The Elephant in the Room

The Bloggernacle is abuzz over this letter sent from the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to church leaders to be read to all congregations in California last Sunday. The letter asks church members to

do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman.
I have read a variety of comments on the matter, but comments focused on the idea that the church should stay out of politics (to maintain tax-exempt status, because church and state should be separate, etc.) are what got me wondering: what is the church's position on political neutrality?

It can be found here.

The church's mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics. This applies in all of the many nations in which it is established.

The church does not:

  • Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates, or platforms
  • Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes
  • Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
  • Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader

The church does:

  • Encourage its members to play a role as responsible citizens in their communities, including becoming informed about issues and voting in elections
  • Expect its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters
  • Request candidates for office not to imply that their candidacy or platforms are endorsed by the church
  • Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the church

The church is very clear that it is not involved in partisan politics. The proposed amendment to the California state constitution has nothing to do with political parties. It is, however, an "issue that [the church] believes [has] significant community or moral consequences or that directly affects the interests of the church". Therefore, I find no inconsistency between the church's position on political neutrality and its involvement in the California state amendment issue.

Further, The Family: A Proclamation to the World says

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

Since the Proclamation was given, our church leaders continue to encourage us to be involved in protecting the family.

We call upon government and political leaders to put the needs of children and parents first and to think in terms of family impact in all legislation and policy making.

I was greatly saddened to read an (opinion) article that says the pro-family movement in America appears to be dying.

Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), the only openly lesbian Member of Congress, is predicting passage of hate crimes legislation and repeal of DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) in the next Congress regardless of who is elected President.

In 2000, the people of California voted yes to Proposition 22 that defined marriage as a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman , to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary. In March of this year, the California Supreme Court voted 4-3 to legalize homosexual marriage.

This fall, the people of California will again have the opportunity to make their voices heard with the vote on the constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman. In 2000, 64.1% voted "yes" on the issue. This isn't even as high as many other states that have voted on the same issue. Currently, 40 states have DOMAs or constitutional amendments defining marriage as one woman and one man. I suspect that the tide has turned, and this time around, CA will not pass the traditional marriage amendment.

What would this mean for the pro-family movement? Is it really dead? The article referenced above says:

Unless and until the pro-family groups again are able to go on the offense they are likely to lose ground. As unfortunate as that may be, it is reality. To return to the offense the pro-family forces would need more members of Congress. At this stage it appears they will be dealing next year with fewer, not more, in sympathy with their agenda. More members, it seems to me, must be that community's first priority if it expects to be successful.

I agree with the author - I think that the percentage of congress members sympathetic to family causes will decline come November. I can't help but place at least partial blame on Bush and his administration. He is a pro-family man. He ran as a strong conservative and helped Republicans win great victories sweeping both houses of congress in 2002. We had a chance to make things happen and improve things for the better. Instead, he screwed up so heavily in areas like the Iraq war and immigration so that now people are so angry at the "Republicans" that they'll vote any Democrat into office just to get rid of the Republicans. The result is fewer and fewer "pro-family" members of congress.

The Proclamation on the Family is clear about a lot of things. One is this:

[W]e warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

Do you believe that? Do you see a connection between the dying pro-family movement and the disintegration of the family? Do you believe that we will see "calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets"?

I do. I believe we are already seeing them, and I believe it will get worse. Time to get my food storage in order.

53 comments:

Amy said...

My first reaction to all the blog-buzzing angry reactions to the reading of the letter was disbelief that there are that many ignorant people who think the church and politics don't mix. The book of Mormon is chock full of instances where the leaders of the land and the leaders of the Church overlap in job descriptions.

And, we as a church believe that gender is something that is eternal and that if your body is male at birth then your spirit is male. No, you don't get to choose your gender and no, we don't believe in male spirits getting trapped in female bodies and vice versa. Publicly stating that we don't support gay marriage and asking members to be involved politically is nothing new. The church has been asking us to be supportive of local politics by voting for as long as I can remember.

Jackson Howa said...

I (obviously) have a few opinions on this matter, as it involves the primary reason I left the chruch.

First: Amy, being gay is different from being transgender. A gay person identifies with his or her biological gender, but, for primarily biological reasons beyond that individual's control, is only sexually attracted to someone of the same sex. There is not evidence that sexual orientation, once established, can be changed.

A trangender person, on the other hand, may feel "trapped" in the wrong body, and will not identify with his or her biological gender. There is not one lone factor that has been pinpointed that will cause a person to be trangender, but frequently it is because the person was born with the outward anatomy of one sex, but is more hormonally similar to the opposite sex. This is a biological mechanism over which a trangender person has no control.

Second, thank you, Stephanie, for your well-written and well-researched post. I do have some beefs with it, though. First, you repeatedly refer to anti-equality causes, such as banning equal marriage for same sex couples, as "pro-family" causes. This is clearly a misnomer. By opposing marriage equality, these organizations do far more to hurt families than to help them. Banning marriage equality means that loving, committed couples and their children cannot secure the legal and financial protections that come with marriage. How is hurting couples and children "pro-family?" I submit that it is not.

If you want to be pro-family, then support more funding for public daycare, better pay and working hours so parents can spend more time with their children, better schools that will help educate children to live productive and healthy lives. Those are issues that will help families.

Despite your acceptance of the church's involvement in the attempt to pass an amendment to the California Constitution that would hurt families and children, many faithful Mormons that I know are disturbed and offended by the line the Church has taken on this issue. Their faith has been shaken because now, instead of merely making occasional statements advocating cruel and unfavorable treatment of same-sex couples and their children, the church has summoned its full power to fight against fair treatment of all families in California.

These fair-minded churchgoers see that the Church's current leadership is fighting on the wrong side of history, just as it was on the wrong side of history when it opposed interracial marriage and refused to allow black members of the church to hold the priesthood. As with those racial issues, the church will change its stance on the issue of marriage equality, and when it does, many of the fair-minded members of the church, who see that God loves all his children, will breathe a sigh of relief. This will be considered a black time in the history of the church.

Anonymous said...

