I thought I'd write this post because references keep cropping up in other threads Though his prophet is mortal, God will not let him lead his church astray. (See Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, pp. 212–13.) God knows all things, the end from the beginning, and no man becomes president of the church of Jesus Christ by accident, or remains there by chance, or dies by happenstance. The most important prophet, so far as we are concerned, is the one who is living in our day and age. This is the prophet who has today’s instructions from God to us. God’s revelation to Adam did not instruct Noah how to build the ark. Every generation has need of the ancient scripture, plus the current scripture from the living prophet. Therefore, the most crucial reading and pondering that you should do is of the latest inspired words from the Lord’s mouthpiece. That is why it is essential that you have access to and carefully read his words in Church periodicals."
For anyone who likes to follow political dealings and has been under a rock this year, Proposition 8 is a proposition that overturns several judges' decision to override a measure on the 2000 ballot which passed, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Until 1977, since California's entry into statehood in 1850, marriage was assumed to apply only to a man and woman. In 1977 legislature was amended to read "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman". Since then other state laws have passed which recognize domestic partnerships and afford them the benefits that married couples receive, such as health care benefits or property rights.
In 2000 voters passed proposition 22 by approximately 61%, which formally defined marriage as between a man and woman in the state of California. Everyone thought this was the end of the story.
'Twas not to be. In 2004 San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom decided to perform same-sex marriages (not civil unions) in San Francisco. This was part of a string of decisions on his part which have been unconstitutional, but to delve completely into Newsom's biography is meat enough for its own post...another day, another time. Anyway, Newsom's decision set off fireworks emotionally and politically. Newsom's performed marriages were declared invalid but in 2008 the California Supreme Court voted 4-3 to overturn proposition 22 and any other marriage-defining legislature. Same-sex marriages commenced a month later.
While the case was in the courts Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed at least 2 bills that would legalize same-sex marriage. I think he was wise to do so, because the voters spoke in 2000 and the majority declared that they agreed marriage should be defined as being between a man and woman. America was founded on principles of being governed by the majority, and the majority voted in 2000 to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Thats all. Domestic partnerships and civil unions that are granted in California give them married rights such as sharing property, visiting each other in hospitals, being financially tied together...
I don't think that this is a civil rights issue. Civilly, homosexuals are not denied any rights. Just the word 'marriage.' And this isn't anything new. Societies have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman since the dawn of time. No matter what country you look at, in whatever year or whatever century, societies are organized and gathered together with a man and woman forming what is known as: marriage. This isn't just modern 21st century America. Its a core fundamental truth of society: humanity originates from a man and a woman being joined together in marriage.
In response to all of the people that say that protecting marriage as a union set aside only for males and females in turn impedes on the rights of homosexuals; I have been unable to identify any rights that are not afforded them already in the State of California. However, our church believes that all children have the right to have the opportunity of being raised by a mother and a father. I believe in protecting the rights of children that don't have a voice to speak for themselves and that being raised in a family without a father and a mother is a sad situation which should be avoided.
Now there are some people out there who say that this isn't a civil issue, it is a moral issue. I agree. For myself, I believe that civil unions and domestic partnerships give homosexuals what they want. But I do believe that marriage is ordained of God. I believe God ordained marriage to be between a man and woman from the beginning of time onward to today. And I can't vote against my moral conscience. "Marriage" legally should be between a man and a woman.
Other shockingly scary things are happening right now too. Adoption agencies are being sued/shut down for wanting to place children in religious, traditional homes with a father and mother. For articles, click here and here. In San Diego a doctor was sued (and lost) because he wouldn't artificially impregnate a lesbian since doing so was against his religious beliefs. I think this is terrible. A similar case is happening in Sweden now. People, if your doctor isn't willing to do an optional procedure (not life or death, but optional!) then find yourself a different doctor! And since when did sexual orientation trump religious freedom?? This country was founded upon principles of religious freedom. Treating someone's religious beliefs so lightly does not bode well for our future. The time may soon come when judges decide that churches cannot perform legal marriages unless they also conduct homosexual marriages. There is much to be lost and we have been advised by our Church that now is the time to make the stand.
Now, since this is a political blog maintained by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints I want to address the issue that many people appear to be shocked by; that is, that our current leader of the church, the prophet we sustained in General Conference last spring, President Thomas S Monson, has asked church members to vote in such a way that marriage is a definition preserved for a man and woman. Some people say that the church shouldn't get involved in politics. Others say that this violates people's agency. Well, I say that the prophet is THE PROPHET of the world, whether that world recognizes him or not. I believe that President Monson was called of God and receives instruction on how to lead us and guide us, regardless of political affiliation. Therefore I will listen and obey.
I won't listen and obey because I happen to agree with what he is asking of me: I will listen and obey because I believe he is a prophet of God and and I think my entire membership in this church is supported by principles like: my belief that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift of God, and my belief that God has sent us prophets again to lead and guide us if we will but listen.
Ezra Taft Benson wrote: "in addition to Christ providing us the gift of his life as a model, he has provided us the gift of a prophet. Of all mortal men, we should keep our eyes most firmly fixed on the captain, the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is the man who stands closest to the fountain of living waters. There are some heavenly instructions for us that we can only receive through the prophet. A good way to measure your standing with the Lord is to see how you feel about, and act upon, the inspired words of his earthly representative, the prophet-president. The inspired words of the president are not to be trifled with. All men are entitled to inspiration, and various men are entitled to revelation for their particular assignment. But only one man stands as the Lord’s spokesman to the Church and the world and he is the president of the Church. The word of all other men should be weighed against his inspired words.
So what are we being asked, exactly? Not much. Not to give up our homes and carry our possessions on our backs to literally follow the prophet to a new land. Not to leave the wives at home with young children while the men go off on missions that last an unknown number of years. Not to give up our entire savings accounts. Not some weird perverted sex thing. Just to vote in a way to legally establish something in our modern world that has been recognized as normal and truth in centuries past: that marriage is between a man and a woman.
So there you have it. If you are LDS and living in California you should ask yourself what your testimony of the prophet truly is: do you think he leads and guides us to do God's will and God will not allow the leader of His church to push personal agendas? Or do you think membership in this church doesn't entail doing every little thing the prophet, apostles, and other leaders ask of us? AND, if you are LDS and not living in California you should ask yourself what this particular chain of events means: are you simply happy that you're not being asked anything politically right now? or are you suspicious that if proposition 8 doesn't pass then you'll be facing similar legislation overwrites regarding same-sex marriage on your own state bills come voting season next year?
As saints in California we have been instructed on how to vote on this moral issue. However, we have also been instructed to do "all we can" to support proposition 8. If you would like to support proposition 8 please click here. Or go to protectmarriage.com
California's Proposition 8
Posted by Amy on 8/24/2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
237 comments:
"However, our church believes that all children have the right to have the opportunity of being raised by a mother and a father. I believe in protecting the rights of children that don't have a voice to speak for themselves and that being raised in a family without a father and a mother is a sad situation which should be avoided."
And exactly how does denying civil marriage equality further this goal?
"Civilly, homosexuals are not denied any rights. Just the word 'marriage.'"
Actually, there are minor differences in what civil unions get and what marriages get. But the problem with having one set of legal relationships called "civil union" and another called "marriage" is that separate is very rarely equal. There are thousands of laws on the local, state and federal level that refer to "marriage," which is why civil marriage equality is so important.
"And this isn't anything new. Societies have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman since the dawn of time."
Actually, in several dispensations, "marriage" has been defined as one man, many women. And that is what the church feels it will be in the Celestial Kingdom, as well. "Marriage" has also been defined as a man and his chattel, which included his wife. It's also been defined as only being between people of the same race. So the definition HAS changed over the years.
What rational (not religious/moral) reasons exist for denying CIVIL marriage equality?
"Not to give up our entire savings accounts."
Isn't that EXACTLY what you should be doing? Didn't Jesus say to "give all you have" to the poor and follow him?
Ooh, wow, what is this, round 3 on same-sex marriage? I don't know if I have another one in me...
...ok, I'll bring forward my recent comment on "The Elephant in the Room":
Stephanie, wow, that is quite the fascinating read (referring to this press release).
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.
And now I will go on from there:
I love, honor, and sustain President Monson. Therefore I will "do all I can" to forward the Church's position on this issue, as he has asked. At this point in my life, my spiritual journey, all I can do is sit, dejectedly, on the sidelines. I do not understand why this is being asked of us. I feel as wholly conflicted about this as I ever have about anything, to be honest. Every fiber of my being screams out that President Monson is a true prophet AND that this is wrong. There is no way I can actively support the proposed amendment (or the bigger issue, since federal judges will probably strike it down if passed, of a Constitutional amendment), nor is there anymore a way I can actively oppose it.
You can call me wishy-washy, you can call me weak in the faith, you can call me someone who doesn't strive to follow the Prophet, you can call me lukewarm, you can call me a DINO, you can call me a bigot, you can call me a homophobe. Please don't, though, because I'm really not any of those things. I'm just hopelessly lost.
Marriage between a man and a woman is sacred. I'll never be convinced otherwise. I'm not a big arguer so I won't go there. In Arizona we are facing a similar item on our ballot and I intend to vote to uphold traditional marriage. I know some may call me old fashioned but I don't care, I'm not worried about standing up for what I hold true. The call from the first presidency only strengthens my belief and desire to speak out and to help those who want to preserve the definition of marriage between a man and a woman. This is the definition I want my children to see, know and understand and I will fight that it is right.
Sorry, Amy, but it's wrong to say that "America was founded on principles of being governed by the majority." The U.S. Constitution shields various rights of various minorities (broadly understood) from being broached by the majority. If the majority decides that Mormons can't vote, the Supreme Court will quite rightly rule against that majority. So it's wrong to claim, as part of your argument, that "America was founded on principles of being governed by the majority" and "that's all." It ain't all, and you know it. The question is not whether a ban on gay marriage reflects the will of the majority. The question is whether that majority is infringing upon the rights of the minority as spelled out by the California Constitution. That's the question the California Supreme Court addressed, yet you have side-stepped it.
As for the idea that all that is at issue is a word--would you consider it a civil rights issue if the Mormon faith were legally defined as not Christian, or not even a religion? Say, if an initiative were passed that preserved the LDS Church's tax exemption but officially defined a religion in a way that excluded the LDS (as, say, "a spiritual organization committed to the Nicean conception of the Trinity")? I daresay you'd consider it a civil rights issue it your ox were being gored. (What did Jesus say? Don't do unto others...?)
And I had to laugh when I read Darby's claim that "Marriage between a man and a woman is sacred." Well, so what if it is? Since when do Mormons or anyone else want the government regulating sacraments? Baptism is sacred, too, and as I understand it, Mormons are not too keen on the idea of infant baptism. Let's have the government ban it!
Nothing seems to bring out the bad thinking like this issue. Bigotry will do that.
I really hate coming to this site... This site is simple - "share your thoughts and feelings"... but it always seems to be "find and expose anything wrong" even though the posts asks a question to comment on.
Mr. (or Mrs. but probably Mr.) Anonymous, Darby expressed a thought or feeling and nearly quoted scripture (The Family: A Proclamation to the World)... do you laugh at scripture as well? Darby probably said 'sacred' because "ordained of God" was already used. When the Church comes out with a Proclamation on Baptism you can compare the two.
Thanks Amy, I like how you made the issue clear (should be anyway... Satan has a crazy way of making bad look good and good look bad)... but the bottom line is clear - we should follow the prophet.
It is my opinion that two temple recommend questions come up with this:
Before doing so... we do not need to get into any discussion regarding the temple. I am simply continuing with Amy's arguement of following the prophet.
#4 (the fourth question in the interview) Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?
#7 (the seventh question in the interview) Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
And for those that are going to find something to say against my comment... go ahead, I probably misspelled something.
Beautiful. I just wrote my own reason why I feel the church leaders are for this movement.
I would also like to add that society was built on morals. Are laws are based on morals, you take the morals out of law and you have no law. It is simply a moral issue.
There is a story about a man and his camel. The man pitches his tent and a storm comes. The camel puts his nose in the tent and says, please just let me keep my nose in so that I can breathe and the dust won't get into my nostrils. Then his ears are in, then the head, until finally the man is outside and the camel has taken over the tent.
Are we letting the camels nose in if same sex marriage is legalized. I do believe so. Thanks for you stance. I value it.
I am in the same boat as Mike; I have historically opposed legislation defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and President Monson's statement at first really disappointed me. This is one case, however, where I have decided to just follow the prophet. I may not fully understand the reasons behind the statement, but I just feel I need to follow the prophet on this for whatever reason.
Anonymous: Nothing seems to bring out the bad thinking like this issue. Bigotry will do that.
I have a hard time with the word 'bigotry' on this issue. The Church feels that same-sex marriage will cause irreparable harm to society, and put church and state on a collision course. The LDS Church is not advocating bigotry (or even disrespect); it is advocating for the well-being of society as a whole. The Church's recent press release on marriage speaks specifically to those who charge it with intolerance or bigotry - it's worth a read.
BBD, I don't buy this argument that you made above:
"I have a hard time with the word 'bigotry' on this issue. The Church feels that same-sex marriage will cause irreparable harm to society, and put church and state on a collision course. The LDS Church is not advocating bigotry (or even disrespect); it is advocating for the well-being of society as a whole."
Let's suppose the Church sincerely believes "that same-sex marriage will cause irreparable harm to society." That does not automatically clear it of the charge of bigotry. After all, many people have believed with equal sincerity that interracial marriage would "cause irreparable harm to society." But why did they beieve that, if not because they also believed certain racial ideas that can accurately be described as...bigotry?
Ditto for the LDS Church. Sure, it's sincere. But it sincerely believes gay marriage to be a threat because it has certain ideas about gay people that are bigoted.
The Church is saying to gay people that their aspirations for marriage pose a fundamental threat to society. What could possibly be more disrespectful than that? The Church is not merely saying that what gay people do is immoral, it's saying that gay people pose a fundamental threat to civilization itself. What a mammoth insult. (Imagine me saying the same sort of thing about your Church.)
As for putting "church and state on a collision course," how so? It's not as if the state would be compelling the Church to start performing gay marriages. The Church would be as free as it is now to marry whomever it pleases. So if Prop. 8 fails, and gay marriages become more and more common, how does that bring the Church into conflict with the state? The drinking of alcohol is legal, yet the Church manages to accept that without colliding with the state. It does so by holding its members to a different standard than the legal standard of the society as a whole. Easy as pie. Ditto for any of a number of other things the Church disapproves of. So what makes gay marriage so special? (Hint: starts with "B.")
--David
P.S. The anonymous post above is mine. Forgot to add my name to it.
Dave -
Although we seem to be on opposite sides of this issue, I do agree that "bigot" and "homophobe" get thrown around far too much in this debate. Bigotry and homophobia, for me, call to mind folks of the sort who murdered Matthew Shepard, or those, like Donald Wildmon, who are in favor of eliminating all civil rights for gay people.
That said, I think it's disingenuous to think opposing marriage equality doesn't have some aspects of bigotry. We are talking about important civil rights here. No one is asking any church to marry any couple it doesn't want to, but there are real impacts on real people when civil marriage isn't available to all.
Here is a true story for you to consider: I had an uncle-in-law who was a gay man. A descendant of handcart pioneers, he lived with his partner for more than 35 years. They were a loving, committed couple. They worked hard, they paid taxes, they did lots of volunteer work. They treated their nieces and nephews very well and were “favorite uncles.” He even used to play the organ at the Tabernacle in Salt Lake. (When he was a young man.)
He and his partner also did all they could legally to formalize their relationship, but of course they could not marry.
When my uncle-in-law died of lung cancer, his surviving partner did not receive Social Security survivor benefits — as they would have if they had been married.
In addition, the surviving partner had to pay a hefty inheritance tax on the 50% share of their house my uncle-in-law had bequeathed to him. Legally married spouses are exempt from this tax.
Finally, the property tax basis on the house rose dramatically — again, something that wouldn’t have happened if they had been able to marry.
These three things combined made it impossible for his surviving partner to be able to afford to stay in the home they had shared for more than three decades.
Does this seem fair, or equitable to you? These are the sort of civil rights gays and lesbians are seeking.
Dave, you said: "The Church feels that same-sex marriage will cause irreparable harm to society,"
How, specifically?
