and that he’ll go to hell for it.)
The plain truth that you keep ignoring, though is that the church has been wrong before and may be wrong on this issue or on others. It doesn’t take much reading at all on the history of the racist policy to see that it was cultural and that it was folly. Even before it was lifted, Pr. Kimball referred to it as a “possible error” and said that the church could be forgiven for it by the Lord. And Pr. Hinkley said on 60 minutes that the policy was due to the way the “brethren interpreted that doctrine at that time.”
If it can happen before, it can certainly happen now. It may also be that there is a lot at stake here and that if a gay couple gets married in California we’ll end up with huge repercussions (like the crazy ACLU crap that Shelly refers to in the above discussion).
As I said, my policy when I disagree with the brethren is to bite my tongue at church and vote my conscience in the booth. But I do believe there is a place for member activism and certainly for questioning current policy and practice. And revelation is clearly a two-way street….messages are sent bottom up just as much as they go bottom down (if you don’t believe me, just ask yourself how many mormons you know that use birth control).
In fact, the entire conservative side of the churh completely ignores everything Pr. Kimball decried in “The False Gods We Worship” (environmental destruction, military buildup, worrying about your financial portfolio, etc.) and have great excuses about how this or that isn’t what Kimball REALLY meant, or blah blah blah about in a perfect world, maybe, but not here and now. So, we don’t consider it a “revelation” to stop building up arms, stop trashing the earth, etc.
There is no question that the same liberal mormons that you denigrate (and that even Pr. Kimball seemed to get sick of: “smart mormons”) have done a lot of good. Their work CLEARLY had a major influence on the church. They also clearly have their own set of hypocricies. But they’re also a great deal less homogenous and despicable than you seem to tthink.
Rick, that was the exact tirade I was hoping to avoid by typing “That is a generalization, I know-“. I should have been more explicit in my disclaimer.
Mike, I missed your response in the flood of posts.
Can I assume, then, that you’d support a movement to legalize polygamy?
Anon, same question for you.
Anon, “tirade”? Really? Maybe you take this a little more personally than you profess.
If you knew it was a generalization, why bother with it?