No, absolutely not. The scriptures repeatedly show the abominations of homosexuality and the countless civilizations destroyed as a result of it. Second, to state that attraction to someone of the same sex is of biological reasons and not succumbing to the temptations is also ridiculous and just justification for sin, which in not a new concept either. Alcoholics cant say they were born alcoholics but they feel the desire just as strong as homosexuals. Evidence that homosexuals can be changed is is available here: http://catholicwriter.wordpress.com
/2007/12/06/message-from-ex-gays-to
-american-psychiatric-association-
dont-ban-therapy/
a quote "Research and anecdotal evidence provided by people who have themselves overcome the condition have shown clear indications that homosexuality, or same-sex attraction disorder (SSA), is connected to a quantifiable set of circumstances. Children from “broken homes” where the parents are divorced or separated and where one or both parents are not present; children who were sexually abused; and children who are temperamentally sensitive are more likely to suffer same-sex attraction disorder and the many psychological disorders associated with it, like depression." I know of several people who were straight and because of some other mental disorder, decided to be gay as well, usually depression or bi-polar disorder. I also know some personally who have given up the lifestyle and admit, it is just for easy sex. I also know of a lesbian couple who married a gay couple, each one respectively just to receive the financial benefits. there is no desire in these couples to raise a great family since it is not even possible for them to procreate. Adoption to these "families" should not be allowed because of the filthy promiscuous lifestyle is not a good environment to raise children in. Sure, there is Promiscuity in single parent households at times as well, but again, Homosexuality is all about easy, commitment-less, relatively worry free (ie. no pregnancy) sex. "Consider the research of McWhirter and Mattison. These men interviewed 156 male couples and concluded that in these relationships "fidelity is not defined in terms of sexual behavior, but rather by their emotional commitment to one another" Bull. next: Two Harvard-trained gay men wrote a book giving a blueprint for using the mass media to normalize homosexual lifestyle (After the Ball; Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen; Doubleday, 1989). The book also acknowledges that "the cheating ratio of 'married' gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%...Many gay lovers, bowing to the inevitable, agree to an 'open relationship,' for which there are as many sets of ground rules as there are couples" (p330). the reference for that is http://members.aol.com/gaymatter/
monog.htm. For the church to take a stance on it merely proves they still are trying to prevent the destruction of our nation. Which the pro-gay, pro-babydeath, politicians are steadily bringing to pass. PS if anyone can instruct me on how to attach lines to a word in a sentence as the writer of this post did I would be very appreciative.

Jackson Howa said...

Robert, you are severely misinformed about the malleability of sexuality. The sources you cited are not credible, and are not endorsed by any major psychological or medical group.

Furthermore, the Bible never says that homosexuality is a sin, only that some newer translations mention it.

Anonymous said...

The LDS Church subtly misrepresents itself when it claims to be "pro-family." It is NOT "pro-family"; rather, it supports a certain KIND of family. It is, rather obviously, opposed to SOME kinds of families....

The Church also equivocates on the word "marriage," as in this statement: "The Church's teaching and position on this moral issue are unequivocal [sic]. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God."

But wait. CIVIL marriage is obviously NOT "ordained of God." (Surely the Church does not mean that a Massachusetts civil marriage between two gay people is "ordained of God"!) So there are at least two understandings or definitions of marriage at play here, one of which (in the LDS view) IS ordained of God and the other of which (again in the LDS view) is NOT ordained by God.

The kind of marriage under discussion here is ONLY civil marriage, not ordained marriage. Yet the Church's rhetoric elides this distinction and thus makes it appear as if the other kind of marriage is under threat. This is the very essence of "equivocation." (Look it up.) Thus the Church is wrong to state that its "teaching and position on this moral issue are UNEQUIVOCAL." Unequivocal, my eye.

Of course, the LDS Church is not the only one to equivocate in this way on this issue. Consider how many times you've heard it said we must outlaw gay marriage because marriage is a "sacrament." Same equivocation. A church marriage might literally be a sacrament within that church, but it is at best only figuratively a sacrament outside the church. Think about it for a second: if civil marriage were LITERALLY a religious sacrament, it would mean that the government, in the person of a county clerk, routinely performs a religious ritual! It would mean the government, in the form of the state legislature, passes laws about who may or may not partake of said sacrament!

Reductio ad absurdum. Civil marriage is not a sacrament. And as I said, it is only civil marriage, the kind that is NOT a sacrament, which is at issue here. After all, no one is arguing the government should compel churches to perform their religious sacrament of marriage for a gay couple if the church doesn't want to.

Not only is civil marriage not a sacrament, but no sane church would want it to be, for the simple reason that no church would want the parameters and availability of a sacrament to be determined by the government.

I'm not going to argue that the Church has no business politicking against gay marriage. But we should all be clear about what the Church implicitly believes, namely this:

The LDS Church believes that the state should use its power to enforce an aspect of its own religious dogma, not only on the population at large, but also on other churches.

Probably just yesterday, in Boston or San Francisco, some branch of the Metropolitan Community Church practiced its own religious belief by performing its own sacrament of marriage for a gay couple. The LDS Church wants the government to have the power to block that religious practice. Remember that the next time someone insists that the Church has so much respect for other religions. Remember it, too, the next time you think about the Church's own history of government oppression.

--David

Amy said...

Well, Jackson and David, you believe that someone who is gay doesn't get to "choose" whether or not to be gay. Personally I believe that they do choose. A person might not choose what temptation they feel, or what attractions they feel, but they do choose whether to act on it or not. And I believe that someone doesn't have to 'be gay' just because they might feel some attraction toward members of the same sex.

Amy said...

oh yeah, and Jackson, the bible might not state the phrase "homosexuality is a sin" but there are plenty of scriptures in the Old and New Testament that refer to men messing around that way, and how it was to be dealt with. Its not just newer translations using modern language.

Jackson Howa said...

Amy, I disagree with your interpretation of the Bible, and I could name several people who have devoted their lives to studying the Bible who would also say that the it never condemns homosexuality. The movie "For the Bible Tells Me So" explains some of the reasons that some modern Christians have misinterpreted the Bible, and what more accurate interpretations would be.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Amy, my post didn't say anything at all about whether gay people choose to be gay. It had to do with the LDS Church's equivocation, not with gay people.

You made a couple of statements that are truly bizarre. First, after suggesting that gay people choose to be gay, you wrote, "A person might not choose what temptation they feel, or what attractions they feel, but they do choose whether to act on it or not."

But it's "the attractions they feel" that make one gay or straight in the first place! Look it up! Here's definition #1: HOMOSEXUAL--of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire to another of the same sex.

To be gay is not necessarily a matter of whom one actually has sex with. A person can be gay and have straight sex. (Many gay people do.) A person can be gay and never have sex at all. (Ditto.) It's merely a question of whom one feels sexual desire for, not whom one has sex with. You're totally botching a basic and important distinction between desire and behavior, and if you botch this distinction as you have, well, I'm sorry, but you're going to be taken about as seriously as someone who talks about Kobe Bryant's brilliance as the 49ers' quarterback.

People, gay and straight, decide whether or not to have sex. They don't decide which sex they find themselves attracted to in the first place, which is to say they don't choose to be gay.

Another of your statements also indicates that you've got the most basic vocabulary completely wrong: "And I believe that someone doesn't have to 'be gay' just because they might feel some attraction toward members of the same sex."

Again, feeling sexual attraction toward members of the same sex is the VERY DEFINITION of being gay. You might as well have written that words mean whatever you want them to mean.

Jackson, do you see what we're up against here? It's absolutely stunning.

Anonymous said...