The Church is not merely saying that what gay people do is immoral, it's saying that gay people pose a fundamental threat to civilization itself.
No, the church is saying that redefining marriage to anything other than one man and one woman is a fundamental threat to civilization itself.
The definition of bigotry is "intolerance and prejudice". The church is not teaching either. It is not telling its members to be intolerant of people who are gay, or to "judge" gay people. I think bigotry is an inappropriate word in this situation.
Tom, did you read the link that Dave put in his comment?
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.
P.P.S. B.B.D., "The Divine Institution of Marriage" is shot through with falsehood, and I'm a little surprised you're not seeing that. To give just one example: It is false to characterize opposition to gay marriage as "protecting marriage between a man and a woman," for the simple reason that gay marriage poses no threat to "marriage between a man and a woman." Men and women will be as free as ever to marry.
Another example: To state without further qualification that "Marriage is sacred" is pure equivocation. Marriage per se is not sacred. It can be religious, it can be secular, or it can be both at once. But marriage per se cannot be said to be sacred, any more than religion can be said to be Christian. The Church is equivocating here. (That is, it's using the ambiguity of a word to further its argument, and that ain't kosher. It ain't moral. Sorry.)
I could go on, but suffice it to say that "The Divine Institution of Marriage" is shamefully misleading rhetoric.
The Church would see that were it not for its...bigotry.
--David
Wow, Stephanie. So the Church "is not telling its members to be intolerant of people who are gay, or to 'judge' gay people." Don't be "intolerant," just don't "tolerate" gay people's marriages. In an earlier era it was, "Don't be intolerant toward black people, just don't tolerate their marriage to white people, because, you know, it'll harm the society." No bigotry there!
Imagine someone who believes interracial marriage to be a horrible thing. (You know, someone like Brigham Young.) That belief is absolutely inseparable from negative judgments about black people. The judgment is implicit in the ideology. "Oh--I don't have anything against black people as people, I just, you know, don't believe they should be marrying white people. That has nothing to do with the idea that their skin color is the divine mark of their Hamitic inferiority or anything like that, no siree." Such talk, of course, is rubbish. Take a look at the history of the racist doctrines (there to this day in the Pearl of Great Price) that grounded the exclusion of blacks from the Melchizedek priesthood. Then tell me the Church's current marriage politics are not similarly grounded in its moral condemnation, I mean judgment, of gay people. Oh sorry--not gay people, but just the gayness that makes them gay people. You know, as in "I don't want to exclude black people from marriage because they are black as individuals; my problem is only with blackness itself. My opposition to blacks marrying whites has nothing to do with any racism whatsoever. It's a perfectly rational expression of my concern for society at large. Ergo I'm not bigoted."
Right.
There's a simple solution here: give up the bigotry. If in fact you've already done so, then stand up to your Church and ask it to do likewise. For several decades the Church was rightly ridiculed for its priesthood ban, partly because of the obedient silence of so many of its members who in fact were not racist; if in fact you are not homophobic, why let your church stew for decades to come in this particular embarrassment?
--David
I could go on, but suffice it to say that "The Divine Institution of Marriage" is shamefully misleading rhetoric.
David, I find very little common ground with you on this. Therefore, I will refrain from discussing it with you. When you can so easily dismiss all of my beliefs, I don't see how it would be productive.
I do have a few thoughts based on Amy's original post. First, where does the power in our society lie? On the one hand, the majority vote decides. On the other hand, judges protect the minority from discrimination by the majority. But, what if those judges are partial to one side? What if one side gets activist judges in power to pass its agenda? It all very much reminds me of these verses in the Book of Mormon:
Mosiah 29 25 Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the claws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them by the hand of the Lord.
26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.
27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.
28 And now if ye have judges, and they do not judge you according to the law which has been given, ye can cause that they may be judged of a higher judge.
29 If your higher judges do not judge righteous judgments, ye shall cause that a small number of your lower judges should be gathered together, and they shall judge your higher judges, according to the voice of the people.
Anyways, I just wonder if our judges are in check?
I believe that civil unions and domestic partnerships give homosexuals what they want.
I honestly don't think this is enough to satisfy the "wants". Someone already mentioned that "separate but equal" status isn't good enough. I think the ramifications of losing Prop 8 extend much farther than I can even comprehend, which is why I am grateful to have a prophet who can see and forewarn.
Seeing as what is happening in those articles you linked to, is it feasible that LDS Social Services would need to shut down or adopt to gay couples if this passes?
The whole issue (particularly the longer that it lasts and the more it is discussed) reminds me of the hymn Who's On the Lord's Side, Who?
As David accurately points out, there is little we who support Prop 8 and support our leaders can do to "prove" to the "other side" that the cause is just or that we are not "bigoted homophobes". I thought that the press release explained things beautifully. Anon David dismissed it as "shamefully misleading rhetoric". I think there comes a point where you just have to stand for what you believe in and take whatever crap is thrown at you. It is honestly a little scary.
P.P.S. Having been Mormon for over 18 years, I know almost all there is to know about LDS Doctrine, and as far as I can find, there has never been any scripture that has said the Prophet is infallible. In fact, many scriptures show that the prophets, no matter how close they are to God, can have personal struggles that affect their flocks.
President Monson can be a prophet, seer, and revelator and still be wrong on this issue. Perhaps President Monson is struggling with his own deeply rooted bigotry, and suffering from the pressure his congregation has put on him to oppose marriage equality. I'm not saying that my scenario is what's going on, all I'm saying is that it is possible and that such a circumstance would not conflict with any LDS doctrine that I am aware of.
Jackson, although we are on different sides of the debate, I just want to say how much I respect you for defending your position even when you perceive the "environment" as hostile. I am looking forward to the vote coming to an end so we can get all of the debate behind us. I suspect Prop 8 will fail, and I suspect that it will have lots of unintended consequences, but I am not sure that it could be much worse than all the discord going on (then again, I could be wrong).
Congratulations on your marriage. It is legal, and you are happy, so I sincerely hope it brings many blessings to your life.
(I do think you went a little too far with the Based on your general closed minded meanness, I'm sure that Jacob and I would make much more loving and understanding parents than you and any man would. comment, but I understand your emotional reaction to the post, and I am betting that Amy does, too.)
Also, I don't know about the infallible prophet argument on this. It wasn't just President Monson - it was the whole First Presidency, right? I could see perhaps one man being off-track a bit, but I am not sure about the whole FP. Just my thoughts on the matter.
Stephanie,
You're right that my comment about Amy being closed minded was going too far. As you said, I got emotional because I felt that I was being personally attacked. Thank you for showing me respect, even though we disagree, and I want you to know that I respect you as well. Thank you for making a comment to talk me down.
Amy,
I apologize for my personal attack on your fitness to parent. It was inappropriate for me to say, especially since I have never met you in person. Please understand that I feel that you are trying to take my family away from me. I'm sure you would fight to keep your family too.
When reading the scriptures it is very clear that God has standards which He holds people accountable for. Although He shows love and compassion for every person, it is definite that He has made laws for us, his children, to abide by because He wants us to be happy and become like Him. God would cease to be God if he did not have laws and consequences attached to them. Also, it is also quite clear from reading the scriptures that He reveals his will through the voice of His servants, the prophets.
He has taught us through the scriptures the proper role of marriage and sexuality. Additionally, He has informed us through his prophets about these issues. Therefore, I will follow His commandments. They are clear and they will lead us only to happiness. I urge everyone to also read the scriptures, pray, and do what He has asked of us. God lives. He loves us so he has given us commandments. If we don't follow the commandments there will be consequences. We can follow His example and show love and compassion while following His commandments.
Amy, though I disagree with your general stance, I have to say - that is a masterful post. Good job on a very good post. Some may say that it is emotion-based, or full of rhetoric, but I think it is a great post outlining the LDS perspective, why many feel the way they do, and why you feel the way you do - and it gets one thinking.
My feelings are still different than yours. I outlined them below in the comment thread of my post, "pro-death." So I'll only briefly revisit them here.
I believe Pres. Monson to be the person that is divinely ordained to lead this Church in these times. And, as such, I support him in that position. Nothing more, and nothing more specific is required of me. Not in temple reccomend interview questions - no where. Therefore, I can say this honestly, and still feel the way I do.
This decision by the first presidency is not in line with my personal convictions on the matter, and so, like Mike, the most I can do is sustain the prophet as I've defined above, and do nothing. In the event that I was forced to vote on it, I'd go with my concience.
That being said, I feel that the First Presidency made this decision for a very specific reason. I don't think it was out of biggotry at all. I think that a decision was made as a polticial decision to bring the LDS Church more inline with other Christian Churches in their eyes, so that we would be percieved as being more "on the side" of Christianity, rather than on another side. Is it blasphemous to think that the Presidency would guide the church to do something partially because of PR? I don't feel that it is.
Again, I do think that that is definately within the rights of the collective leadership of a major Church that is percieved to be "on the fringe" of Christianity.
Do I agree with this decision? Nope. Do I have to? Nope.
I'll say it again. I grant the leadership of this church the same right as I'd grant to any other human beings - I love them, I support them, and I know that they are human (as am I) and that they will not always make the same decisions that I would. No animosity there, but also there is no rason that i should feel compelled to act in a way that is honestly against my own moral judgement.
Perhaps someday I'll feel differently. Perhaps someday the Church will feel differently. Who knows. In the end, I think what really matters is that we are honest with ourselves and that we are honest before God and that we love our neighbors and don't throw out accusations or belittlements - on either side of the spectrum.
John, you wrote, "Stop trying to push an agenda which takes away my right to practice my faith." Who's doing that? If gay marriage prevails, exactly how will you no longer be able to practice your faith?
--David
I am not the administrator, therefore, I can't remove it. Hopefully the administrator can remove it. But If not - Anonymous John, your comment, while it obviously contained your emotion, was directly agressive, inflamatory, and explicit. Please refrain from any more comments like that in the future. THey are not welcome here. The purpose here is to share opinions and feelings - even debate a bit, not to attack.
That being said, I feel that the First Presidency made this decision for a very specific reason. I don't think it was out of biggotry at all. I think that a decision was made as a polticial decision to bring the LDS Church more inline with other Christian Churches in their eyes, so that we would be percieved as being more "on the side" of Christianity, rather than on another side. Is it blasphemous to think that the Presidency would guide the church to do something partially because of PR? I don't feel that it is.
I don't think it's blasphemous, but I do think you're wrong. :)
The Church has been extremely consistent on this topic; they may be joining a specific coalition to further the cause politically, but the Church hasn't changed its stance at all (as far as I am aware, anyway).
BTW, Anonymous John, those sorts of personal attacks are not welcome nor tolerated here.
I second that. While I agree with john's statement that children need both a mother and a father, the personal attacks on jackson are not warranted. Please, everyone, let's be respectful of one another.
In my very first comment I asked the question "how does denying marriage equality further the goal of having more children grow up in homes with both a mother and a father?"
No one has answered that question, yet it keeps being brought up that people feel children deserve both a mother and father.
In my very first comment I asked the question "how does denying marriage equality further the goal of having more children grow up in homes with both a mother and a father?"
No one has answered that question, yet it keeps being brought up that people feel children deserve both a mother and father.
Seems an elementary question with an elementary answer. Marriage brings with it the right to adopt children, therefore if homosexual couples are allowed to adopt children, prohibiting same-sex marriage furthers that goal.
I am anticipating that the Prophet is a Prophet and that there are moral reasons, that I do not yet know for sure, which will have a negative consequence on my church or my faith if this passes. I believe that is the reason the Prophet is telling us to take a stand.
Amy wisely discussed possible negative consequences in her post. She described the current legal judgements that require elective non-required medical procedures to be performed by doctors against their will. The potential consequence that most concerns me is:
"The time may soon come when judges decide that churches cannot perform legal marriages unless they also conduct homosexual marriages."
I like having the right to be married in my church, and I want my children to have the same right.
I don't know what will come next, but I believe that Thomas S. Monson is the prophet and that he can forsee what calamaties will come to our world and our church if we don't stand up for this proposition.
-John
Actually, BBD, in every state that I'm aware of, single people and unmarried couples are allowed to adopt. Two that I know of (Oklahoma and Florida) specifically prohibit gay people or couples from adopting.
Marriage is not linked to adoption rights in the US legal system, so prohibiting same-sex marriage does not have any effect on getting children into "one mother, one father" homes. It does, however, have the effect of denying rights and protections to children of same-sex couples.
Remember, too, that same-sex couples will keep having biological children whether or not they are allowed to adopt, so even if same-sex or gay parent adoption were illegal, banning same-sex couples from marrying would still only hurt those children.
Jackson - thanks for the info, and pardon my ignorance. :)
Tom, I'll answer your question. I think that given the current state of our nation with regard to God’s commandments, and how strongly I feel about individual rights and religious freedom, I think that the solution in terms of benefits and all of that is that the state only recognizes civil unions for everyone and takes “marriage” out of it.
On the other hand, if “marriage” is taken out of it, does “marriage” mean much to society anymore? Of course it will always have meaning in the church with our temple sealings. And if couples have to get married in a court and then sealed in the temple, I don’t think it is the end of the world. It doesn’t make the sealings any less valid. But, for a lot of people, they wouldn’t need a marriage. Civil unions would be enough. In fact, if domestic partnerships can grant all the rights and benefits, why even have a civil union that requires a contract? Why not just say that all people living together automatically get the rights? I think this would hurt children because children need stability. They need one mom and dad their whole lives - not just one mom and whoever she is co-habitating with.
Will that “hurt” society? I believe it would. On the one hand, I agree with no-fault divorce because it protects people in abusive marriages. On the other hand, I believe that it has contributed to the downfall of the family. On the one hand I don’t think that adultery should be criminally prosecuted (although I do think it should be used in court to sue for “breach of contract”). On the other hand, I believe that the legalized nature of adultery has led to the downfall of the family. Somehow, legalizing things does make them more normal and acceptable, and I believe that dissolving traditional families as the “norm” will hurt society. It likely will have no effect on me or my children - that is true. But, I do think it will have an effect on other children as families are essentially “irrelevant” (which I believe we are moving toward).
I have shared this before, and do so again as a discussion piece (because this thread is so in need of more things to discuss) :)
Government Should Quit the Marriage Business
Also, hey, all you Anonymi and first-time commentors, feel free to stick around - we talk about more mundane topics, too. :)
My orginal comment was in direct response to Jackson's hate filled attack on Amy.
I don't comment very often on this blog, but I do observe the discussion. You may obviously delete whatever comments you like. I see no issue with deleting hate filled comments like Jackson's.
I am tired of being silent when liberal idiots attack constantly while conservatives are required to turn the other cheek. I don't accept half felt weak and otherwise fake appologies that are posted as an afterthought in order to save appearances.
-John
Here is what the church press release that BBD linked to says about your question, Tom:
Perhaps the most common argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way. “It won’t affect you, so why should you care?’ is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations. The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for society . . .
When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide . . .
[T]he all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?
Here's the policy on comment deletion: Any time I receive a request from a blog author to remove a comment perceived to be appropriate, I will do it, trusting our bloggers to follow the guidelines posted in the blog's initial post:
"What this is:
* A place for information;
* A place for strong opinions;
* A place for lively discussion and interaction;
* A place for respect.
What this isn't:
* A place for bickering;
* A place for bashing of any religion;
* A place for personal attacks.
I am tired of being silent when liberal[s] . . . attack constantly while conservatives are required to turn the other cheek.
Please don't be silent! Please keep coming back and commenting! We need more perspectives from the "right" side (pun intended. :)) Just don't personally attack. (In addition to being hurtful to the individual, it doesn't help our cause much either).
"I am tired of being silent when liberal idiots attack constantly while conservatives are required to turn the other cheek. I don't accept half felt weak and otherwise fake appologies that are posted as an afterthought in order to save appearances."
Again, not a war ground, man. Jackson has already apologized for his bitter words towards Amy. I feel like I, being a "liberal idiot" have turned the other cheek a number of times. In fact, I don't feel I've often needed to turn the other cheek, as this isn't a war ground. The purpose of this website is not to have conservatives vs. liberal mormons - it's not a game of who's right and who's wrong.