We don't interpret the scriptures, we follow them the way the lord has instructed, secondly the scriptures do state that "effeminates...can not inherit the kingdom of god." In teaching the people of Corinth about how to recognize things that are from god and things that are from the devil.(1 Corinthians 6:10)If you not sure about the word effeminates, look it up! Paul also taught the people of Galatia and also said lasciviousness and fornicators can not inherit the kingdom of god.(Galatians 5:19-21) not to mention the man is not without the woman and the woman without the man in the lord.(1 Corinthians 11:11) The old testament Moses points out that for a woman to be a whore or a man to be a sodomite is an abomination in the sight of the lord.(Deuteronomy 23:17-18)Sodom was destroyed because of the sexual sin rampant in that city, similar to San Francisco I hear. The end of romans chapter 1 also talks about homosexuality being worthy of death. The lord commanded us to be in the world and not of the world. I would council you not to fight against the goodness of god and do not tolerate sin with the least degree of allowance, God won't.(Alma 45:16) To all you who are trying to follow Christ. Follow the council of his Prophets and I promise they will never lead you astray. David, if have some personal problem with the church, perhaps this isn't the right blog for you. No matter how many frivolous claims you bring towards the church, the Lord has told me personally that this is the way to happiness and his true church here on the earth. How could I negate that? You certainly can't convince me that the Lord was wrong in telling me that or that I mis-interpreted the promptings of the spirit since they are clearly defined following the Galatians scripture and 1 Corinthians 6:10 scripture I cited. Again, could someone instruct me on how to attach a link to a passage?

Amy said...

Anon David, as usual your entire argument is based on semantics.


On another note, I was thinking about another post on this site that talks about child molesters, and I really find it interesting that people think that child molesters should be "rehabilitated" yet the idea of rehabilitating homosexuals to be heterosexual is somehow erroneous to many people. I think the two lifestyles both deal with sex perversion and essentially are similar things. To say you can't help being gay but that you can help in regards to child porn or child molestation seems a bit ironic.

Stephanie said...

Robert, email me (using link on homepage of politicalds) and I'll tell you. You need to use html code.

Amy said...

Sorry Robert: you have to insert your link using html. Also, if you want to use bold, italic, etc you jut type < b > and then the word you want to be bold, and directly after type < / b >

Do this, but without spaces, for it to work.

To insert a link use this html code: < a href= (then in quotes put the website you want to link to) and right after the quotes write the word you want to show up underlined. Then close the html by putting a / in front of the closing tag, which is the letter a enclosed in <>. Hope this works!

Big Daddy B said...

Amy nailed it first. To me the issue of the letter from the First Presidency has less to do with homosexual marriage than it does with obedience. Can each of us say we will humble ourselves and follow the Prophet. Either we believe that the church is led by a prophet or we don't. The rest of the arguments are simply policy issues.

If President Monson told us tomorrow that the church was restoring the United Order then our compliance would be based on our belief in him as a prophet or not. Those who recognize his authority as God's representative will follow his direction. Others will attempt to persuade members not to follow the prophet because the church has no precedent for taking possession of a six year old Volvo (maybe that's too specific of an example).

The fact is that we are told that God will not allow a prophet to lead the church astray. If you don't buy the fact that President Monson is a prophet then it is important to work on that issue privately before attempting to contradict him publicly.

Big Daddy B said...

Jackson,

I noted that you said that the Bible doesn't indicate homosexuality is a sin and that many people have spent their entire lives studying the Bible and say it isn't a sin. I submit that there are many people that study the Bible and make their own interpretations to fit many agendas or lifestyle choices. We saw it happen recently during the primary with Huckabee and others and we will continue to see it. That doesn't mean we have to remain silent about it. Relying on the interpretations of men who lack the authority or inspiration necessary for such an important issue is a major mistake.

For example, the Bible doesn't say anything about internet pornography but I doubt if most members of the church would claim that it isn't a moral transgression. With these types of issues we can count ourselves fortunate to have the restoration of the gospel and modern day revelation to provide guidance.

The church has clearly identified homosexual behavior as a moral transgression and is therefore not recognized as legitimate pairing. With that fact established anything supporting such such a lifestyle (i.e., government sanctioned marriage) is essentially fruit of the poison tree.

Supporting additional rights for gays serves to confuse people and can have a lasting impact on their eternal salvation. Pretending as a society that homosexuality is acceptable in the eyes of God harms the very people it is intended to help.

Those that work to "mainstream" gay lifestyles, partnerships and behaviors often fail to see the long term implications of their actions. Unwittingly they work arm in arm with the adversary to confuse morality and damage souls. If, as members of the church, we participate in such blurring of moral lines we undoubtedly assume a portion of the blame for promoting such behavior.

Stephanie said...

It is interesting that both the June 2008 First presidency Message and July 2008 First presidency Message in the Ensign are about following the counsel of the prophet. Coincidence?

I agree with Jackson that the faith of many members is being shaken over this. It reminds me that in the last days, there will be a sifting of the wheat and the tares. It also reminds me of the hymn, "Who's on the Lord's side, who?"

Jackson Howa said...

Well, many of you have proven that you are extremely brainwashed. I'd keep arguing with you, but what else is there to say when a person won't listen to reason?

Anonymous said...

Alas, the cry of the enlightened progressive. Rather than acknowledge that another point of view they resort to namecalling. So much for reasoning together.

Jackson Howa said...

Well I admire the bravery it takes to criticize me anonymously on the internet. You're putting so much on the line there.

Also, I wasn't name calling. When someone refuses to consider other points of view, refuses to try to understand the overwhelming scientific evidence on an issue, and will not reason out an issue beyond "Well, some old man at church told me that this is what an old book means, so it must be true," that is the definition of brainwashed.

I'm not trying to be insulting here, I'm just stating that there seems to be no use in talking to someone who will not look objectively at the facts presented.

Keep in mind also that I have been called a sinner and an abomination here, so really I'm the last person who should be accused of name calling.

The Wizzle said...

This is really pretty hard to argue. One side is claiming divine acceptance or condemnation of a given lifestyle, according to a man whom the opposing viewpoint does not view as a mouthpiece for God, and according to a very old book with many, many different translations and interpretations, not all of which are agreed on by both parties to be accurate and additionally, the divinity of which are debated by the respective sides. There is also a lot of wordplay going on, with the various sides appropriating "pro-family" (seriously? would anyone volunteer themselves willingly as "anti-family"?) and "anti-equality". It's no wonder the discussion isn't going anywhere.

I don't even really know what to say. Frankly, at this point I'm not entirely comfortable airing my most personal thoughts on this matter in this forum, but I will say some things.

1) I do think there is ample evidence that gender identification and body chemistry, sexual attraction, etc, are very inexact things. Humans exhibit every physical variation possible, from levels of respective "male" and "female" hormones, to libido, to development of external sex characteristics. If the church entirely denies the existence or validity of persons who outwardly have been classed as one sex (sometimes somewhat arbitrarily) and inwardly identify as another, as Amy claims, then I am unaware of it. I thought this was an accepted medical phenomenon, although indeed separate from homosexuality.

2) However, if physically, biologically motivated transgender issues can be proven, then it seems to me that it would be hard to argue against at least the possibility of a biologically motivated sexual orientation "spectrum" as well.

3) It would also seem, to me, according to the best available scientific evidence, that the currently available "treatments" for homosexuality are at best largely ineffective, and at worst cruel and arguably more damaging than the behavior they are trying to change. This is not to say there isn't a way to change someone's sexual orientation through some kind of therapy, but science doesn' seem to know what it is yet. And if that is the case, it seems a little more compassion is in order. I have personally sen the effects of mental illness/brain chemistry imbalances (leaving aside momentarily the issue of whether you believe that homosexuality qualifies as a "disorder" since I know some here don't) and it is not in every case, or in most cases I would venture, a question of just being more righteous or relying on God to snap you out of it.

4) It seems that the church is not contradicting itself in its "mission statement" by advocating its members get out the vote for the California marriage amendment.

5) However, if the idea is to preserve and strengthen families - which I do agree should be one of the goals of legislation generally - then there are so many other issues which, purely unscientifically and according to me, are more damaging to families and which are not being fought over tooth and nail. How many of us here personally know a family torn apart by a gay member who wants to marry his or her partner? How many of us here personally know a family torn apart by a member's alcohol abuse?

5) The argument that people chose to participate in homosexual behaviors for "convenience" purposes such as avoiding pregnancy is truly bizarre, I have to say. Just because two people made a claim twenty years ago doesn't make it so. And before someone accuses me, I'm not being "politically correct". I have nothing to gain by being so. I just don't buy it. It makes no sense on any level, and frankly I wasn't planning to take this much valuable Internet real estate by dignifying it with a response.

6) Comparing homosexuality to child molestation just doesn't make any sense to me. One is preying on individuals who are not of legal age, cannot yet make their own decisions, are not physically or emotionally mature, etc. The other is two adults making adult decision, irrespective of how wrong you feel those decisions to be. You can consider homosexuality a perversion, but placing those two acts in the same class again goes in the "truly bizarre" category for me.

7) I think all of us working through this, and every other issue, is an essential part of our personal spiritual growth. I don't begrudge another person their position on the spectrum because it is *their* position, hard-won and arrived at in the best way they know how. This issue is a difficult one for me, and I won't apologize for that. My personal experience, by and large, does not jive with my Church's statements on the matter. I feel out of step among other Mormons because I don't view this issue the same way most of them do, and church announcements of this kind make me feel very confused and uncomfortable. Other Members are quick to say that's because I don't have my priorities straight (ha! "straight"!) and I'm just pandering to the interests of the world (as I said before - what does that get me? I don't know any of you in real life, and even if I did I'm sorry, but Jackson and Anonymous Dave contribute a lot to this blog but you guys aren't the people I ultimately "answer to" if you see what I mean. ;)) Among the people I personally associate with outside of the church, a moment of hesitation against equal rights for homosexual citizens is inexcusable and I'm a backward bigot for not leaving the Church over this issue. I can't win.

I'll have to leave it at that for now, because I'm tired and I think I'm starting to repeat myself. I'd like to get some other viewpoints on this (hello? Other liberal-leaning LDS folks? I was hoping this blog was going to show me that yes, indeed, there are some others out there!) and I hope the discussion doesn't stall here.

Amy said...

Well, I don't think that equivalizing child attraction evidenced by child porn or child molestation, and homosexuality is bizarre. Afterall, people who molest children do so because they are sexually attracted to children. Homosexuals are sexually attracted to members of the same gender. If attraction is purely a biological thing then the child molesters "can't help" being attracted to children, and if it is really just biological who are we to punish them for acting on their instincts?

Jackson Howa said...

Thanks, Wizzle, for taking the time to write out your feelings on the matter.

For the record I don't in any way think that you (or anyone else) is bigoted simply for being in the church. I think my Grandmother is a great example. She loves me and my husband and she also loves the church with all her heart. Politically, she supports me and my family, but she still follows the commandments of the church and goes to the temple regularly. To her, it's just as important for my husband and I to have equal protections under the law as it is for my heterosexual sister and her fiance to have the right to marry.

I personally left the church for several reasons. One was that I didn't believe in it anymore, but I never decided that the church was bad or evil.

The Wizzle said...

Amy, I see your logic on that level, but surely you agree that molesting a child is harmful to society at large in a way that two consenting adults living in a committed relationship together - even if you also believe that to be sinful - is not?

If not, then we'll just have to agree to disagree on that particular comparison.

big.bald.dave said...

I believe that every man and woman are born with a set of natural tendencies, gifts, and challenges. Some may struggle with faithlessness, some with a lack of ambition, some with addiction to substance or behavior, some with a lack of intelligence, some with homosexuality, some with physical and/or mental disability, some with arrogance, some with greed, some with the inability to remember to put the toilet seat down.

I believe that God's plan works for everyone. I believe it is each of our responsibilities to follow King Benjamin's counsel by putting off the natural man and becoming a saint through the Atonement of Christ.

Do some people have it harder than others? Yeah, without a doubt I think so. Do I believe that homosexual sex acts are sinful? Yes, I do, but I also believe that homosexual tendencies for many individuals are natural and powerful. Anyone who thinks people choose to be gay is kidding themselves. Who on Earth would choose to be gay when for so many it results in being ostracized, disowned, and discriminated against?

However, just because homosexual tendencies are natural and powerful does not make the resulting sexual acts justifiable in the eyes of God. Whether or not you believe the Bible specifically forbids homosexual acts, if you believe in continuing revelation, several modern prophets have condemned them. In any case, it's the act that is a sin, not the tendency. Homosexual persons are welcome in the church so long as they do not act on their homosexual tendencies. And so it is with so many other extremely natural tendencies and desires.

I believe that those who draw the short end of the stick with regards to natural tendencies are due an extra measure of mercy at the judgment seat. This statement is by no means Church doctrine, but as I believe our loving Heavenly Father is not a respector of persons, I therefore believe he must provide greater mercy for those who are given greater challenges. It is by grace we are saved after all we can do, and I believe "all we can do" is quite variable. I believe, therefore, that grace must be inversely variable.

This is a tough issue, certainly one that requires nuance and compassion. I think the Church is within its right to pursue its non-partisan agenda through political means. However, I would prefer the Church simply state its position and leave each Church member to act in his or her own way. Strictly from a political perspective, same-sex marriage is a state's rights issue, and probably always will be. If there is a logical amendment to the Arizona Constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage on the ballot in November, I will probably vote for it, for all the reasons spelled out in the Family Proclamation. But until there is an amendment to the US Constitution (which will never happen, given the logistics and widespread support required), there will likely be several, more liberal states that will allow the practice, while the vast majority will not.

Amy said...

BBD, I completely agree, and I think that the choosing comes into play when people choose to act on their tendencies (or temptations if that is what you want to call them). Just because someone has a tendency towards something doesn't mean they have to act on it, but a lot of people think that if you have a tendency towards one thing then it is naturally there and since it is natural it is ok. That is where I disagree.

Wizzle, I completely believe that sexual relations between two consenting adults of the same gender is harmful to society because it is too easy to condone incest, polygamy, not to mention extramarital sex when you condone that. The California law argument in favor of gay marriage as stated by the judges will condone incest & polygamy as well. Where does it end? I also think it is harmful because any time you justify sin, on any level, you're heading down a bad road. It doesn't matter that you're not the one committing the sin---you're condoning it. And bad roads don't lead to good places. I believe that this leads to the disintegration of the family, and our church leaders have told us that bad things will happen when this occurs.