Christ wanted us to love one another - and to turn the other cheek. When any of the Saviors "enemies" came to him with words of hate - or even came to him apologetic and repentant, did he ever respond by calling them idiots or scoffing at their "half-felt, weak, or otherwise fake apologies"?
If we want to take upon us the name of Christ, lets do so. This should be a great exercize in that, as we are exposed to people (with some sort of tie to our own faith) from all parts of the religo/political spectrum. Lets practice some tolerance and understanding - no one is saying acceptance - just understanding.
"I think that the solution in terms of benefits and all of that is that the state only recognizes civil unions for everyone and takes “marriage” out of it."
If the state wants to get out of the marriage business, that's fine with me. You get a civil union for all the government rights and responsibilities, then any couple who wants can be married by any church they choose (and that will allow them to be married).
"Somehow, legalizing things does make them more normal and acceptable, and I believe that dissolving traditional families as the “norm” will hurt society."
How will marriage equality dissolve traditional families?
Stephanie -- Your posting of the church's press release indulges in speculation and circular logic.
"While it may be true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations."
This is speculation. I would say marriage equality will have a positive effect on future generations by creating a more equal and just society and creating a world in which people who are born homosexual no longer need to feel ashamed of who they are, reducing suicide rates, sham marriages, etc.
The church references studies of European countries where -- supposedly -- marriage rates have dropped, yet these studies have shown no causal relationship between marriage equality and the decline of marriage rates (which were already in decline).
"When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide"
Marriage between two men or two women is also fundamentally an unselfish act.
But more important, this paragraph fails to answer the question of how denying marriage equality will result in more two-parent homes.
"Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation."
So by this logic, heterosexual couples raise only heterosexual children? I think you understand that's ridiculous. It's just as ridiculous to say homosexual couples will raise only homosexual children. Children of homosexual couples will likely be more willing to accept their homosexuality (if they are, in fact, homosexual), but you can't "turn" a child gay or straight, any more than you can turn a right-handed child into a left-handed one.
"By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children."
Likely? How? There is no evidence to support such a statement.
Besides, married or not, gay couples still have (and raise) children.
Summing up, there is still no answer to my question -- how does denying marriage equality furhter the goal of creating more homes with both a mother and a father present?
The Church apparently says this: "The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally."
The Church is wrong. The evidence is that same-sex marriage has not adversely affected traditional marriage in European societies. Scandinavian societies in particular are doing fine these days. They're healthy and vibrant and wonderful places to raise kids. To hear some people tell it, you'd think Denmark and Sweden were hellholes.... Just ridiculous.
Amy says this: "The time may soon come when judges decide that churches cannot perform legal marriages unless they also conduct homosexual marriages." That's also false. Even if it did happen, such a ruling would be swiftly overturned by constitutional amendment, and gay people would not object. (Gay people do not care who the LDS Church joins in wedlock. They only care whether they can get married, in the church or out.)
But again, Amy's statement points up the confusion surrounding marriage in our society. On the one hand, to many it's a sacrament. But it's also a secular legal matter. When a couple is sealed in the Church they are joining each other in a spiritual way for eternity; when they sign the legal marriage document they are taking on specific legal privileges and responsibilities. These are two very different things, people.
So even if the time did come when some court ruled that anyone who goes about the act of performing legal marriages must do so for gay as well as straight couples, so what? That would not mean that the LDS Church wold have to perform the sacrament of marriage for all and seal gay couples for all eternity.
There are two separate things at issue here, and even in Amy's worst-case scenario, the only one that would be taken from the Church is the secular one.
And what would be the big deal with that? The Church can't write parking tickets or approve zoning permits either. Big whoop. When you think about it, there's no particular reason why churches should be in the business of presiding over the secular aspects of marriage. Churches should perform sacraments, and government agencies should finalize secular legal arrangements. Each ought to stick to its own proper sphere. Right now, no doubt because of marriage's roots in theocratic societies where church and state were one, they don't. That causes a lot of trouble that could be avoided by, as Alan Dershowitz argued here (thanks for the link, Mike!) government got out of the marriage business entirely. It would also work if churches got out of the legal aspect of the marriage business entirely. The more I think about it, what to Amy seems a terrible thing strikes me as a potentially very good thing: separate sacrament from legal contract, and let the churches handle the sacrament only. What would be so bad about that?
It sounds horrible when you by saying "The churches will lose their control over whom they marry!" as if that meant that the churches would lose control over whom they administer their sacraments to--but that's equivocation. It's scaring your readers by letting them wrongly think marriage per se is threatened.
--David
In 1995 President Hinckley stated "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."
During the campaigns for removal of the Prohibition (also a moral issue), President Heber J Grant urged members of the church to get involved to keep the distribution of alcohol from becoming legalized.
President Hinckley simply said good luck to Mitt Romney and didn't write letters to all of the church leaders inside the United States to vote for him for President. Why? Because that is a political issue only.
President Monson sent message that we should actively support this proposition.
Under California law, "domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits" as married spouses. (Family Code 297.5) There are no exceptions to this. Proposition 8 will not change this.
Marriage has been made a parody in the media with circumstances such as Dennis Rodman trying to marry himself, politicians sleeping around, tv episodes such as Big Love, and pretty much any other show that is constantly degrading an institution that is essential to our Heavenly Father's eternal plan.
The voice of the registered voters was heard in 2000 with a vote of over 61%. Three judges struck down the legislation as unconstitutional. ProtectMarriage.com is simply attempting to add the same 14 words that were previously approved to the constitution so that it is clear what moral code the majority of Californians support once and for all.
I urge you to follow the prophet and promote this proposition.
One last thought, this need not be a place for name calling.
Stacey from California
Marriage is threatened.
Here are a few questions that perhaps someone could answer for me:
What rights do homosexual people lose by defining marriage as between a man and a woman?
Have homosexuals gotten any new rights now that 4 judges in California overturned law established by 61% of the voting population in California? No.
10 rights were defined in the bill of rights and other rights were defined in subsequent years, but what are the rights that are in question here? There aren't any.
If this is about "rights" then perhaps someone could explain to me what the "right" is that is in jeapordy? I haven't been able to identify any.
Once we understand what is at risk, or is not at risk, then perhaps we can better discuss the issue.
Amy's blog pointed out that civil unions in California provide all of the rights that are provided with marriage. Homosexual advocacy groups have worked hard to establish those rights and the LDS Church stands by those rights.
If homosexuals are given the same rights through civil unions as others have through marriage then why is it an issue to define something for people who are not homosexual? It shouldn't be.
If marriage is not defined as only between a man and a woman, then what is it defined as? Nothing, it stops to exist. How is marriage any different than a civil union? It isn't.
This sounds like a situation where a group of people who want to define something special to meet their unique expectations is being squashed by another group of oppressors.
In this situation the current norm is for everyone to have the same rights, but for one group to want to define the way they fullfill the right as something special. Is there something wrong with one group wanting to be unique from the rest of society? No, our differences are our greatest strength.
Is there something wrong with straight people wanting to recognize the fact that they are not homosexual? No.
Civil rights are often defined to protect the unique differences in various groups of people. Women can vote, blacks can vote and do anything a white man can. These are huge successes in our country and in our world.
We are a country of unique innovators. I support the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman because I think that it is the civil right of people who want to have a civil union with someone of the opposite sex to define it as something special.
If this is a civil rights issue, then the issue is about protecting the rights of straight people who want to make a choice.
By opposing proposition 8 or by voting no you are squashing the civil rights of a group of people, just like slave owners squashed the desire of slaves to be free and just like men squashed the desire of women to vote.
- Concerned in California
Tom and Anon David, I don't think I have an answer that will satisfy you. Your questions remind me of a conference talk from April of this year: Restoring Faith in the Family. A few key quotes:
Returning to the teachings of Paul recorded in Corinthians, we find these words:
“Even so the things of God knoweth no man [except he has] the Spirit of God. . . .
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of . . . God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Scientists gain their knowledge mainly through research, conducting experiments, and the application of intellect.
Disciples of Christ receive their witness by studying His words, observing His works, putting gospel principles into practice, and receiving the spirit of inspiration.
“There is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.”
Although spiritual truths may appear less tangible, to the humble heart their impact is undeniable. It is important to understand that natural laws were not determined on the basis of popularity. They were established and rest on the rock of reality.
There are also moral verities that did not originate with man. They are central to a divine plan which, when discovered and applied, brings great happiness and hope on our mortal journey.
For example, I believe, as stated in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” and defined in divine revelation, that marriage and family are ordained of God. The scriptures declare, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”
Wise men have provided a legacy of learning from the past. We must hand down to future generations a foundation of faith in the family, as defined by Deity.14
I also believe the Family Proclamation when it says, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. I believe that redefining marriage to include anything other than one man and one woman contributes to the disintegration of the family (just like no-fault divorce, acceptance of infidelity, couples who co-habitate have all contributed to the "disintegration" of the family). It's not the only thing. Just one of many factors. My "evidence" is not scientific. It is from "studying His words, observing His works, putting gospel principles into practice, and receiving the spirit of inspiration". It's not really something I can "prove" - just a sure knowledge I have. It may not be enough for you, but it is for me.
"By opposing proposition 8 or by voting no you are squashing the civil rights of a group of people, just like slave owners squashed the desire of slaves to be free and just like men squashed the desire of women to vote."
You are WAY out on a limb here, brother.
You don't have the "right" to define civil marriage as you like. Neither do I. Your church can define "marriage" however it likes, however.
Now let's get back into your earlier questions. (Which you mostly tried to answer yourself, so why ask the question? Why not just state your position?)
"What rights do homosexual people lose by defining marriage as between a man and a woman?"
On the state level, very few. Although civil unions are nearly identical to civil marriages, there are a few differences, primarily in taxation and inheritance. The other difference is that civil partners MUST live together, while a married couple doesn't have to meet that requirement.
In addition, civil unions are shaping up as the "separate and ALMOST equal" of our generation. If they were required of all couples, that would be one thing, but for the moment, they exist primarily as a separate category for same-sex relationships. (As an aside, I've never been a fan of domestic partnership laws -- I thought they gave some of the rights of marriage without the responsibilities, which I felt was wrong.)
"10 rights were defined in the bill of rights and other rights were defined in subsequent years, but what are the rights that are in question here? There aren't any."
Actually, there are. First and foremost, the right of access to the same institution that heterosexual couples have access to. Equal and NOT separate.
Beyond that, there are over 1000 rights and benefits at the federal level that we miss out on. Granted, Prop 8 has nothing to do with federal law, but if it is passed, it's less likely that federal marriage equality will happen any time soon.
Those federal rights include Social Security survivor benefits, and the right to marry a foreign citizen and automatically give them permanent resident status. There are MANY gay couples who live in fear of one of the partner's visa running out and splitting the couple or forcing the American half of the couple to move to another country. If you're straight, it's no problem -- you get hitched...green card.
"If marriage is not defined as only between a man and a woman, then what is it defined as?"
A committed, legal relationship between two not-closely related people, designed to encourage mutual support and caring that delivers certain rights, but requires certain responsibilities, as well.
"In this situation the current norm is for everyone to have the same rights, but for one group to want to define the way they fullfill the right as something special."
What exactly do you mean here?
"I believe that redefining marriage to include anything other than one man and one woman contributes to the disintegration of the family (just like no-fault divorce, acceptance of infidelity, couples who co-habitate have all contributed to the "disintegration" of the family). It's not the only thing. Just one of many factors. My "evidence" is not scientific. It is from "studying His words, observing His works, putting gospel principles into practice, and receiving the spirit of inspiration". It's not really something I can "prove" - just a sure knowledge I have. It may not be enough for you, but it is for me."
Stephanie - First, thanks for being so civil, and for understanding that marriage faces far worse threats than equality.
I fully honor your faith, and if I were a younger man, I'd be willing to fight to defend it. (Actually, I'd be willing to fight to defend it now, it's just that the military won't have me. And not just because of my age! But that's another debate.)
But your faith, strong as it is, should really have no bearing on this issue. This discussion is about civil marriage.
My partner and I will be married on October 1. We have been a couple for over 10 years, and have supported each other through the death of parents, multiple surgeries (we're both fine now), and countless happy times. We pay our taxes, are good to our neighbors and live quiet, unobtrusive lives.
We want our marriage to last a lifetime, not 35 days, and you can help. It won't make a difference to your life, but it will make a big difference to ours.
Thanks.
A committed, legal relationship between two not-closely related people, designed to encourage mutual support and caring that delivers certain rights, but requires certain responsibilities, as well.
I'm not sure that marriage was ever about rights in the first place. It was about forming a union between a man and a woman so that when they had children, the children would be protected. Society created rights to ensure the protection that marriage afforded. In fact, focusing on the "rights" seems rather self-serving (I'm not necessarily referring to you, Tom, just in general). Marriage has become about "me" and "my rights", and the focus is off of the child protection aspect. I think THIS leads to the disintegration of the family, too - viewing marriage as an institute that benefits "me" rather than as an institute that benefits children.
Tom and David, thanks for your comments, you always seem to give the responses I'm thinking of before I can even type them.
Stephanie, thanks for your constant well-stated, even toned opposition, it is truly appreciated. You mentioned the advent of no fault divorce laws and their effect on marriage. I think you would be interested in an article I read recently about the long-term effects of no-fault divorce, it can be found here: http://www.reason.com/news/show/128136.html
Also, if my initial response to this post still offends, I would be happy to delete the message and replace it with an edited version, please let me know.
The first civil right that is defined in the US is the freedom of speech. If this is a blog for encouraging political discussions then it should support freedom of speech.
If you are going to not allow freedom of speech and you chose to delete comments that people make than please delete them objectively.
The following unprovoked comments that Jackson made are not objective...
"Amy, you are certainly wont to fire of posts full of unthinking emotional vitriol, aren't you?"
"Based on your general closed minded meanness, I'm sure that Jacob and I would make much more loving and understanding parents than you and any man would."
"Also, Amy, your post is quite contradictory and ill informed."
"...but don't push your meanness on other people."
Jackson attacked Amy and I asked that his comments would be deleted. Why was my comment deleted but his was not?
Please do not be a dictator who oppresses freedom of speech. If you are going to be a dictator then please try to be objective.
By deleting my comments, but leaving Jackson's you are being as hateful as he is.
Because Jackson's comments have not been deleted, I am going to repost my comment.
-- John
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Our administrator isn't at the computer 24/7. I'm not an administrator (yet), so I have an idea. If I were, I would delete both of your comments (jackson and john) that are offensive and ask you to rewrite them with the personal attacks left out. You both have valid points, so please delete your own comments and re-write them. Thanks!
Rick and Tom, I have an honest question. Why do you want to be married? Is there a reason besides the benefits? So many people just live together now anyways and don't see a "need" to be married (even people who want to have kids and don't see the marriage as a benefit to them).
For me, I wanted to be married because that was part of the "plan": get married, have kids, be a SAHM. Now that I am married with children, I see even more how it is a "protection" for me. But, really, because of domestic partner laws and because of the pathetic state of child support in the U.S., if I just co-habitated with my husband, I would pretty much get the same benefits if we split up, wouldn't I? I think that for me, personally, the biggest protection my (temple) marriage offers is that my husband and I have both covenanted with God. That isn't foolproof (my temple-married parents are divorced), but I do think that it (along with our focus on our family) makes our commitment that much more strong.
Anyways, I am just wondering why, in a society that doesn't value marriage that much, besides equal rights of partnership to marriage, you want to be married. What additional value does it provide?
My original comment, revised for politeness:
Let me start by saying that I got married in California this summer. I was a beautiful, small wedding with my family. My father performed the wedding beautifully. There were tears of joy streaming down his face the entire time. My mother and LDS grandmother were there to support me, and they told me how happy they were for us.
My wedding did not hurt anyone. In fact, it made quite a number of people very happy. If I ever have children, my marriage will give them stability and protection that they would not otherwise have had. And just so you know, Amy, all of the reliable scientific studies have shown that children raised by same-sex parents are equally intelligent, healthy, and emotionally well-adjusted as children raised by opposite sex parents. If you read something that says otherwise, check your sources.
Because Jacob and I are generally loving, open, and accepting, I believe that we would make excellent parents.