All that aside, even if I thought gay marriage should be "legal" I would vote against the amendment simply because the church leaders have asked me to. I believe that our church is Christ's own church, and I firmly believe our leaders will NOT lead us astray, I have a testimony of that. And so I will act accordingly, regardless of my own personal beliefs.

Big Daddy B said...

Hi Jackson,

I'm curious to know what you mean by brainwashed. Are you saying that by disagreeing with you that people are brainwashed? I think I'm a little unclear.

My point is that homosexual behavior is clearly a moral transgression according to the church and there simply is no debate on the subject. Modern day authorities have been quite clear on the subject. Therefore, homosexual marriage would naturally fall outside of acceptable morality for the same reason.

Given these facts is it your contention that the First Presidency is in error? Do you believe that people who think homosexuality is a sin are brainwashed? If so, how do you support such an assertion?

I have actually written to some extent on the issue of homosexuality on my blog. If you are inclined to take a look at it I would be very interested in your view. Thanks

http://jamesballou.blogspot.com/2008/07/one-mans-view-on-homosexuality.html

Stephanie said...

I would also like to hear from more liberal-leaning LDS folk about how you are reconciling your thoughts/feelings. I agree with BBD 100%. My heart hurts for people who struggle with homosexual tendencies. I am not about to condemn them. From my perspective of sins, I am only worried about my own (and perhaps those of my husband and children who directly affect me and my family). But, in terms of other people's sins, that is between them and the Lord.

However, with regard to the proposed amendment in CA, I support it and all other DOMA laws. I feel a strong responsibility to stand up to protect the traditional family structure as outlined in the Family Proclamation (and spoken of often in conference). I think that painting the issue as one of "equality" is one of the clever tactics of the adversary in confusing us. Making good look evil and evil look good. In the last days, even the very elect will be deceived.

A lot of what I have heard (once it is established that the church is within its right to encourage us to support the amendment) is that some LDS members feel that this counsel from the prophet disagrees with their personal revelation. It is a valid point to consider. I think it stems from this conference talk by Dallin H. Oaks on testimony.

Members who have a testimony and who act upon it under the direction of their Church leaders are sometimes accused of blind obedience.

Of course, we have leaders, and of course, we are subject to their decisions and directions in the operation of the Church and in the performance of needed priesthood ordinances. But when it comes to learning and knowing the truth of the gospel—our personal testimonies—we each have a direct relationship with God, our Eternal Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ, through the powerful witness of the Holy Ghost. This is what our critics fail to understand. It puzzles them that we can be united in following our leaders and yet independent in knowing for ourselves.

Perhaps the puzzle some feel can be explained by the reality that each of us has two different channels to God. We have a channel of governance through our prophet and other leaders. This channel, which has to do with doctrine, ordinances, and commandments, results in obedience. We also have a channel of personal testimony, which is direct to God. This has to do with His existence, our relationship to Him, and the truth of His restored gospel. This channel results in knowledge. These two channels are mutually reinforcing: knowledge encourages obedience (see Deuteronomy 5:27; Moses 5:11), and obedience enhances knowledge (see John 7:17; D&C 93:1).


However, I think that using this quote to justify disobeying a prophet (or at least disregarding, disagreeing with, or disbelieving) is misunderstanding what it says. Elder Oaks clearly says that we are subject to the decisions and directions of the church, but that we should - and can - receive a personal witness of that decision.

Perhaps many are struggling to receive that witness and have not yet received it.

Many others are saying that the prophet and church are wrong on this issue. My personal feeling is that this is treading in dangerous waters.

I agree with wizzle on the "pro-family" nomenclature, and the same applies to "equality". So much confusion - hard to tell what is right and what is wrong. I do think it is up to each of us individually to do the things we need to do (scripture reading, prayer, temple attendance) to be spiritually prepared for these times, so that we can discern truth from error and make an informed decision. Science isn't even reliable. Science and statistics can be manipulated to say whatever the author of the paper (or whatever the group funding the research) wants it to say.

I guess, overall, my personal feeling is that I need to follow the prophet on this issue (and on all issues). If I need to choose a side, I will side with the prophet. It honestly isn't that hard for me because I do feel that traditional families are under attack, and I feel that this amendment is important. But, I also appreciate the struggle others are having.

Jackson Howa said...

A couple points to consider:

There's nothing "traditional" about the "traditional" family. Remember, the Joseph and Brigham and other early LDS prophets had multiple wives. Old testament prophets had multiple wives plus concubines. Before the 19th Century is was absurd to think that two people would get married for love, not economics. Just because something is done a certain way right now it is not necessarily "traditional."

Also consider that many of the prophets had flaws and sins of their own, others led their flocks astray. Don't ignore your personal connection to God just because a man you think is a Prophet has told you to do this or that. Are you really paying attention to your personal revelation if you only do what God tells you personally when some man you've never met agrees with that revelation? Are you supposed to ignore your own still, small voice just because someone who is supposedly more important than you disagrees? In my mind, that's disrespectful to yourself and to God.

Stephanie said...

Actually, Jackson, I am going to go with "traditional" as defined by God with Adam and Eve, and also as defined in the Family Proclamation. The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

Perhaps if this letter was one random instruction from the prophet that contradicted all other counsel, I might be concerned. But, it is not. It is completely in-line with everything our church leaders have been telling us for years. Amy was right when she said, Publicly stating that we don't support gay marriage and asking members to be involved politically is nothing new.

Stephanie said...

Jab's blog on homosexuality that he links to is really good. It gave me more food for thought.

Anonymous said...

Wizzle, you've let Amy off far too easy. Here's what she wrote:

"After all, people who molest children do so because they are sexually attracted to children. Homosexuals are sexually attracted to members of the same gender. If attraction is purely a biological thing then the child molesters 'can't help' being attracted to children, and if it is really just biological who are we to punish them for acting on their instincts?"

That's incredibly dumb, because the reason we should punish child molesters "for acting on their instincts" is because the action is non-consensual sex, which is to say, rape.

They can't help the desires that arise in them unbidden, but they can help acting upon those desires, just as I can't be held morally or legally accountable for the occasional desire to, say, punch someone out--only for acting upon that desire.

Consensual sex between two men or two women is not rape. (OK, Amy, you may now roll your eyes and dismiss my argument once again because it's just "semantics.")

(FWIW, it's also true that most child molesters are heterosexual.)

Amy still refuses to even acknowledge the distinction between desire (innate, devoid of moral content) and act (chosen, full of moral content). She still refuses to think through the implications of the fact that while sexual acts are chosen, sexual desire is not. She refuses even to acknowledge the simple fact, straight out of the dictionary, that sexual desire is what defines you as straight or gay, is not chosen.

As for Amy's claim that pedophilia is considered treatable: that's disputed, but irrelevant. Just because a condition can be cured does not mean it is chosen. Amy would have us believe that homosexuality is like pedophilia, and pedophilia is treatable, so therefore pedophilia is a chosen condition for which pedophiles are morally culpable, so therefore homosexuality is chosen and something for which the homosexual is morally culpable. Pretty crazy logic, but that seems to be her position.