Also, Amy, your post has some contradictions and some incorrect information. You say that America is ruled by the majority. That's true, but do you support the majority's right to harass minority groups as much as they want? Remember, there was a time in this country that Mormons were killed on sight. Remember that, although LDS doctrine teaches that polygamous marriages are morally acceptable, even desirable in some circumstances, church members are forced to comply with a law that makes this type of family illegal. Do you really want to take the position that the majority can always force the minority to conform to its standards, however unreasonable? Furthermore, in this country we have a republican form of government: people elect representatives to make laws on their behalf. The laws passed by legislatures are passed vicariously on behalf of the people who elected the legislature. The fact that the California legislature TWICE passed laws that would allow same-sex couples equal marriage rights tells me that the majority of the people do, in fact, want to treat homosexuals as equal citizens. This was not the decision of seven "activist judges," this was a well-reasoned decision based on long standing California caselaw interpreting the California Constitution. If you disagree with me on this point, then you are completely unfamiliar with California constitutional jurisprudence.
In short, Amy, your personal religious convictions do not give you or any church the right to treat people as second class citizens. Whether you know it or not, Same-sex couples, even those married legally in Massachusetts or California, are denied a plethora of real and tangible rights and protections.
Did you know that if I were injured in a car accident while visiting my family in Arizona, Jacob, my husband and partner of five years, would not be able to visit me in the hospital? Did you know that if Jacob died, I would have to pay inheritance taxes on our house that we bought together, effectively evicting me from my own home?
I don't care if you think that what you are saying is ordained of God or not, Amy. There are many LDS people who, because of their own personal revelation, disagree with you. (See, for example, www.mormonsformarriage.org or www.lds4gaymarriage.org.) The positions you are advocating hurt real families with real children and real feelings. If it is worth it to you to hurt those families and my family so that you can feel sufficiently obedient to some old man that you have never met, then that is fine, but please don't impose your restrictive religious beliefs on others.
P.S. I don't meant to be overly personal, and I'm sorry for picking on you, Amy, but your post is a personal attack on me as a married, loving, monogamous gay American, and I feel that I have to defend myself.
Because I posted anonymously I am unable to delete my comments; however, the liberal administrator felt it was ok to delete mine and leave hate filled attacks about Amy.
I live in San Francisco. I have many friends who I love who are homosexual. I work with homosexual people every day, I have no issues with anyone who is homosexual, but I took great offense by Jackson's attack.
I see that some of my counter-attacks made it difficult for people to see my legitimate points and so I will follow Stephanie's advise and rewrite my post.
Please feel free to delete Jackson's and my other attack posts together.
John
"Marriage has become about "me" and "my rights", and the focus is off of the child protection aspect. I think THIS leads to the disintegration of the family, too - viewing marriage as an institute that benefits "me" rather than as an institute that benefits children."
But marriage isn't entirely about children. Infertile couples are also allowed to marry. And gay couples raise kids, too. (I have a daughter myself.)
The benefit to society of marriage is not only the protection of children, but also the mutual support and caring by both partners.
"Why do you want to be married? Is there a reason besides the benefits?"
It's a good question.
The first answer is, I suppose, because we love each other, and it feels good to promise ourselves to each other in a formal, legal way. We have something very special, and though a piece of paper won't change that, there is something about marriage that mirrors our sense of commitment to each other.
However, benefits DO enter into it. We would like the other to have Social Security benefits if the other dies, and to be able to inherit from each other without taxation.
But mostly it's a love thing!
Tom, I get that marriage is about more than children, but I still feel that it was designed for children - that as an institution, it was designed to provide a stable family for the rearing of children. If children aren't involved, what are the problems of divorce to society? And if the problems of divorce don't extend to anyone outside of the couple, then why would marriage be necessary for society? Why would society want marriage if it didn't matter whether people were married or divorced?
Hey Stephanie,
I was a history minor in college and I took a few classes that touched on the origins of marriage. Although progeny does enter into it, one of the main reasons for marriage was also to ensure that property stayed in the family--it was essentially to preserve wealth.
Yeah, I was thinking about that with regard to OT times in particular. I admit that that does hold in the U.S. - if you marry someone, you jointly own property for legal purposes. But, doesn't our society have incentives (like tax breaks) for marriage? Why encourage marriage in society if not for raising children?
Our society encourages marriage because, whether children enter the picture or not, marriage increases societal stability. When my partner and I marry, we will promise to take on any debt the other enters into. That will encourage us both to make wise decisions. We will promise to care for each other. That means the state is less likely to have to look out for us.
When couples divorce, that stability vanishes as well.
The power to bring life into the world is special and it should be respected by all people.
There is a difference between marriage between a man and a woman, marriage between man and a man, and woman and a woman, or man and a goat.
The difference is not only that one is sanctioned by God. The difference is that marriage between man and a woman can bring children into the world.
Having observed my wife be pregnant and give birth I know that it is the most amazing beautiful thing in the world.
As defined by the laws of science the union of a man and a woman is required to bring life into the world.
No matter how hard they try two homo-sexual people, regardless of how many years they have been monogamous, can't have a baby together.
Even when two women who are married together make the decision to use test tube sperm to get pregnant, there was a man involved and that man is the father of the child that is born.
I know that judges have already passed judgment so that moral doctors are now forced to impregnate lesbian women who ask for it. And I know that anyone can adopt a baby according to our laws. I am not trying to argue those laws at this point, and the LDS Church is not trying to change those judgements.
A coalition of moral people in California which includes members of the LDS Church who follow the Prophet, are saying that the power to create a baby and raise it into adulthood is something special and should be celebrated and protected.
Every society that ever existed has recognized the power to bring a baby into the world as something special. Every society has defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, who are enabled to create life.
Many societies (including ours) disrespect marriage and make a mockery of it. I feel that homo-sexual people opposing this proposition are mocking marriage.
One proposition will not change all the ways that our society mocks marriage. However, one proposition can recognize the sanctity of marriage as the preferred way to have children and raise them into adulthood.
...
I was raised in a home of women and there was no man to teach me how to be a man. If you have not experienced this then you would not understand how difficult it is to be raised in a home where both both genders of sex are not around to guide and teach.
I don't know what it would have been like to have a father and a mother in my home, but I know I spent alot of my youth looking for guidance on what it meant to be a man.
Children can overcome the challenges of not having both a father and a mother to raise them and teach them, but I stand by the prophet when he says that all children have the RIGHT to be raised by a father and a mother.
Please respect the fact that marriage between a man and a woman is something special. Stop trying to push an agenda which takes away my right to practice my faith and please stop trying to push an agenda which would refuse to recognize the right of children to be born into a home where they can be raised by fathers and mothers together.
Please show respect.
John
I believe that all offensive comments are removed now. Thank you for the new comments.
Thank you Amy for this great post.
Amy's post clearly addresses the fact that for LDS people, this is an issue about following the prophet. Either you are going to look at the serpent on the staff or you are going to decide that you don't need to do what he says.
After hearing the letter from the prophet read in church I went home and prayed and read the scriptures to receive personal confirmation that I should do all I can do to support this Proposition 8. During my soul searching I read the following in D&C 132
34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.
36 Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.
37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.
39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.
This was the prophecy given to Joseph Smith right before he was commanded to follow the law of polygamy.
The point is that in our point of view taking another wife like Abraham may seem like folly, but it was righteousness because God commanded it to his Prophet.
Having many concubines may seem folly but as long as it was commanded from the Lord it is ok.
Having one concubine if it is not commanded from the Lord is not righteousness.
Rather than trying to sort out the logic in my point of view as to whether marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman or not, I know that the Prophet has told us how to be righteous and so I know what to do. I can gain a testimony of why it was a correct principle later; however, for now I just need to know that throughout time regardless of whatever the philosophies of men teach, I can be confident in following the Prophet.
I can use my free agency when I follow the prophet, by deciding how much I will do to support this proposition, but I will follow the Prophet.
I am thankful that following the Prophet is as simple as supporting a proposition that is being debated.
I recognize that by following the prophet the day may come when the message changes beyond my expectations and understanding. The day may come when the direction is the exact opposite of what it was a year ago.
I am thankful that the Lord is not telling the members of the Church that we need to practice polygamy or take on concubines.
This may be a trial for many people in the church today, but I respect that it could be a lot worse. We are not being told to flee to the mountains. I recognize that if we don't follow the Prophet then the Lord may need to humble us as a people and the day may come when we are told to leave California.
We each need to decide if we will stand by the Prophet, but as for me and my family, we will follow the Lord.
-Faithful in California.
So, Stephanie - you asked "Rick and Tom, why do you want to be married?" I believe you meant to put Jackson's name there, because the question seemed to be pointed at the reasoning for the desire for homosexual marriage.
But, incase you actually did mean me, here's my answer:
I find very little reason for a state recognized marriage. The state recognition of my marriage means very little to me, except that it is "legal." I love the temple, and am grateful for my temple sealing - - it is what is actually important to me. I love the covenant of the temple marriage, and all it's symbolism. As a religious historian, I also appreciate the ties that the LDS marriage has to the early Christian rite of "the bridal chamber."
For this reason, I have been an advocate of emancipating marriage from the state completely (as Mike's above link suggests) - make marriage a matter of Church, and leave the legal side of it a matter of state completly. At that point the churches can marry those who fall in line with them doctrinally. I would never dream of telling a church to change who it can and can't marry. I just DON'T LIKE THE LEGISLATION OF IT. I truely hope that marriage can be seperated from government and become completely a sacrament. As a sacrament, my marriage is of upmost import to me.
I think it funny that one of our anonymous California commenters referenced Big Love as a tv show which would encourage the destruction of marriage. I've watched that program quite a bit and it's not the case.
I wonder if it suddenly beame legal in America and abroad to practice polygamy - would the official stance of the church change? What is the state of the New and Everlasting Covenant?
I wonder also, why this topic brings such polarization - why the dramatic emotion on both sides? It's obviously an important topic, (it was my first blog on this site, and one that has been revisited two more times in 8 months) and it has garnered quite a bit of discussion, debate, and even caused temperes to flare. Why so? When, no matter what the government of california, or the government of the US for that matter, decides, the marriage covenants that we make in the Temple will never, ever be effected. I'd ask other latter-day saints - do other marriages really count in the eyes of God? Just wondering.
There are so many problems with things people have written in this blog... I can't even begin to refute them all. So I will simply state my opinion.
Several comments came to mind when reading this blog...
1-This is a huge issue.
2-It seems to be creating heated polar sides
3-Maybe this blog should be entitled "politicalLDS- Mormons: some working for Satan and some working for God." This whole site reminds me of a similar situation that happened recently. There was a man (somewhere high up in the government) who got busted for gettin' friskie in his office with a woman that wasn't his wife. Well, as time would have it, he eventually went to court and was on trial for his poor behavior. He thought it was over when he stated the famous line, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." As we all know how the story went, the recap consists of proceedings lasting several months out in which they then had to terrorize the words "sexual relations". Meanwhile, the man continued on with the mundane business of running our Nation.
When did our country become such onion peelers!
Every issue that comes up gets thrown with the winds of every little pre-contrived stumbling block that comes along.
Quit peeling the onion and realize that you're throwing away the actual meat of the onion you're peeling. if everyone keeps focusing on the definitions of words, the specific quotes from random speeches and running around in circles trying to chase all the little issues, you're going to get down to the end of the onion and realize that all you solved from that was that you made a big mess, and got your hands all sticky. Plus you'll probably be crying uncontrollably for no reason at all. We are MISSING THE ISSUE AT HAND!!!
The REAL issue is this. God knows the future. God speaks to his Prophets. The prophets follow God. We MUST FOLLOW the prohets. Follow does not mean bring up issues that might stir up contention and cause others to fall into disbelief.
How can any of us even have the audacity to fain knowledge of the future issues that prop 8 will cause? Why is there even a debate here?
This blog is a perfect example of the Lawyers with Jesus. Twisting words and manipulating quotes and history is something they were best at. But in the end, all their "smartness" got them a fasttrack ticket to misery and who were they trying to impress?
I hope all you who read this entry (if you can suffer through the other novelitstic entries) will stop and take a look from outside the bubble of blindness this blog is creating.
Who are YOU trying to impress with YOUR written responses? Because if you read a bunch of these other entries, I'm pretty sure they're not putting God as their intended audience. Which is a big shame, because that's who's going to be the one standing there in the end. Who ARE you trying to impress?
The issue is this. A Prophet of GOD our CREATOR has asked us to do all we can for this issue. If "all we can" means sitting on a fence and you're doing all you can because you're unsure about it... then maybe you should try asking God if he thinks sitting on fences is a good idea for getting things done. He'll give you a great response for that I'm sure.
I believe God knows what he's doing. I also believe that some issues are better left separate from church and state. I couldn't imagine what would happen if the Church took a stance on disbanding unions or if they spoke out against raising taxes on Gas. The thing is, Marriage is central to the Plan of God... and I'm pretty sure He knows what he's doing. I'm going with Him on this one.
Says Wunda Girl, "We MUST FOLLOW the prophets." How does she know that? I have a theory: because at some point in her life she had a funny feeling (a highly subjective experience often called a "testimony") that her religion was the true one. Egged on by her religious mentors, she then mistook this highly relative and subjective feeling for an absolute and objective truth. What a great reason to deny fundamental happiness to other people--because one has had a funny feeling inside! What a great reason to enslave your own mind and surrender your own agency to that of the Great Prophet--because one has had a funny feeling inside! Exactly the same kind of funny feeling inside that Catholics have had, the same kind of funny feeling inside that Muslims have had, and the same kind of funny feeling inside that Wiccans have had, only, you know, Wunda Girl's funny feeling was prompted by God while the funny feelings experienced by those other people were prompted by Satan....
Pardon me while I recover from this dizzying vision of the logic of WG's religion.
I hope this comment is not too insulting to remain on the blog. Please remember that, while I have deliberately tried to ridicule Wunda Girl's display of mindless robotic religious fanaticism, at least I have not been so disrespectful as to suggest my opponents are working for Satan. I happen to think my opponents are wrong, sure, but I would never, ever accuse them of being in league with the Prince of Darkness himself.
--David
P.S. Guys, when critics accuse the LDS Church of being a cult, it's often because they've encountered statements like Wunda Girl's. She's your P.R. problem, not mine.
This has been a very interesting discussion. It took me a long time read through all the comments, but I'm finally at the end and I'm just going to say a couple of things.
1. I'm generally with Mike. This issue has been very difficult for me, and I appreciate him expressing it so eloquently. Since it appears that the leadership of the church is placing a lot of importance on this issue, I am finding myself obliged to delve into it a lot deeper than I ever have before. It's not easy.
2. I can certainly accept that there may be some consequences of this proposition (or its defeat) that I cannot forsee - that we as human beings cannot forsee, and so God would have provided a warning voice to help us understand how to avoid these consequences. Whether or not you believe this, of course, depends on whether you believe there is a God, what His designs are, and how He communicates those designs to human beings, if indeed He does.
3. I certainly don't expect someone who does not have a testimony, or a belief in the religion that I do, to follow "my" prophet, or the man whom I believe to be one currently receiving revelation for the church and for us. Not asking you to. Not asking you to believe something you don't believe. But I think it's really easy to make fun of anything that doesn't have a completely rational, scientific basis as Holy Rolling gobbledegook - I guess we'll find out eventually if it is or not, won't we?
4. Basically, I find no "evidence" as such that allowing homosexual marriages (or separating civil unions and marriages entirely - basically equating homosexual and heterosexual "unions" under the eyes of the laws) has had, or will have, any effect on the so-called "traditional" family. That's not to say it wouldn't happen, but I think it's fair to hinge your trust and belief in the statement "redefining marriage as anything other than a marriage between one man and one woman will have negative consequences for the 'family' and society at large" on your belief in the person or institution making said claim, since that statement is simply a conjecture.
4. Wunda Girl, thanks a lot. No, really, thanks. I'm not trying to impress anybody - I'm trying to work this out the best I can, as I assume you've done yourself. Like it or not, some people are struggling with this issue (or some other issue) and maybe it helps them to see other people's thought processes. Maybe it gives them some insight into their own conflicted feelings. You probably wouldn't know, though, because you're obviously just much more saintly than I. Hope I haven't brought you down too much with my incoherent, faithless babbling.
I hadn't gotten into this discussion before now, but I've read through the comments and I think I can actually say that I identify with them all, both the most liberal and the most conservative. Like Mike, I feel very torn about this issue. Luckily, I don't live in California and in Norway the decision has already been made and gay marriage is now legal. It's over and done with and no one at church ever asked me to protest, give money, or vote a certain way (not that I'm eligile to vote in Norway anyways. :) But if I lived in CA, I don't know what I would do.
I sympathize with both sides, the Church and gays who feel like second class citizens because they can't marry. At the same time, I sometimes tend to feel a bit of apathy in the matter because I don't feel any immediate threat to my religious freedom because gays can marry. I go to church and everything is as usual and I don't foresee that changing. I hear the arguments from the Church's side that allowing SSM could lead to our freedom of religion in regards to marriage being trampled on. I personally don't worry about this and it isn't really an issue to me, but I agree that there is the possibility that could somehow happen in the future, as unthinkable as it is to me at this moment. However, I wonder if we're being alarmists by expecting the worst case and using that as justification for denying SSM at the present time. Or perhaps I'm simply taking it too lightly. I honestly don't know.
With most things, I think I would simply go with the flow and just do whatever the prophet says because it's not really "important" to me personally. I'm not gay and I don't have any gay immediate family members (that I know of!). In some ways, I could look at it like the W of W. The prophet tells me not to drink coffee and so I don't, not because I think coffee is life-threatening, but because I couldn't care less about it. I can get by without it just fine. However, I could someday have a gay child and suddenly this issue could become very important and significant in my life.
So, what is is that's preventing me from just "going with the flow" in this matter? First of all, I think it's because it's a matter that affects a lot of people and results in hurt feelings. I realize that in itself is perhaps not enough, but I do feel a lot of empathy for those involved. Secondly, I have to say that I feel like a hypocrite defending "traditional marriage" when the earliest members of my faith entered into marriages that were far from traditional. I realize that Mormons can justify it within the Mormon sphere, but that doesn't mean much outside of our faith.
I think, though, that the biggest reason why I struggle with the Church's position on this matter is because the case of George Romney's fight for black civil rights in the 60's is always at the back of my mind. I will post a link at the end of this comment so that those who haven't already read it, can. When I first read it, I didn't want to believe it was true, but it is authentic. I realize that this is a chapter in Mormon history that we have to put behind us, but I can't forget it. When I read the letter, I can't help but see parallels in the current matter of SSM. Church leaders at the time of this letter defended their stance regarding "the negro" with the same sort of revelations of dire consequences and demise that we hear about today if SSM is allowed. Well, as it turned out, blacks got their civil rights and Mormons didn't suffer any "demise" for it, as predicted by Apostle Stapley in the letter. His racist ideas were flat-out wrong, along with his spiritual justifications and predictions, and he even admitted it later on that he was wrong.
I just can't help but see similarities between SSM and the case of the blacks in the 60's. Could it be that President Monson and company will say years down the road that they spoke "with limited understanding," in regards to SSM as the General Authorities said later on in regards to blacks? Could that be the reason why so many of us feel so utterly torn and spiritually troubled by the matter of SSM? I'd like to think that there were other Mormons beside George Romney who felt the way he did and that years later they discovered that their feelings were for a reason.
Anyone else feel like I do?
Here is the link to the Stapley letter:
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/24/delbert_stapley.pdf
Just a heads up: Mike Huckabee recently gave an interview in which he holds Mitt Romney responsible for implementing gay marriage in Massachusetts.
Video
Welcome to the ProtectMarriage.com coalition.
I wish that more rank and file members of the LDS (Mormon) church would realize: the anti-gay coalition they've joined in California is one that includes folks who - given the chance - would vote their church out of existence.
Folks like Mike Huckabee and his Evangelical buddies.
Sorry, Rick, I did mean Jackson, but I appreciate hearing why you want to be married as well.
fd, there is a big difference between the letter you linked to and the letter sent out by the First Presidency. In the letter you linked to, Delbert L. Stapley said, " [your talk on Civil Rights] does not altogether harmonize with my own understanding (emphasis added) regarding this subject; therefore, I thought to drop you a note - - not in my official church position, but as a personal friend. Only President McKay can speak for the Church."
The letter sent out by the First Presidency about Prop 8 was signed by all three members acting in their capacity.
I am theorizing here, but I wonder what is worse: following the prophet even if he may be wrong, or not following the prophet even if he may be right. Personally, if the commandment I have been given is to follow the prophet, that is the side I will err on (although I already stated that I agree with the position).
my name is jamie. i currently live in texas.
It’s difficult to discuss politics without involving emotions and it’s difficult to talk about “moral” issues without involving religious beliefs. The issue of same-sex marriage is particularly difficult to discuss because, for a lot of people, emotions are strong and religion is fundamental to one’s opinion on the subject.
I understand that the forthcoming comments would not hold in a legal forum; I have not framed them in debate fashion. These are simply my beliefs about what is central for me, personally, to the issue of same-sex marriage. I hope my words will be received in a spirit of understanding, not confrontation.
I believe that God desires the ultimate happiness of all of His children. Because of this, He has created our bodies for specific purposes and given us commandments to guide us in fulfilling these purposes. God made man, male and female, to have joy and to multiply and replenish the earth. He has commanded us to marry (in a heterosexual relationship, if such is afforded us in this life) and to remain faithful to that spouse throughout our lives. Deviation from this plan violates His commandments and poses a threat to our ultimate happiness.
I do not believe that God created homosexuals. In “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” it states that “gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” Choosing to follow a homosexual lifestyle is a deviation from God’s commandments, just as choosing to adulterate or choosing to engage in pre-marital heterosexual sex. I do not condemn or judge homosexuals any differently than I might condemn or judge an adulterer or fornicator (or any other “sinner” of any kind, for that matter). I have actually had close friends and relatives who have chosen each of these lifestyles. It saddens me that they have chosen a life different from what God has shown us as the way to attain the ultimate happiness He has promised, but it doesn’t keep me from being their friend or remaining close to them.
In addition to His commandments, God has given us a prophet to guide us. The prophet is God’s mouthpiece on the earth. The prophet gives us additional commandments or admonitions that also aid us in attaining the ultimate happiness God has promised us. I believe that President Monson, the current prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, is calling upon people everywhere to heed the following warning given in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” and to act by promoting measures that uphold the integrity of the family unit:
“…we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
“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.”
Something else I feel strongly about is personal agency. I believe agency is the God-given gift to be able to choose between right and wrong. Our country should do all it can to preserve personal freedoms. However, I believe our country should legislate against actions people might choose to make that will infringe upon the rights of others.
I personally don’t see how simply allowing homosexual couples to marry is infringing on the rights of others (and I don’t think you can make a legal case for disallowing it, but I will have more on that in a different post). However, I strongly believe that if the prophet is asking us to uphold the definition of marriage as being between a man and woman, he is speaking for God; I believe that God is trying to communicate to us the best way that we can try to defend the ultimate happiness He desires for ALL His children, although many will not recognize it as such.
Yes, Stephanie, you're right about the letter, that it was written as "a friend" and not in an official Church capacity. In that regards, it is definitely different from Prop. 8. That being said, it still disturbs me for a few reasons:
a) Writing a "personal" letter on Church letterhead, coming from an apostle, feels to me like it was a subtle way to intimidate Romney. Either it was his attempt to make it sound more official than it really was, or it was just plain stupid. Perhaps a combination of both.
b) Stapley states that "several others have expressed the same concern to me." That leads me to believe that it wasn't solely his personal opinion being expressed in the letter.
c) He takes the trouble to list a bunch of references of teachings by Joseph Smith, which he feels Romney is acting against. When he states that he was "sobered by their demise" (i.e. 3 of the nation's presidents who were active in the "negro cause"), he once again stated that they were acting "contrary to the teachings... (and) the prophecy of Joseph Smith." I don't have the resources that Stapley refers to, so I'm not exactly sure of their content. However, it appears that they were accepted as "prophecy" and not just "teachings." So therefore, it's hard to say that Romney wasn't acting in direct conflict with the prophet, whether you agree with Romney's stance or not.
d) The letter is peppered with generally disgusting and ignorant racist views, but I realize that Stapley was probably just a product of the culture and time that he was raised in. It's disappointing that men whom we uphold to be prophets, seers and revelators, can be so far behind the rank and file members, at least in this particular case. I will at least credit Stapley for correcting his narrow-minded views before he died.
Still, for the reasons mentioned above, it's a hard pill for me to swallow and I struggle with a great deal of skepticism and mistrust towards certain teachings of certain leaders because of it.
It would be fascinating to read the "little booklet" entitled "Mormonism and the Negro," detailing the Church's position on the matter of "these people" that Stapley so kindly enclosed. I'm guessing that it's not in print anymore. :)
FD, he may have been trying to intimidate Romney. I am not arguing against that or any of your points. He wasn't on the "Lord's errand" with that letter, so I can't and won't defend anything in it.
Must be nice, Jamie, to so extensively know the mind of God. I don't claim to know such things myself. Just so you'll know how claims such as yours look to people like me: To say something like "I believe that God desires X" (whatever X might be) strikes me as the very pinnacle of arrogance.
Don't get me wrong. For all I know, you are in every other way the nicest, most humble person there could be. But to claim to know the mind of God strikes me as inherently arrogant. It makes me think to myself, "Wow! You know the mind of God? I hardly even know calculus...."
You write, "I do not believe that God created homosexuals." Me, I don't even know if there is a God, at least of the sort who issues commandments and judges us on the basis of our obedience. (Sounds suspiciously like a God we create in our own image rather than the other way around.) Me, I look around at the history of the human race and see so many followers of so many prophets, from Moses to Mohammed to Joseph Smith to Ellen H. White to Jim Jones, who claimed to have gotten the ultimate truth straight from the mouth of God, that I have some doubts about all such claims. Your certainty strikes me as supremely arrogant. Perhaps worse, it strikes me as completely unjustified.
When you say that "God has given us a prophet to guide us," I see absolutely no reason to give any more credence to your words than I would to those of the local mullah. You and the mullah are both making the same arrogant claim, and you both have absolutely no real justification for making it.
--David
P.S. Faithful Dissident, you're surely right that "Mormonism and the Negro" is no longer in print. (Though I wouldn't be surprised to see it reprinted from time to time by anti-mormon groups.) But you can buy a copy on amazon.com, or read the text online here. (I'm pretty sure this is the text you're referring to.)
David said the following while trying to ridicule someone's personal opinions that they openly expressed,"I happen to think my opponents are wrong, sure, but I would never, ever accuse them of being in league with the Prince of Darkness himself."
David, Do you believe that there is a "Prince of Darkness"? You chose to capitalize this reference as if to show respect like we would capitalize God. How do you know that the "Prince of Darkness" exists?
You went to great depth to rip apart and attach Wunda's personal experience. Have you had a similar experience that enabled you to describe it so well?
Based on your reverence to the "Prince of Darkness" I anticipate that your experience was to respect satan. How long have you been a follower of Satan?
If you believe there is a "Prince of Darkness" then do you believe or know there is a God? Is there opposition in all things? If there is a God then would you follow Him?
If there is a God then would you follow his Prophet?
-John
Anon David, you sound like you are beginning to cross the no "bashing of any religion" line. Fortunately, we Mormons can defend our faith.
Your last comment reminded me a lot of Korihor in the Book of Mormon. If you would like to read the chapter on him, here it is. A few key scriptures that reminded me of your comment:
12 And this Anti-Christ, whose name was Korihor, (and the law could have no hold upon him) began to preach unto the people that there should be no Christ. And after this manner did he preach, saying:
13 O ye that are bound down under a foolish and a vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can know of anything which is to come.
14 Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers.
15 How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ.
16 Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so.
There's a lot more there in Alma 30 if you are interested. I suspect that situations like this are why President Hinckley issued the Book of Mormon challenge in 2005.
David, that link to "Mormonism and the Negro" didn't work. Can you post again?
"How long have I been a follower of Satan?" Gee, John: that's like the old lawyer's trick of asking "How often do you beat your wife?"
I capitalized "Prince of Darkness" not to signify my belief in or respect for the guy, but because that's the convention--just as you might capitalize Zeus or Thor without thereby signifying your belief in their existence.
To be clear: I don't believe in God.* Nor do I believe in Satan, who, after all, is just another god, albeit an evil one rather than a good one. (If you believe in God and Satan you cannot be a monotheist, eh?)
I do not dispute that Wunda Girl's experience was what it was, nor that it seemed profoundly real and meaningful to her. The notion that I ridicule is that such a personal and subjective experience can be held up as a revelation of an absolute truth. That idea is refuted by the obvious fact that many different people have had such profound experiences yet reached profoundly different conclusions from it. The testimony of the Muslim is just as accurate a guide to the truth as the testimony of the Mormon, by which I mean just as untrustworthy a guide to the truth. If science teaches us anything it's the fallibility of how we feel about things.
You ask me, "If there is a God then would you follow his Prophet?" I ask you, How would I know who that prophet would be? I ask you, is it not possible there could be a God yet not a prophet of God? If God exists, is it not possible that this God would have no need of a prophet? Is it not possible that this God might speak directly to each individual heart, as the Quakers have it? Is it not possible that this God could be the God of the Deists and not feel a need to get involved in human affairs?
You're making an awful lot of assumptions about God that I see as absolutely unjustified. You know so many things about God that I'm quite impressed. But let me ask you this: How do you know Joseph Smith was God's prophet rather than Mohammed?
--David
*Note that "I don't believe in God" is not the same as the much more hubristic "I believe there is no God."
P.S. Stephanie, when people argue against marriage on religious grounds, how can I respond without attending to religion? If someone argues "Gay marriage is wrong because my prophet says so," may I not argue back by trying to persuade my interlocutor of the fallibility of that prophet? If you tell me such a strategy is off limits, then anyone may win the day against me by invoking religion. Hardly seems fair to me. What seems fair to me is that I should lay off religion unless someone cites it in their argument. How else can I stay in the game? As for the appropriateness of your term "bashing"--I'm not the one suggesting my opponents are in league with the devil!
Well, David, I suppose what you are really doing is "bashing ALL religion of any kind" . . .
I'm just saying - are you here to discuss the issues, or are you here to attack Mormonism? I don't think you are just here to attack Mormonism, but sometimes it does seem that way.
this is jamie, again.
first I’d like to amend my previous comment by stating that I hope my use of the word “sinner” was not misunderstood. I’m a sinner, too--I sin every day. but I try and live as closely as possible to commandments I believe are designed for my happiness.
second, thank you, anon david, for opening my eyes to how my comments sounded. I can see how it seems arrogant to claim to know the mind of God. I should have been more clear. I will try to check myself in the future.
now, I’d like to leave a couple comments about tom’s question. please note that my answer does not incorporate every nuance, and I haven’t completely decided what the ramifications would be either…but at least these comments might prompt more discussion.
"how does denying marriage equality further the goal of having more children grow up in homes with both a mother and a father?"
I don’t think it will unless government creates legislation with stiffer penalties for the marriages that already exist in our country.
As I stated before, I don’t think one can make a LEGAL argument for disallowing same-sex marriages. However, if the majority of society chooses to define the social construct of marriage as being only between a man and a woman, then that choice must be defended by law…
But let’s just suppose that same-sex marriages become legalized. Same-sex couples would then receive all the rights heterosexual couples receive. I can feasibly conceive of a legal argument, defended by scientific evidence (I know some of you will want me to link to this “scientific evidence,” but right now I don’t have time to search for references, but I know they exist), that could establish that bringing children into a homosexual marriage infringes upon the rights of the children and has a deleterious effect on societal stability.
(stick with me here, I realize how that last paragraph could be very offensive to some readers…but allow me to finish.)
But I don’t think that such an argument is fair or viable if not also coupled with similar arguments for the rights of children who are born to heterosexual parents out of wedlock or the rights of children of divorced parents. There are equally feasible arguments to show that situations like these infringe upon the rights of the children and have a deleterious effect on societal stability.
This is not to say that parents in any of these situations would not provide a loving, caring environment for their children. We all know that children being raised in heterosexual marriages face atrocious abuses every day.
But if you were to make the legal case that children have a right to being raised in a home with two heterosexual parents, there would have to be legislation that raises the bar for heterosexual marriages. There would have to be legislation that better ensures that such homes provide the type of environment that leads to a stable society.