Now think about the claims of one "Dr. Fred Berlin, founder of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic." (This is coming off of Wikipedia's "Pedophilia" entry.)

Berlin believes "pedophilia could 'indeed be successfully treated,' if only the medical community would give it more attention." Thus far he's with Amy. But he also believes pedophilia to be innate rather than chosen, for he quite sensibly notes that "it is likely that no one would choose voluntarily to develop a pedophilic sexual orientation. Those with such an orientation have no more decided to have it than have any of us decided as children to be either heterosexual or homosexual."

He's now moved far ahead of Amy and gotten it more or less right: sexuality is NOT chosen, but non-normative sexuality may still be "treated" in the sense that people can be conditioned not to acts on those desires--not in the sense that the desire itself can be changed. You can't "pray the gay away," though you might be able to condition the gay person to stop having sex. (Electroshock therapy used to do the trick, but eventually even the LDS Church, which used to refer people to the electrodes, decided it was overly cruel.)

BTW, nothing I've said here or above is the least bit disputed by intelligent conservatives who have bothered to educate themselves on this issue. This is not David the Liberal Spouting the Liberal Position. This is David Addressing Conservatives So Deeply Ensconced in Bigotry and Myth They Don't Even Know the Position of the Unbigoted Conservative.

--David

big.bald.dave said...

Well put, David. I suppose I would consider myself an Unbigoted Conservative on this matter. :)

Stephanie said...

Had to read that last comment twice just to make sure I read it right. :)

Big Daddy B said...

With respect to comparing homosexuality and child molestation I believe it is a fair comparison in that both represent deviant sexual practices. Clearly, consenting adults engaging in deviant sexual practices generally are not violating the law but there is more at stake on this matter than law or private relationships between two people.

With more and more research coming out about brain differences and hormonal differences between gays and straight people it seems that there are important questions to consider. The issue should be evaluated as to whether homosexuality is a function of birth, a choice or somewhere in the middle. If homosexuality is something that people are born with it seems that it is legitimate to determine if we as a society will choose to categorize it as a medical disorder as it was not many decades ago.

Since members of the church are taught that homosexual behavior is a sin I am inclined to view it as a medical issue. In this context shouldn't it be addressed in a similar way to a congenital heart defect or some other organic problem. The same is true with respect to those who are inclined to molest children. It may be caused by a trauma or it may also be the result of some unfortunate chromosomal expression that results in improper attraction.

Sadly, any such suggestion is often met with cries of outrage at the suggestion. I fear that that working to identify the cause of homosexuality and then classifying it as a medical problem as it was in years past is not viewed as a legitimate persuit particularly in the politically correct climate that dominates everything from medical research to the terminology that can be used in text books.

Providing a treatment for homosexuals could be akin to offering cochlear implants to those who are born without the ability to hear. I would oppose making it compulsory but it seems like we should at least provide the option.

As it stands, instead of working to figure out what makes a sliver of the population develop abnormal attractions seems is replaced by bending over backwards to try to make it main stream and even to modify cultural institutions. Look at the rancor and disputations that arise by trying to bend and shape the cultural simply to assuage the demands of those who may have nothing more wrong with them than an endocrine malfunction that could be corrected with simple therapy. Have we become so blinded by the demand for tolerance that we would let people suffer when we could be working to provide a cure?

Stephanie said...

I am really uncomfortable with comparing child molesters to people who are homosexual. Child molesters are criminals. I don't attribute that quality to homosexuals.

I do believe that Satan is using this issue of changing the definition of marriage to undermine families and disrupt the Lord's plans for His children on this earth. Satan is evil, and his designs are evil. But, being gay does not make someone evil.

I admire Jackson for putting his neck out there and defending his position and his comments. Jackson, I can imagine it was painful for you to go through leaving the church. You mentioned your family and grandma. I know it's not easy to just "leave the church" when the church is so much of our culture as Mormons.

The gospel is for everyone. We are all sinners. We all have reason to come unto Christ to be perfected. I have been thinking about you all night, Jackson, and part of me wishes I could just say that I think that you are right and the prophet is wrong so you'll come back to church and we can all be one happy family. :) But, I just don't think that is the way it is (both because I think the prophet is right, and because you didn't just leave the church over this).

I am sad this is a painful issue for you and sorry that we seem to be pouring salt in the wound. I really am not trying to disrespect you even though I disagree with you.

Amy said...

well, you can call me a bigot any day because the fact you think I am a bigot tells me that I'm doing something right. I'd rather you waste your time here trying to convince me I'm wrong because you won't shake my testimony of the truth found in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, rather than spend your time rattling the testimony of someone else with your murmurs.

I think there is something to be said of JAB's last comment. I've been wondering this whole time if anyone would mention the rams experiment because I didn't want to be the one that brought it up. (JAB mentioned it on his personal blog)

Anonymous said...

Well I think for the first time I agree more with David & Jackson on the logic of the issue than I do with the Conservatives. I do feel that science has some answers. With all of the things that can go wrong during development of the fetus and throughout life, I certainly feel that it is possible to have a mix up or mutation in the "attraction" gene. If females have been born with a penis, I'm sure that there could also be a mix up in the attraction department.

BBD, your comment was very well stated. I too agree that homosexuality is a sin, but we all have temptations and attractions that we may have to fight off.

I feel bad for those that struggle, but I am very turned off by the way many gays love to wear it on their shoulders, "I'm Gay!" That's great, I'm straight, but I don't bother telling everyone or march in "straight" parades. (just a little tangent)

Anonymous said...

Wow, what a truly heated discussion!

First off, let me state two things plainly:

1) I believe the holy and natural way of all things is man and woman together.

2) I believe it is not my right to vote for legislation that would force my first belief on others.

I tend to look at this issue from two perspectives, both scientifically and religiously. The natural sexual tendency is one of heterosexuality, no matter if you look at it from a evolutionary or biblical perspective. That being said, abnormalities do occur. I agree with what's been said in regards to homosexuality being a "curable" condition. However, I do not believe that cure comes from any kind of psychological therapy, which seems to be what is being suggested. Homosexual people are not "crazy." They have a brain chemistry that is different than the majority of us in some way. Whether you believe they were made that way by Holy Father or it is simply the result of natural biological randomization is not the issue. It would be interesting to see how many homosexuals would volunteer to be "cured" if one existed. I'm sure a great many of young ones would, whereas those who had lived and worked and found a way to be happy with who they are might not.

I have a hard time with the idea that gay people should not be allowed to marry because their promiscuity would hurt the traditional family and society at large. Yes, studies have shown that the homosexual popluation is more promiscuous than the heterosexual one. But isn't it possible that this is a result of the lifestyle we heterosexuals have forced upon them? After all, isn't the possibility of random sex increased when gay people are not allowed to make the legal commitment of marriage? In other words, is it fair that we should ban homosexuals from legal commitments for their past refusal to committ to the guidelines of the commitments we won't allow them to have? Recent studies have shown that this level of promiscuous sex has largely decreased in the gay population. Could this be the result of the idea of a male/male or female/female monogomous relationship becoming more acceptable to society at large? I don't know the answers to these questions, just some food for thought...

Yes, the bible and the Prophet both say homosexual families are wrong in the eyes of God, and I agree. Does that mean it's our place to dictate our doctrine to the rest of the world? Are we allowed to, throught sheer force of numbers, bend the will of others to what we know is right? I don't believe so. Such oppressive conservativism is a dangerous slippery slope. Imagine what would happen if Conservative "Christianity" were to once again be allowed to force what it "knows" to be right on the church. I try not to forget that, at least in the eyes of society, it was not so long ago that WE were the abnormality, the ones who were a threat to "normalcy."

My other argument for belife two is this: we live in the United States of America. I truly believe that this country is blessed in some way and that there is a reason the Church was rediscovered here. America is based on freedom of choice for everyone of it's citizens. "Life, libery and the pursuit of happiness," and all that. If we are considering denying the right of CIVIL marriage (not holy marriage) to homosexuals, then in order to vote for that amendment, I need to see evidence that allowing them that right would in some way impinge on someone else's constitutional rights. In other words, I need to see hard EVIDENCE that homosexual marriage would harm the traditional family. We have names and faceless accusations, but no real evidence. As if conservatives believe that married gay couples are roaming the streets at night burglarizing homes and tearing down white picket fences...

Why does living next to a gay couple mean our families will be harmed? Why does growing up with two Mom's mean a child will be hurt? If we agree homosexuality is a function of biology and not a choice, than wouldn't that child be gay or straight no matter who their parents were? Yes, normalizing it means that it becomes more accepted and therefore more gay people come out of the woodwork. But the point is, they were already there to begin with.

So yes, the church fully has the right to oppose openly the concept of gay marriage. But shouldn't it be able to look inside itself and find a little empathy for those among us who face a truly TERRIBLE battle for holiness on a daily basis? Shouldn't we as members and people be able find a little compassion for those who bear a nightmarish burden? I'm speaking now to you, Robert. Of all the posts in this thread, your's are the ones that scare me the most. Yes, eventually they judge, and yes, there are absolute rights and absolute wrongs, but my heavenly Father and my Church are ones that come primarily from a place of love. Love for God, love for our brothers and sisters, and love for those outside of the church. Your's seem to come from a place of hate. It scares me that your church and mine are one and the same.

~John

Amy said...

wow Matt, that is interesting. Are you saying that you think that the leaders of the church should NOT be asking us to vote AGAINST legalizing gay marriage?

Anonymous said...

I understand how some will voice opposition to a comparison of homosexuality with child molestation. Please note that I recognize that one is a criminal activity and the other is clearly legal in most locales. My comparison is limited to an analysis of two deviant sexual practices and does not seek to equate them legally.

It is my desire to bring to the fore that despite the fact that we recognize homosexuality as a sin there exists a concerted effort both in the church but more so in modern culture, an attempt to "mainstream" homosexuality. In fact, over at least the last three decades of my life popular culture has moved from whispering the love that dare not speak its name to shouting gay pride in the streets. Simultaneously, those of us within the religious community have been given the choice to acquiesce to demands for "tolerance" or be seen as bigots.

Consider how the culture has even attempted to change how people view tolerance. There are many that view tolerance as a more important trait than humility, obedience and chastity.

As society has been force fed the idea that homosexuality is on par with heterosexual pairing, members of the church have not been exempted from such a campaign. Homosexual behavior is now presented in the media, in the work place and in academia as every bit as valid as heterosexuality. At this point, attempts to argue that homosexuality is a sin are regularly viewed as tantamount to discrimination and at the very least such attempts to classify homosexuality as a sin are viewed as intolerance.

Where once homosexuality was viewed as a sexual practice outside of the mainstream it is now promoted by many. Homosexuality is touted not only as equal with heterosexuality but is in fact an important update in our society. Because of its importance it must receive sanction by the government and even marriage must be redefined in order to accommodate its new found importance.

I believe we hurt those that engage in any immoral practices if we pretend that the practice is somehow acceptable in the eyes of God. If, as a member of the church I was to promote gay marriage I would clearly have to admit that I did not view the moral transgression of homosexuality as a serious sin. If I did I would certainly not be working to encourage its sanction by the government. I would likewise have to discard my desire to help certain groups attain exaltation and replace such a goal with the desire to obtain the Earthly crown of enlightened tolerance. Such behavior would send a conflicting message to my children who see me on the one hand encourage them to live their lives in accordance with the law of chastity while providing an exemption to gays on the other hand.

I recognize that these words are hard to hear and they are not easy for me to say especially given the fact that I have a close relative that is gay. But I speak out on this issue in hopes that we may one day help gays overcome such tendencies.

Jackson Howa said...

JAB, people aren't disagreeing with the comparison between child molestation and homosexuality because one is legal and one is not. My main disagreement is that one hurts a child who cannot consent to sex and the other hurts no one.

John, thanks for sharing your thoughts, it's nice to hear a little different perspective.

Stephanie, thanks for thinking about what I've said, that's all I wanted. If you still disagree with me after giving it serious thought, as you clearly have, then I respect your right to come to a different conclusion than I have.

Stephanie said...

Anon John, I appreciate your comment. What does that mean for you as an LDS person? Do you live in CA? If so, or if not, will you do what the prophet asks in the letter or not? And, if not, what option do you choose? 1 - support the amendment, 2 - don't support but don't be vocal, 3 - don't support, and be vocal in supporting opposition to the amendment.

I am not picking on you. I am interested in how LDS people are reconciling this.

Stephanie said...

And, Anon John:

I have a hard time with the idea that gay people should not be allowed to marry because their promiscuity would hurt the traditional family and society at large.

This is not my argument at all. I am not interested in the promiscuity of others. It is the redefinition of the family that concerns me.

Anonymous said...

Amy, I agree that church leaders should be against legalizing gay marriage as I am, I would be surprised if they didn't come out on it.
I was only saying that I agree that homosexuality is not always a chosen lifestyle. I agree that it is sin and I also believe it degrades the society I am working towards, that being an obedient society. Now that doesn't mean that I hate the sinner, just the sin.

I don't believe we have the right to force our beliefs on anyone, but if enough of us citizens (the majority) disapprove of gay marriage then by all means it should not be legal. That's how our government is supposed to work right?

Amy said...

Ok, that makes sense. I was just curious because you said the liberals were making more sense than the conservatives....but I don't think any conservatives have said that 100% of homosexuals choose their lifestyle---only that they can choose whether to act on their tendency or not.

At any rate, its obvious everyone has an opinion on this issue. I find it interesting to see how many degrees of acceptance/rejection of this issue there are.

Anonymous said...

Well, here's my three bits. I was going to post on this. I rolled the idea around for a few days, and then decided not to, because, frankly, I wasn't comfortable with the response I would get. as an Active LDS memeber, my post would have sounded alot more like Jackson's first response than Stephanie's initial post. When I first heard about this "statement" that was to be read in Sacrament meeting, my honest opinion was, "well, that's unfortunate." My wife's was the same.