David, you know alot of things. I respect that. But I see no valid reason in the world why you feel the need to continue to attack someone else' personal experiences. It doesn't make alot of sense to me. In fact, it feels supremely arrogant (to copy the phrase) to come into a room full of mormons (so to speak) and begin to trash their personal experiences. If WG or Jamie really feel the way they do, why try to take that from them? It's obviously something that is important to them as people - something that has strengthened and enriched their lives - and also something around which they've allowed their relationship to themselves and society grow - who cares if you don't think it has a kernal of ultimate truth. Lives are not in danger here, and as long as that is the case, people are free to believe as they wish. I happen to feel the opposite from you (which is very complicating to me, being mormon) - I feel that many if not most people who have valid religious experiences did get those from God, or the Unconscious or Brahman, or whatever you want to call it - and they share those experiences with those who listen. I feel that they take different faces and go by different names, and differ slightly on a doctrinal level because all people are different. I am not about taking ANY of those experences from those people, unless those people are David Koreash or Charles Manson. So what if some people disagree with you on certian issues - is it really worth taking away a part of their lives that is of central importance to them and undermining ther psychological reality - just so you can be right? That, to me, sounds supremely arrogant.
jamie, that is an interesting point, and our society HAS bit-by-bit removed the regulations that protect children in the way you are talking about. And the result has been that more children are born out of wedlock and more children have parents who are divorced. Between the two of those, there are fewer children living with 2 parents than there were 50 years ago. And this does have a negative effect on A LOT of those children (yes, I know some are better off because a bad parent left, but I think that is the exception, not the rule).
To state it differently, if they want to believe that Monson is the ultimate mouth piece of God, and Monson hasn't harmed them in any way, and hasn't commanded them to go out and kill people, so what? What is the problem with believing that?
I hate it when people like Richard Dawkins and his crew have to go and write books like "the God Delusion" just to show how crappy religion is - certianly, religion has had it's share of faults - but what hasn't? It seems that through the history of the world, there isn't a "cause" that hasn't caused some detetible things. But does that make them bad, fallen, or worthy of being erradicated? Religion has a positive effect on MANY people's lives. I'm going to trust that there is some reason for that - either because of a God, or because a psychological need in mankind to believe in something higher than itself - and I'm not going to mess with it. (sorry, you struck a chord in me.)
By the way, I really like what chino blanco said here "I wish that more rank and file members of the LDS (Mormon) church would realize: the anti-gay coalition they've joined in California is one that includes folks who - given the chance - would vote their church out of existence." This has been one of my critiqfues and frustrations with this concept from the start -that by joining with the Christian right on this, we are throwing in are lot with them - a bunch of which, if given the chance, would devour us like wolves. It seems alot like the the US joining with the Soviets in WWII. Just to have the Soviets bite us in the Butt the very next day.
chino had a great point, but at the same time, if "we" (the official church position) are on the same side on this issue, and joining with other churches can help our cause, why not join? Perhaps it will help our standing with them (although I honestly don't know if I care that much about our "standing" with other churches).
Rick, you ask, "If WG or Jamie really feel the way they do, why try to take that from them?" Why? In general, because personal experiences of this sort are notoriously unreliable. They are "real" in the sense that all experiences are real, but they are not reliable guides to the Truth, and in general we should all be seeking reliable guides to the truth. Specifically in regard to this thread, because personal religious experiences are not valid reasons for depriving other people of the equal protection of the laws. If someone's going to argue against gay marriage because their prophet tells them it's bad, and they trust their prophet because they had a testimony, then I'm going to argue that their testimony is a bad reason to believe some guy is a prophet.
If you're worried about somehow protecting WG from any challenge to her worldview--well, I suspect she can handle it.
Stephanie, if this is "bashing religion," well, that's one of the problems with invoking religion in political debates: religion becomes fair game. Again, it seems fundamentally unfair to enter a public political forum, cite religion as one of the reasons for your political belief, and then expect other people not to criticize the religion in the course of criticizing the politics.
--David
Anon David, I'll repeat what I said in an earlier comment:
Your questions remind me of a conference talk from April of this year: Restoring Faith in the Family. A few key quotes:
Returning to the teachings of Paul recorded in Corinthians, we find these words:
“Even so the things of God knoweth no man [except he has] the Spirit of God. . . .
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of . . . God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Scientists gain their knowledge mainly through research, conducting experiments, and the application of intellect.
Disciples of Christ receive their witness by studying His words, observing His works, putting gospel principles into practice, and receiving the spirit of inspiration.
“There is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.”
Although spiritual truths may appear less tangible, to the humble heart their impact is undeniable. It is important to understand that natural laws were not determined on the basis of popularity. They were established and rest on the rock of reality.
So, you may say what you want, but if we know, we know, and we know that it is real. And you saying that it is not won't change it. It might mean that we can't argue it out with you, but it doesn't make it any less real. In fact, considering story of Korihor, I would have to say that my testimony is being strengthened through this discussion.
I mean, really, if it comes down to "I reject your argument because I reject God", then fine. Reject God all you want.
David, Mike outlined his vision for this blog in the first post:
This is a new blog dedicated to the discussion of all things political, from the perspective of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- whose members are commonly referred to as Mormons, or Latter-day Saints (LDS).
That doesn't restrict participation to Mormons only, but it also doesn't mean that it is only a "public political forum". It is a public political forum from the LDS perspective, so I think that attacking the LDS part is just kind of counter-productive.
David, I would argue that removing something so central to a person as their identity as a child of God is much more harmful to an individual than is backing an official position to a church to which they happen to belong. I mean, politics are going to continue happening - and if a church wishes to ID with a certian political viewpoint, oh well.
But trying to undermine someone's religious beliefs is trying to undermine them as a person. I happent agree with alot of what you say, but I cannot ever get behind the desire to remove people's faith. I regard faith - in something or other (whether it's an ultimate truth or not) to be central to an individual's personal development.
How can you say that personal experiences are an unreliable guide to Truth? I'd be willing to bet that your personal experiences have done much more than just color your conceptualization of truth - I'd be willing to bet that your personal experiences have FORMED your understanding of Truth - as have mine. As have these conservative LDS commenters. I realized that you inserted "of this sort" - well I don't feel that personal experiences of this sort are any more unreliable or less valid than any other sort of personal experiences which form a person's conceptualization of truth. The big difference is that you happen to ascribe to one kind of personal experience, and therefore, it is an appropriate guide to truth, while these people ascribe to a somewhat different set of expereinces. This doesn't invalidate their feelings of truth - nor does it invalidate the conclusions they've come to.
In regards to this thread, you said, "because personal religious experiences are not valid reasons for depriving other people of the equal protection of the laws." - - I agree - but these people are depriving no one of equal protection unde the law - they don't control law making, nor, I'm willing to bet, do they have an extreme amount of pull in the political spectrum of their state.
"If someone's going to argue against gay marriage because their prophet tells them it's bad, and they trust their prophet because they had a testimony, then I'm going to argue that their testimony is a bad reason to believe some guy is a prophet."
- - according to their undestanding of reality, their testimony is the ONLY reason to belief that some guy is a prophet. It also happens to be the ONLY reason to have faith. Not just faith in a prophet, but in scriptures, in church, in the way they were raised, in life, in the goodness of mankind, in love, etc. I'm not arguing that this is necessarily the case for WG and Jamie, but for MANY people, if they lose their testimony, in which their reality has been based, then their reality loses meaning - life loses meaning. Why would you want to undermine their meaning in life? As it is, their faith isn't causing them to harm others - why would you want to take the chance of harming them? People's testimony = their meaning in life. If that testimony is helping them to be contributing, responsible members of soceity, what's the hurry to undermine it? If there is real problems with it, eventually it will be ironed out.
OK, Stephanie--I was unaware of that description of the blog and its purpose. I was responding more to the wording currently at the blog's head: "Please feel free to read the blog posts and share your thoughts and feelings in the comment threads!"
If you know something's true because you know it's true, I guess I can say only that I think truth is a bit harder to come by.
--David
Not to push the envelope too much here, but I think that some of you need to understand that David is entitled to his own beliefs as well. People on this board have criticized--sometimes demonized--atheists and gay people repeatedly.
Is he not entitled to try to convince you that his beliefs are true, just as much as you are entitled to attempt to convince him of your beliefs?
In my opinion, David has made some valid points. What is the point of being faithful if you do not also question your own beliefs and think for yourself? Do you think that God does not want each one of us to consider our alternatives and to come to a carefully considered belief about the Higher Truth?
Who is easier to lead astray: (1) the believer who always does as he or she is told, never thinking of consequences or paying attention to his or her own intuitions or (2) the believer who considers every instruction in the light of doctrine but also in light of his or her intuitions and faith?
Good points, jackson.
Jackson - you know that I've never demonized athiests or homosexual peoples. And David is entitled to his beliefs -and political opinions - and I have lined up with you and David much more than with the conservative LDS folk on most issues - My problem here, is that I feel that undermining someone else, regardless of what you yourself might think, is an overtly negative gesture that causes more harm than good - thats all - but certianly, David - not saying you can't - just saying why it bothers me so. (just like I've told certian LDS posters why their undermining comments bother me).
Wow, the posts are just flying onto the page here!
Rick, I wanted to address something you said: "I'm not arguing that this is necessarily the case for WG and Jamie, but for MANY people, if they lose their testimony, in which their reality has been based, then their reality loses meaning - life loses meaning."
If I may, I'd like to share my own personal experience in losing my faith. I initially left the church not by choice, but because the church--its members and its doctrines--were hurting me. (This is a long and personally painful story, the details of which I would rather not explain on an open internet forum, especially with people like Anon John lurking about.) As much as I tried to conform to and obey church teachings, I could not, and the people in the church judged me for it. I lived in pain every day, thinking that I was an abomination to God. (As a side note, people CANNOT change their sexual orientation. Believe me, I fasted, prayed, and saw counselors. It cannot be done. I was the most faithful LDS person I knew.)
Once I left the church, I had the opportunity to consider other points of view: other religions and other ideas about the universe and the meaning of life. Contrary to losing my meaning of life, I found that there were many beautiful, exciting, and varied answers to these questions.
For me, losing my testimony of the LDS church was painful and scary at first, but ultimately led me to find more intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually satisfying ways to live my life. I'm not saying that everyone would share my experience, nor am I asserting that the LDS church (or any other) is "wrong" in the common sense of the word--it's wrong for me. However, I am saying that sometimes losing one's faith can be a blessing, rather than a curse.
And for the record, Jackson - I totally agree with David's position stated by you here, "In my opinion, David has made some valid points. What is the point of being faithful if you do not also question your own beliefs and think for yourself? Do you think that God does not want each one of us to consider our alternatives and to come to a carefully considered belief about the Higher Truth?
Who is easier to lead astray: (1) the believer who always does as he or she is told, never thinking of consequences or paying attention to his or her own intuitions or (2) the believer who considers every instruction in the light of doctrine but also in light of his or her intuitions and faith?" - - absolutely true and necessary, and i hope EVERYONE reads it and thinks about it
oh, absolutely - I'm with you 100% - but, like you said, not for everyone - My mom, for instance, if she, at 71 years old had her foundation ripped out from under her, her heart would stop. You know?
But, once you have "thought for yourself" and decided that the right thing for you to do is to follow the prophet because you feel that following the prophet is the right thing to do, it is unfair to then say that you don't think for yourself because you are going to follow the prophet even if you don't understand the reasoning behind it.
The third thread with 100+ comments - and I even blogged about the same thing 2 months ago! I am soooo jealous . . .
I do agree with you, Rick. I also know people who would be devastated to lose their faith. Religion is a difficult topic to discuss, especially when there are disagreements. It is especially important to discuss it in a sensitive, gentle manner, especially on the internet where misunderstandings are common and tempers tend to get the best of people (me included).
Jackson,
At your wedding did you wear the dress or did your "husband"? What were your colors? When you (or your lover) threw your bouquet of flowers did someone else step up to catch them or did they fall to the ground?
Recent news reports have said that there is again an increase in AIDS among homosexuals and that in some circles it is popular to get AIDs so that you can be for free with your lovers. Do you have AIDS? How many of your gay lovers from 10 years ago are still alive? Are you planning on being monogamous with your husband or are you going to be polygamist?
It is illegal to have a polygamist homosexual circle of lovers?
Notice that there is no attack in my questions... I am just trying to better understand your lifestyle and choices.
-John
Anon John --
Show that ignorance! Make your fellow saints proud of you.
David,
I hadn't thought of that...
How often do you beat your wife?
Do you even have a wife?
Is there a woman that would stand by you and your attacks on other women?
--John
"So what if some people disagree with you on certian issues - is it really worth taking away a part of their lives that is of central importance to them and undermining ther psychological reality - just so you can be right?"
Rick ... you were talking about religious faith and not sexual orientation, correct? I mean, you can see my confusion, right?
"that could establish that bringing children into a homosexual marriage infringes upon the rights of the children and has a deleterious effect on societal stability."
Stephanie - just curious as to where you would stand on the issue of religious exemption for medical care of children. Do Christian Scientists have the right to deny their children medical care because their faith prohibits it?
Tom,
What am I ignorant about? Please explain to me how it works in your world?
Jackson, yourself and others have commented on this blog that they want equal rights and the experience of marriage. These are legitimate questions about how a homosexual would experience marriage.
I am exploring what it would be like to be homosexual and experience some of the challenges of marriage. What would polygamy be like? Would it even be considered polygamy?
Do you have to pay alimony to your lover if you leave them after you are married? Does the butch lesbian pay to the feminine one?
If a homosexual couple adopts a baby and then after 10 years of marriage get tired of each other, which spouse will most likely pay child support to the other?
Please answer me. Or help me be less ignorant, that is why I am asking the questions. Help me learn.
-John
"What am I ignorant about?"
Goodness, where to begin?
Tom - exactly my point!!! Which one! That's why I line up where I do. (re-read my posts in this thread and even my previous BLOG on this subject, and you'll see where I stand.)
John, in heterosexual marriages, the working spouse (or the spouse who makes more money), regardless of gender, pays the alimony/child support, so I assume it would be the same in a Same-sex marriage.
Really, is understanding their marriage experience essential to understanding the issue at hand and making an informed decision on where you stand? Obviously I am one who would vote "yes" on Prop 8 that would deny them the "right" to marry (although I do support civil unions), but I don't see that it is necessary to mock their experience.
There may not be personal attacks in your comments, but the tone is unkind. You have some good points - don't let them get lost in meanness.
that could establish that bringing children into a homosexual marriage infringes upon the rights of the children and has a deleterious effect on societal stability
Tom, did I say this? It doesn't sound like me, so I am having a hard time placing it. Did I quote it?
But, on the issue of medical care, no, I don't think parents have the right to deny necessary medical care to their children on the basis of religion.
You did say that.
And why shouldn't Christian Science parents have every right to treat their children with prayer instead of medicine? Wouldn't that be asking them to deny their faith?
And really, let's avoid calling each other ignorant, too. It is name-calling.
stephanie -
apologies to you. I double-checked and it was NOT you who said that. Very sorry.
John, against my better judgment, I will assume that you are sincere in your questions, and I will answer them to the best of my ability.
First, at my wedding, my husband (no need for the quotes around husband; we really are legally married, even if you wish we weren't) and I wore matching khaki shorts, sandals, and white linen button-up short sleeved shirts for our wedding. Because neither of us identifies as female, nor is either of us particularly effeminate, no one threw a bouquet or a garter belt.
I do not have AIDS, nor have I participated in sexual activities that would put me at risk of contracting HIV. HIV is not easy to contract, so long as one uses condoms and does not participate in casual sex. I have never met a person who wanted to intentionally contract HIV. For the record, more heterosexual women worldwide have HIV than gay men. The AIDS epidemic is seriously ravaging the African continent and isn't something to be made light of.
As I have stated before, I am monogamous with my husband. I have never cheated on him. I intend for things to remain that. I can understand how you could think that gay people are promiscuous as compared to heterosexual people, since heterosexual people never engage in casual sex, nor are they ever unfaithful to their partners.
Since I was in junior high 10 years ago, it should be unsurprising that all of my friends from that time are still alive and well (and none of them have HIV). I was not sexually active during junior high or high school.