Why is it unfortunate? for the simple reason that Jackson said in the beginning. Is the mere allowance of two homosexuals claiming the status of "married" really going to "bring on the calamities fortold by ancient and modern prophets"? No.

Internet Porn, Alchoholism, Long work hours, poor disciplinary choices, child molestation all hold a much bigger claim on what will happen to individual LDS families and their imminant destruction than does Gay Marriage. It's not my choice, but I don't believe that it is the "sin" of our modern time that it has been made out to be.

For those of you who constantly refer to the Bible - PLEASE! Yes, the bible does give a negative light to homosexuality. It also condones Slavery and unprovoked mass genocide as the will of God. Don't go to the bible as an authority. I could prove Hitler was right from the Bible. It's not an authority on political issue, so leave it out of this. And, frankly, the Book of Mormon, D&C and POGP are copletely silent. Someone earlier said that the scriptures make it clear that this will never be accepted - my response to that is, that the scriptures also make it quite clear that the decendants of Ham will never recieve the priesthood. We all know how that turned out. as a big embarassment that we've been trying to turn our backs on for the last 25 years.

The far right conservatives here as well as the Leadership of the Church, in this instance, are both forgetting something - That is what David said - Civil Marriage is not a sacrament - it is a legal statement. The sacrament of Marriage that is between a man and a woman is "the new and everlasting covenant" that is talked about in the D&C - not the notorized document you can pick up from the Justice of the Peace.

There's been alot of talk about semantics - it seems whenever Amy wants to refute David, her first thing is to say, "your arguement is based on semantics" So? Amy, the whole QUESTION is based on semantics. Really, what this boils down to is an official recognition that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was able to be in cahoots with multiple other Christian Organizations in supporting this proposed ammendment. To put it another way, we want to be liked by our Christian friends.

I am very worried that President Monson would do something this brash and this outward. I think it is a definate step in the wrong direction - And I agree that it will be looked on as a dark page in the Church's history one day.

If I were to be living in California, I'd definately vote "NO" on this amendment, and urge my friends and neighbors to do the same. I will say what I said on my post back in January on a similar subject - the only appropriate answer to this question is to take Marriage completely out of the hands of the Government, and return that right to the churches. That is the only constitutional ammendment on Marriage that I would support. Let the churches decide what they want to do - but don't force that decision on society as a whole. Until that becomes a reality, why shouldn't the church urge it's members to give time and money to...I don't know - help people in rehab, build support groups for addicts, and - hey, I love those "family, isn't it about time" ads.

JAB said that, "we are told that God will not allow the Prophet to lead us astray." Well, that may be - I'm not sure where that is written - you know, I've heard it my whole life, but who said it? That in mind, Apperantly the earlier prophets weren't leading us astray durning the CIVIL RIGHTS movement when they wouldn't grand All men the same priveledges of the priesthood. I think that, for at time, we were led astray - and Then led back. That's what was important there. I pray that we as a church will be led back from this mistake.

Anonymous said...

Rick here it is,
President Wilford Woodruff wrote: “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray."
The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, sel. G. Homer Durham (1946), 212–13.

I think that the blacks not receiving the priesthood was not the church being led astray. It was unfortunate but I think for a purpose we know not. Like with the lost writings of the Book of Mormon, It was unfortunate but I think in the end for a purpose we know not. Same with Adam and Eve, not following the council of God actually had a purpose.

The blacks not receiving the priesthood is sad because they personally were not doing anything (sin) to disqualify them. Homosexuals on the other hand are committing sin (when they are sexually active, not just having same sex attraction) or to say it P.C. going against the will of God and for that matter science. Think about it... If one believes in a God and religion or not, you cannot tell me that the sexual intercourse of homosexuals is natural. Be it evolution or God, male and female where given corresponding body parts for a reason. One could argue that they are just satisfying their sexual desires, but so am I if I give into porn.

I do think that homosexuality is becoming a widespread concern. And thus the increasing comments and talks by general authorities,(same with porn). It is now considered P.C. to be gay. I don't care if one chooses this lifestyle but I do not agree that a sexual perversion deserves the same benefits of a couple giving the support of the mother and father God intended. It is proven that the roles of a mother and father cannot be reproduced by a same sex couples.

This isn't just about marriage, this is about the government giving incentives to healthy families looking to teach the next generations about being a good, self reliant God fearing nation.

mistakes for marion said...

I believe regarding marriage what Rick and Matt briefly mentioned.

Marriage is a God ordained practice and should be removed from government regulation. In its place something similiar possibly called a civil union.

In relation to the reason government regulates marriages is for tax breaks, assistance, and position for a couple raising children.

Were not the the government breaks for married couples instituted so that a one parent could stay at home and prepare to raise children? The same reasons for tax allowances for children.

If marriage was taken out of government regulation and replaced by a civil union system in which couples deciding to raise children to be healthy contributing members of society I believe that would solve several of the political disagreements here.

Forgive me if I did not follow any sort of posting edicate, this is my first post here. However, I did read the entire thread.

Anonymous said...

hey, mform - no problem - it was nice to hear from you. And for the back-up :)

Stephanie said...

The church has a new page on its website called The Divine Institution of Marriage. It outlines the church's reasoning for asking members to support Proposition 8. It is very long, but a few key quotes:

The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.

The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has chosen to become involved, along with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, in defending the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman because it is a compelling moral issue of profound importance to our religion and to the future of our society.


It's worth checking out if you get a chance.

Unknown said...

Stephanie, wow, that is quite the fascinating read.

One issue not addressed in that otherwise very thorough press release is the issue of constitutionality - whether or not the U.S. Constitution demands that same-sex marriage be legal. It's all well and good to support an amendment to California's state constitution, but the federal constitution trumps it, and it seems to me that the fourteenth amendment - namely, equal protection - applies. Indeed, the fact that the Church supports an amendment to the federal constitution seems to tacitly admit this. In the interview on the Church site with Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman of the Seventy, Elder Wickman said the following:

"The fact of the matter is that the best way to assure that a definition of marriage as it now stands continues is to put it into the foundational legal document of the United States. That is in the Constitution. That’s where the battle has taken it. Ultimately that’s where the battle is going to be decided. It’s going to be decided as a matter of federal law one way or the other."

Now, in order to honor, obey, and sustain the law, are we not required to support the Constitution as it currently stands - with no provision made for denying same-sex marriage - even if we are, simultaneously, supporting a Constitutional amendment?

Very confusing. Fortunately, here's more from Elder Wickman:

"Decisions even for members of the Church as to what they do with respect to this issue must of course rest with each one in their capacity as citizens."

Thank goodness.

Amy said...

In essence the first presidency views this as a MORAL issue: not a political one. So the question to ask yourself then, is how do you view it? Do you agree with the prophet that this is a moral issue that will have moral repercussions or is it merely another political issue facing our nation in the midst of its politically correct revolution?

Jackson Howa said...

Interesting comment, Amy, and I have to admit, I do think of this as a moral issue. I think it is immoral to tell people who are in love that their love is perverted. I think it is immoral to deny a loving, monogamous couple the same rights as others receive, and I think it is immoral to say that God loves some of his children more than others or that He made a mistake in creating some of them.