Multiple marriage (any marriage involving more than two individuals, including polygamy) is illegal for heterosexual people and for gay people, and will probably remain that way for the foreseeable future. Although multiple marriage is not a lifestyle that interests me, I do support other people's right to enter into a multiple marriage as long as none of the marital partners is an underage child and as long as the marriage does not involve the physical or mental abuse of any of the partners. Multiple marriages are consistent with several religious traditions and could, in theory, reduce people's living expenses and provide more caretakers for children raised in such an environment. This is my personal opinion and is not necessarily shared by other gay people.
As for divorces between same-sex couples, they are conducted the same way as divorces between heterosexual couples. Generally, the spouse with more money will pay alimony to the other spouse, assuming the spouse is legally entitled to such a payment. Current divorce law does not link gender with alimony responsibility.
Likewise, child custody is determined in same-sex relationships the same way it is determined in heterosexual relationships. The court normally orders a custody agreement based on the best interests of the child.
I am very confused about this whole homo-sexual marriage thing. There are 115 comments so far; however, no one has yet to provide any solution. Please answer my questions so that perhaps we can find some common ground.
If you are bent on tearing down a proposed solution to the current problem of homo-sexuals wanting to marry eachother, but not being allowed to, then please propose a new solution.
4 liberal judges tore down the solution that had been established by 61% of the people in California and now we are left with this current mess.
Proposition 8 says that, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid in the state of California.
That is a great solution. I vote yes.
If you vote "No", then please provide another solution.
What is the definition of marriage, or what you want the definition of marriage to be?
How many people vote that the definition of marriage should be, "A civil union between two consenting adults who are committed to share their lives together?"
Are these questions too ignorant for you?
-John
John, despite making reference to the 115 comments, you seem not to have read them all. I suspect that reading some of them would answer your questions.
Also, "4 liberal judges" did not do anything in California. Four judges, some of whom were appointed by Republican governors and who have conservative records (including the chief justice, who wrote the majority opinion), voted to uphold the equality that is guaranteed in the California Constitution as interpreted by long-standing caselaw.
As a law student who is familiar with the case, let me assure you that the court did not come to any conclusion that was not absolutely required by the California Constitution.
John, Thank you for refocusing this discussion.
Judges in California have dismissed challenges to keep the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman because there were "no actual controversy". The judges said that the laws do not discriminate based on gender and so they are sufficient to keep.
Link here
Based on the current laws that have "no controversy" I forsee some bad controversies coming in the future.
-- Concerned in California
David
I have not had time to read all the comments. With all due respect you are one of the most well read people I've never met:, but it is quite silly for someone who does not believe in God to tell another that does how to think or that their experiences are invalid. This is the equivalent of a man trying to understand a woman:) It will never happen. (a benafit of Jackson's orientation, he can actually understand his other half!)
I understand you think it arrogant to claim to understand the mind of God. Most Mormons don't think of God in the same sense as other Christian religions. We think of Him as our literal father in heaven. Meaning that he has the same hopes and desire for us as does our earthly father. We also can talk to him and ask and know things of Him just as we do with our own dads. We don't view him as this mystical unknown man that doesn't want to bothered by human peons.
After serving a mission in the Philippines, I learned first hand that MOST people find it very hard if not disrespectful to "ask" God questions. He is our literal Father that created our spirits. How do Mormons know this? Because we asked in faith.
One more thing, If you don't believe in God, I suggest you turn some of your studies to the human body. There you will find millions of perplexities that aren't just happenstance.
kapayapaan ("peace" in Tagalog)
CoC, please stop. Your comments are both offensive and repulsively graphic.
The differences between bestiality and pedophilia on the one hand and a relationship between two loving, consenting adults on the other are far too numerous and far too obvious for me to waste my time enumerating.
Based on your comments here, I believe that you are sick individual with a diseased imagination. I strongly recommend that you see a psychologist about your perversions before you harm another person.
This is not an insult. I am honestly and truly concerned that you need professional medical treatment.
Concerned in California - not okay with your "articles." You are equating, in a VERY offensive way, I might add, a grown intelligent adult with a ten-year old child and a goat. How condescending is that. This thread has gotten way too hostile for me. It's out of hand. I'm out. Many of you are being hostile, inflamatory and even hateful to something that you don't understand, and I've had enough of enduring your hateful, biggoted remarks.
You alone, CinC have solidified in my mind the correctness of my position. I'll work on getting those two struck.
Concerned in California, I am on the same "side" of the issue as you (supporting Prop 8), but I am not sure how much stories like these help our cause. They come across as "scare tactics". Personally, I really don't think that people marrying goats will happen. I think it is hyperbole. Lowering the legal age of consent is a big concern for me. There are groups trying to make this happen. I can see that as a potential threat to children, but, honestly, I don't know if the story is helpful in conveying that because it is offensive. I am honestly uncomfortable reading it.
People, help me out here. I don't want to censor, but I do (now) have the ability to delete comments that violate our comment policy. I feel like if I delete one, I will need to start deleting a bunch, and I don't want to delete any, so let's keep respect for everyone in mind as we comment.
"I can't even finish this, it is too gross. Please draw the line."
I think that line has already been drawn. And not in pencil. It's 18. Unless you're married, the minimum age of which varies from state to state.
What's more, everyone KNOWS that's the line: "I swear, your honor, she told me she was 18!" is a cliche for a reason.
Concerned in CA, I deleted your two stories. If you would like to state your position in a different way, please feel free to write another comment.
We are considering closing this thread, which would be disappointing. Everyone, please do not bring it to that.
"Although multiple marriage is not a lifestyle that interests me, I do support other people's right to enter into a multiple marriage as long as none of the marital partners is an underage child and as long as the marriage does not involve the physical or mental abuse of any of the partners."
I would not. Marriage equality means just that -- equality. Polygamy creates inherent civil inequities. With multiple partners, there are multiple beneficiaries for Social Security, Health Care, etc. It's not fair -- on a mathematic/economic basis.
Besides, from what virtually all polygamists profess, they couldn't care less what the state thinks about marriage, their marriages take place in their temple.
Wow.
First I must say that it is people like John and "Concerned" that gave me cause to leave "The Saints". How can you call yourself Christians, or Mormons, or Latter-Day Saints when you so maliciously attack fellow sons and daughters of God for who they are? Is not the second great commandment, "love thy neighbor as thyself?" It is truly shameful what you have tried to do here.
Having said that, let me tell you a little about myself: I have been close friends with Jackson for over 8 years. As Jackson has said, he was always, and I believe still is the best of our group. He was the one that insisted we not eat out on Sundays. He was the one that was compulsively honesty, one time even forfeiting a test in school because he glanced at another students work as he walked by. Despite that, he was depressed a lot of the time. It wasn't until college that was able to confide in me his attraction to males. Luckily I had grown up enough by that point to not let that totally inconsequential detail end our friendship. I soon after left to serve my mission in Seattle, and while away, Jackson was blessed to meet Jake, his husband. I saw as the world turned around for Jackson once he accepted who he truly was: a gay man.
He did not choose to be gay; who in their right mind would purposely bring that kind of hate and anger against him/her? To think that gender attraction can be picked at a whim is shear lunacy.
A lot has happened since then, but "despite" being gay, Jackson is still among the finest individuals I know.
I know from my own past, that the easiest way to avoid "sin" is to demonize the "sinner." It makes it easier to stay on the "straight and narrow" when one only listens to the voices in line, and throws out anything from outside the line as evil. But it also means that you don't learn something important: sometimes the people in line can be much more "evil" then those outside of it. Ever met a religious person that cheats on his wife? How about a drunk that donates millions to charity? It happens. Or how about a homosexual, who is charitable, loving, kind, and just wants to be accepted for who he really is, the way God made him?
Make no mistake, Jackson did not ask me to write this, nor does he even know that I have, though he will soon find out. I didn't write this because Jackson needs to be defended; as you've read, he is perfectly capable of standing up for himself. I wrote this because: 1. I wanted you to know the kind of person you accuse of the awful and nasty things you have, and 2. I hoped that perhaps, you might see that he, nor any other gay person doesn't want anything more then what you have: the ability to be with the one you love, and share the same legal benefits that you do. Let's be clear; Homosexuals in general have NO interest in forcing the Mormon Church, or any church for that matter, to allow and perform same sex marriages. We are strictly talking about marriage in the legal sense. Guess what? That means gay marriage will probably never affect you negatively as long as you live!
"Well then why don't we just give them civil unions, if that's all they want?"
Good question! Let me answer it with another: Why don't we just put all the black kids in one school, and all the white kids and another school and call it good?
Segregation has never, and will never be equal! The very nature of segregation suggests inequality! How can marriage and civil or domestic partnerships be equal when they are called different things?! It’s ridiculous.
I will end with a thought; Imagine being in junior high when all your cohorts begin to “notice” the opposite sex, only others of the same sex seem to grab your attention. Imagine going though school hiding what you truly feel while your friends use terms like “gay” and “fag” derogatorily. You laugh out loud, but inside the pain slowly increases as you wish you had been like they are.
As an aside, anyone who uses those words is ignorant. You could very well find yourself feeling a lot of guilt, as I did, once someone close to you has the courage to admit the truth.
Anyway, this happens EVERY DAY! It is estimated that 7-10% of the population is homosexual. That means between 1 in 10 to 1 in 13 people is gay! How many people to do know that are struggling silently, wishing then could be like “everyone else” because the church tells them they can’t be who they are?
I don’t’ think we take the time, as much as we should, to really jump into another’s shoes and really see what life is like on the other side.
I stand by Jackson, and any other disenfranchised gay Mormon that leaves the church to follow their heart. It is a hard decision to leave everything you’ve been taught as a child, but I know for Jackson it was the right one. No one should have to live his/her life depressed and alone, as Mormons expect.
Take it for what you will, but that is how I feel,
Cheers.
I just have one main question, what's the big deal? I'm shocked to be reading so many comments that reveal everyone's intolerance and hatered toward homosexuals. Someone needs to open my eyes and explain what I don't know about the word marriage. Now go with me on this, all marriage does is allow to people to have sex without any adverse moral implications, it allows two people to openly express feelings of love and commitment to each other and the world, and it allows some good tax and other benefits to be shared. That's really all it does. For everyone that is LDS, the temple sealing is where the real substance is to your marriages. so in light of this, why is it that only heterosexuals are priviledged to use the word marriage? Are we that elitist? Are we really any better than homosexuals? It strikes me as very odd that everyone keeps saying that this is not a civil rights issue, that homosexuals are not denied any rights...Except for being able to use the word marriage(hmmm I guess they are denied a right??) Should the dictionaries around the world be changed to state that marriage is a union between a Normal Heterosexual man and a Normal Heterosexual woman? I mean where do we get off feeling like we can label groups of people like this? People used to think that we could tell african americans that they had to use their own bathrooms, or their own drinking fountains, or their own spot on the back of the bus because we were better than them. How much different is this. Lets just take a moment and put ourselves in their shoes. Lets do a little rational thinking, for that is what God gave us brains for, instead of going on like drones doing what we are told. I understand the need to follow the prophet, but I also remember a passage in the Book of Mormon that states "by their works ye shall know them." What do your works tell you? I think I have plainly stated what your works are telling me. My God does not discriminate. My God does not hate. My God does not set people apart telling one group that they are better than everyone else. Try and understand what your are doing and saying to the world. Jesus didn't condemn the women taken in adultery. Why are we condemning homosexuals in saying that if they use the word marriage it will taint it and that it will not hold the same meaning anymore? We are told to hang on to our beliefs and not let others offend us and drive us from the church. I have tried to do that for a long time but what I'm seeing is so widespread I'm not sure I want to be apart of it anymore. I am actually ashamed to let any homosexuals know I am LDS because of the fact that we are all coming off as ignorant, condescending, elitist people. I wonder how many homosexuals you all know or have any kind of relationship with? I would probably be safe to say none. If you would take the time to get to know them you would find out that they are some of the nicest, caring, responsible, and friendly people you will ever meet. Most homosexual couples would be better parents than half of the heterosexual couples out there. Let's all just let up and accept people for who and what they are. What's the big deal?
Homosexuality is an ugly sin, repugnant to those who find no temptation in it, as well as to many past offenders who are seeking a way out of its clutches. It is embarrassing and unpleasant as a subject for discussion but because of its prevalence, the need to warn the uninitiated, and the desire to help those who may already be involved with it, it is discussed in this chapter.
This perversion is defined as "sexual desire for those of the same sex or sexual relations between individuals of the same sex," whether men or women. It is a sin of the ages. It was present in Israel's wandering days as well as after and before. It was tolerated by the Greeks. It was prevalent in decaying Rome. The ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are symbols of wretched wickedness more especially related to this perversion, as the incident of Lot's visitors indicates. (See Gen. 19:5.) So degenerate had Sodom become that not ten righteous people could be found (see Gen. 18:23-32), and the Lord had to destroy it. But the revolting practice has persisted. As far back as Henry the Eighth this vice was referred to as "the abominable and detestable crime against nature." Some of our own statutes have followed that apt and descriptive wording.
Sin in sex practices tends to have a "snowballing" effect. As the restraints fall away, Satan incites the carnal man to ever-deepening degeneracy in his search for excitement until in many instances he is lost to any former considerations of decency. Thus it is that through the ages, perhaps as an extension of homosexual practices, men and women have sunk even to seeking sexual satisfactions with animals.
--Spencer
Wow...I will leave one more comment and be done. I am getting the impression that this debate is not really for or against Proposition 8. Everyone here is trying to convince everyone else that homosexuality is wrong, not that homosexuals should not be able to get Married. Does everyone think that supporting and passing Proposition 8 will end homosexuality? Do you all think it will go away and that you are doing the world a great justice? If this is what you think then lets pray to have Hitler resurrected and I'm sure he will have a few ways to help you all out with this big problem. Otherwise let's talk and discuss the real issue and not just personal feelings about what homosexuality is. Everyone knows what homosexuality is and what the church thinks about it. We need to go a step further and talk about marriage. What long lasting implications will occur if homosexuals are able to get married? The answer is a better society, one driven with one mind toward a single goal and not divided. How many times does our civilization have to deal with this same problem?
Travis, did you really just compare homosexuality with bestiality?
I'm sorry Travis, I was really asking Spencer if he was comparing Homosexuality to bestiality.....
My bad.
I didn't see Travis do that - in fact, from his comments, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do that.
All such deviations from normal, proper heterosexual relationships are not merely unnatural but wrong in the sight of God. Like adultery, incest, and bestiality they carried the death penalty under the Mosaic law.
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. ...
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death. ... (Lev. 20:13, 15-16.)
The law is less severe now, and so regrettably is the community's attitude to these grave sins--another evidence of the deterioration of society. In some countries the act per se is not even illegal. This "liberalizing" process is reflected in the United States by communities of homosexuals in our larger cities who demand acceptance of their deviate beliefs and practices as "normal," who sponsor demonstrations and draw up petitions to this end, who are formally organized, and who even print their own perverted journals.
All this is done in the open, to the detriment alike of impressionable minds, susceptible urges, and our national decency.
--Spencer
I wonder if there is a study showing the effect same gender marriage would have on the insurance industry? If it is found that same gender marriage is detrimental to the insurance industry will the insurance industry send lobbyists to Washington to defeat any same gender marriage legislation? How much do insurance companies pay for AIDS care?
Vicki
Wowie, there Spence. I agree (sarcastic). Life certianly was better under the Deutoronomic Law of Moses. I remember the good ol' days when we could just go out and kill any Amorite, Egyptian or Canaanite that saw saw. Also, any of those immoral people who walked to far on Saturday. yeah, that was some fun stuff. Killing prostitutes, killing adulterers, killing people who worshipped at different places than us, killing preists of alternative religions. And, lets not forget, killing people who sware (potty mouths - we'll show them), people who aren't respectful to parents, and blasphemers - oh and homosexuals. Back when we could only marry jews, by fear of death, when we had to cut our hair a certian way, by fear of death, and when our dress standards were based on a death threat as well. Yes, that WAS indeed the good ol' days. NEVER quote mosaic law if you EVER want your opinions to seem valid.
Reading all these comments has been dizzying. I sympathize with those who have rationally and compassionately argued their points of view -- both sides. And I'm still not really any closer to knowing where I stand on the issue.
Has anyone ever thought that there must be a whole lot of stuff that we just don't know? That God is sitting up there watching both sides duke it out and thinking how foolish we are since we don't yet have the "whole picture?" Part of me is just compelled to believe that He is witholding certain knowledge or light from us that, when we someday are able to see it, will make us say, "Aha! So THAT'S why it was that way and THAT'S what He wanted us to learn from it!" Have you ever thought that maybe both sides are both wrong and need to learn something? I don't mean to accuse anyone personally of anything, but I think that perhaps God has given us this challenge to sort out who is out to enforce His laws just for the sake of enforcing them, and those who will follow Him while exercising love, charity, and compassion for their fellow man.
I think I personally identify best with Rick's point of view, of emancipating the state from marriage, but I also respect Stephanie's stance. She's decided where she stands on the issue but (she can speak for herself) my impression is that I don't think she really gets any "pride and joy" out of denying homosexuals the right to marry. The way I see it, no Christian person, as compelled as they may feel to vote against SSM, should get any "pride or joy" out of it. I get a different feeling from some other people, who appear to relish in knocking down homosexuals and stomping on them while they're at it -- all in God's name.
The subject of homosexuality, all the heart-wrenching stories, struggles and experiences that go along with it, leads me to believe that we haven't even begun to understand how complex a subject it is. Some Mormons want to paint it black and white, as a simple matter of willpower, as if it's just like not drinking coffee. Don't do it, because God said not to. As if it's that simple. Well, it's not that simple when you're the one facing a celibate life alone while all your friends and family get married and have children in a Church that revolves around marriage, family, and children.
I personally believe that God wants us to agonize over the decision of whether or not to support something such as Prop. 8. I understand why many Mormons will choose to support it, and a big part of me agrees with them, but I think that those who embrace it easily and enthusiastically, without question or difficulty, are doing a disservice to themselves and those who are gay because they are missing out on developing compassion in a matter that they really can't understand unless they've been through it themselves.
There are a couple of blogs by gay Mormons that I enjoy. Both are active, faithful Mormons and their struggles have led them down different paths. Both are an eye-opener to those Mormons who are open-minded enough to read their personal stories.
www.soymademegay.com
http://gayldsactor.blogspot.com
But let us emphasize that right and wrong, righteousness and sin, are not dependent upon man's interpretations, conventions and attitudes.
Social acceptance does not change the status of an act, making wrong into right.
If all the people in the world were to accept homosexuality, as it seems to have been accepted in Sodom and Gomorrah, the practice would still be deep, dark sin.
--Spencer
No one will be surprised to read that I disagree with Spencer's assertion "that right and wrong, righteousness and sin, are not dependent upon man's interpretations, conventions and attitudes."
Well, guess what? Most of the sacred LDS scriptures, from Adam and Eve right up to the farewell speech of Moroni, are narratives. They consist overwhelmingly of stories rather than propositions--and stories must always be interpreted before they will reveal their meanings. (Even if you're interpreting a story with the aid of the Holy Spirit or somesuch, you're still a human being engaging in the act of interpretation.)
Guess what else: there are inevitably different ways of interpreting stories. Literal vs. figurative, etc. And the assumptions we bring to the text, the assumptions which determine how we interpret the text, are very much conventions. (Sometimes the differences between Christian sects boil down largely to the different conventions they bring to bear on their reading. That's one reason you can have very different churches based on the exact same texts.) The very assumption that a text is sacred in the first place is a convention!
Even one's own testimony has to be interpreted. Should it be understood as a divine revelation of the truth, or as a byproduct of the neural activity of the brain under cultural pressure to internalize the defining values of the tribe? In the LDS Church, the assumption that a testimony is the former rather than the latter is a convention.
To the extent that one's assertions about "right and wrong, righteousness and sin" are based on one's reading of scripture, they are indeed "dependent upon man's interpretations [and] conventions."
--David
MAN MARRIES MAN
SF Chronicle 6/6/1986
Joe Blow was married today to his beloved Moe that he has been monogamous to for 5 years in a loving relationship.
Joe and Moe are both consenting adults. Joe explains that Moe is really a woman trapped in a man's body and they are deeply in-love.
Several people are outraged by the fact that Mayor Newsom conducted this marriage on the steps of the SF Court building; however, he calls it his proudest moment.
According to current laws Joe Blow and Moe are consenting adults who are committed to each other so there is no reason they can't be married.
Gay rights advocates have made it clear that it would be against the rights of Moe to not be allowed to marry his beloved Joe.
When asked to comment Moe said, "I want equal rights."
Conservatives have protested the marriage saying that this marriage is morally wrong; however, they have been drowned out by cheers of rainbow flag carrying men lined up to be married.
The fact that two homosexuals cannot procreate does not matter in today's courts; however, gay rights activists are claiming that this is a triumph because gay lovers are now able to come out of the closets.
Gay activists say that regardless of the fact that the Moe looks like a man and he has the body of a man, Moe knows that he is a woman soul on the inside and that is why he is attracted to men.
The same activists pointed out that these loving relationships have occurred throughout time and referenced historical depictions in the old testament, Rome, Greece and other civilizations that are now collapsed.
...................
Does this news article upset you? Is it gross? I have seen countless news articles like this in the last few years, (they usually have a picture of two hot women in wedding dresses kissing each other, as if that is going to make it more acceptable to straight men.)
In 1986 this article would have been just as revolting as the other two articles I wrote from 2016 and 2026 now appear to be revolting. It would likely have been deleted by the editor of the SF Chronicle.
When gay rights advocates were fighting for equal rights in civil unions they made it clear that they would never want to be married and that they respected marriage. Gays were given what they wanted, but now they want more.
The standards of our civilization has slipped so that what is truly offensive now appears to be completely normal and acceptable.
(For those who may be wondering about my 2016 and 2026 articles I am referring to I must try to describe them as clearly as possible without offending anyone who may be looking for a reason to delete this post.)
I am concerned that in 2016 a Man will want to marry his goat and based on the same presidence and arguments that gay advocates are now making there will be no reason why he cannot.
I am concerned that in 2026 a Man will want to marry a little child (who acts mature and is an old spirit) and based on the same presidence and arguments that gay advocates are now making there will be no reason why he cannot.
I wrote news articles for these two future realistic scenarios, but because they are currently so revolting (or because they attack the core of the current gay argument) my future scenarios were deleted from this liberal blog.
90% of my future articles were exactly the same as the article above. The arguments and sentences and scenarios were exactly the same.
..........................
Will this article above be deleted by the liberal dictators of this blog? If this article is not deleted then why were the other articles deleted?
I think that all three of these scenarios are revolting. A man marrying a man, a goat or a little boy are each wrong. Men currently have sexual relationships with men, goats and little boys; however, these scenarios should not be given the same respect and title of marriage.
I am very concerned.
-- Concerned in California
CoC, you seem to be confusing Gender Identity Disorder (also known as transgenderism or gender dysphoria) with homosexuality.
Gay people do not think they are women trapped in men's bodies (or vice versa), transgender people do.
For the record, chromosomes, hormones, and physical traits often interact in surprising and ambiguous ways. Because of this fact, it can sometimes be unclear whether a person really is male or female. If you are interested in learning more, please see the following article: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/magazine/24intersexkids.html
Also, based on your "news article," you either do not understand the reasons that gay people are asking for marriage equality, or you are intentionally misrepresenting them.
As a last note, keep in mind that critics of same-sex marriage have not be "drowned out" by marchers with giant rainbow flags (do you have a problem with rainbows?). Instead, innocent, loving couples have had their wedding days RUINED by people like you who lined up by city hall to scream insults at them.
I honestly don't know whey I'm still responding to you.
Jackson,
If you are going to use a news media outlet as a source for creating a definition for something then atleast you could choose one that is respectable unlike the New York Times.
The New York Times is as unreliable, untrustworthy and confused as anon Dave.
I respect the effort to try to defend your position by creating new definitions for things; however, because the whole point of this thread is based on trying to establish a definition for marriage and so many people here are refusing to allow the traditional definition of marriage to stand, I see no reason to accept your definitions.
Perhaps you should start a Proposition to define "Transgender Identity". Then we can all vote to agree to your definition, until then my article is fine.
--Concerned in California
Those who would claim that the homosexual is a third sex and that there is nothing wrong in such associations can hardly believe in God or his scriptures.
If God did not exist, such an unnatural and improper practice might be viewed differently, but one could never justify it while accepting the Holy scriptures.
That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin, and altogether abideth in sin, cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment. Therefore they must remain filthy still. (D&C 88:35)
--Spencer
Concerned in California, I am the one who deleted both of your first two articles, and I am hardly a "liberal dictator". In case you didn't notice, I am on the same "side" of the debate as you (you can read my post called "The Elephant in the Room" to see why I support proposition 8 and the church's involvement). I just don't feel it is necessary to mock or humiliate homosexual people in the debate.
Thank you for the updated comment.
CiC, I'm not inventing new definitions for anything. As a gay man, I know that I do not identify as a female. More importantly, though, the medical, psychological, and counseling communities have long differentiated homosexuality and gender dysphoria. Because I have taken college and law school level classes on these subjects, I do know the science behind trangenderism and homosexuality and I can assure you that they are completely separate entities.
I could waste my time searching for alternative news/academic sources that you would find credible, but I suspect that you would reject any scientific or scholarly literature that I would offer you. Based on your previous posts and your assesment of the New York Times, you clearly live in your own fantasy universe in which the only things that are "real" are the things that you agree with.
For real, Jackson - don't bother - I am just shocked that there are actually people like you (who see things as black and white and are as closed minded as CinC and Spencer) who know how to use a computer. It really is surprising - I might expect this out of a 80 year old puritan school marm, but not of someone in my own era. Good luck with your proposition, guys, but I can't continue talking to you.
Can someone please explain to me the difference between the 3 hypothetical news articles that the Concerned in California person wrote?
They each seem very similar to me. If anything, they are each three degrees of the same twisted definition of marriage. What is the definition of marriage?
I like what Proposition 8 is proposing as a definition.
--John
Absolutely right, Jackson Howa, about CiC's silly "assesment of the New York Times."
I don't know when it was, but it was a dark day when people decided to start judging newspapers on the basis of perceived "bias" rather than on measurable, objective qualities like breadth and depth of coverage. By any such objective measure, the Times is a superb newspaper. Intelligent conservatives read it for precisely that reason.
Most of the newspapers routinely excoriated as "liberal" are also, by any objective measure, very good. Makes you wonder why conservatives can put out so much FOX-style trash and so much talk radio, but cannot put out a quality newspaper of their own. The closest they've come is the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial pages are conservative but whose news coverage generally is not.
--David
Of the adverse social effects of homosexuality none is more significant than the effect on marriage and home.
The normal, God-given sexual relationship is the procreative act between man and woman in honorable marriage. It was so expressed and commanded to the first man and woman on the earth:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. ... (Gen. 1:27-28.)
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh. (Moses 3:24.)
Paul pinpointed the problem relating to all sexual sins and perversions when he wrote:
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you.
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. (1 Cor. 3:16-17.)
--Spencer
Spencer, what are some of the adverse social effects that homosexuality brings? Frankly I really don't see any.
I have been trying to see what would happen if marriage is legalized, not only in California but perhaps everywhere. This is the main issue at hand so I am wondering what people are thinking will happen. How will it be detrimental to the family and human race?
Marriage is ordained of God to men, and Paul tells Timothy that those who forbid to marry have departed from the faith and have given heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. (1 Tim. 4:1, 3.)
"Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." (1 Cor. 11:11.) The concept has been reiterated in our own dispensation:
And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God for marriage is ordained of God unto man.
Wherefore, it is lawful that be should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation. (D&C 49:15-17.)
The institution of marriage is further elevated in the 132nd Section of the Doctrine and Covenants, wherein the Lord makes clear that only through the eternal union of man and woman can they achieve eternal life.
As an example, he says that the wife is given to the man "to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified." (D&C 132:63.)
Such references of course relate to celestial marriage.
In this context, where stands the perversion of homosexuality?
Clearly it is hostile to God's purpose in that it negates his first and great commandment to "multiply and replenish the earth."
If the abominable practice became universal it would depopulate the earth in a single generation.
It would nullify God's great program for his spirit children in that it would leave countless unembodied spirits in the heavenly world without the chance for the opportunities of mortality and would deny to all the participants in the practice the eternal life God makes available to us all.
--Spencer
It's getting a little crowded, the Earth still isn't replenished?
I have read through the majority of the posts and have been disturbed by comments on both side of the discussion. There are voices of reason also on each side encouraging civil discussion. A few things stood out to me that I would like to comment on, forgive me if I don't go back and find the original poster.
Spiritual experiences - A person that professes not to believe in God to tell a believer that their experience is not valid is like a blind man telling a seeing man that a sunset is not real, or a deaf man that a symphony is not real just because they can not or have not experienced it. All of our "realities" are filtered through our senses. What we perceive as real is what we have experience through our eyes, ears, noses, tongues, and fingers. Some of us have experiences through our hearts and minds that we hold equally valid and "Real". But obviously there is no way to share a sunset with a blind man, how do you describe color and brilliance to someone who has never had anything to compare it to? Does that mean for a blind man there is no sunset?
Faith - Does having faith make a person weak or stupid? If as we, LDS, believe we are here to be tested then what would the point be if all the answers were readily available. If when taking an entrance exam for college we were to go into the room and find a list of answers on the board, who would fail? How would you determine those who have learned and are truly ready to enter the rigors of advance studies? For us some issues like this one of SSM may require faith, we follow a prophet because we believe that he has received direction from God. We have been told there are calamities in store for civilizations that do not follow the prophet. So what do we wait for the calamities and then say "Told you so” since we will also experience the calamities that is not a palatable option.
Right & Wrong vs. Legal & Illegal – I think this was pointed out before that often times people confuse legal for morally right and illegal for morally wrong. Since the laws of the land are determined by the will of the people it is not uncommon for wrong things to be legal and right things to be illegal. I think this has the greatest impact on children who may not be able to discern for themselves when there is a conflict. I believe this is why we are encouraged to vote for laws and representative that will uphold the standards of our moral code. Now of course “Right” and “Wrong” are subjective and many of those posting here have vastly different views of what is “Right”. As a believer in God, I know there is an absolute “Right” which by choosing will bring about the greatest joy.
-Ruel
Thanks for the comments people, you know who you are that I'm speaking to.
And thanks for Ruel for getting this discussion back on track. That is the type of comment I was expecting when I wrote this post.
I'm not very active in this discussion because I'm back in school, but thanks for reading the post and hopefully if anything it has got you thinking about things that you do, why you do them, and what terms like "obedience" "faith" and "prophet" really mean to you.
While identifying myself as Anon--Spencer I have been posting paragraphs from "The Miracle of Forgiveness" by Spencer W. Kimball one paragraph at a time. If you have been following this blog you have now all read word for word the first part of the chapter titled, "Crime Against Nature".
At first this seemed like a good way to add to the discussion and to see how people would respond if a prophet of God was participating; however, based on the way that Spencer's comments have been received I have had to reconsider my approach.
I do not want the words of a prophet to be ridiculed and mocked.
I started out by thinking what would a prophet say if he were in this discussion, and the words that were copied seemed to fit the discussion. However, in the context of the topic in 2008 the words seemed very direct, or some would say "mean".
I do believe that the principles that Spencer W. Kimball taught are true principles, and I believe that Thomas S. Monson would teach the same principles. However, I recognize that Monson's message is being delivered in a much different way.
I am thankful that we have a living prophet (Thomas S. Monson) today who can teach us about the world we live in and show us how Christ would teach the truth if he were here.
I think that perhaps if Spencer (W. Kimball) were the living prophet today he would teach the same principles he taught before, but he would choose different words that might be less offensive to the unrepentant. I believe that Christ leads all his prophets in the messages they deliver while they are serving.
This experience has given me even more faith in our living prophet today. I am thankful for Thomas S. Monson and I am thankful for his kind teachings.
I will not post Thomas S. Monson's teachings on homosexuality; however, if you want to know the church's position (which Thomas S. Monson leads on the earth) please go to:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction
If you are looking for Monson's exact teachings and you live in California then please go refer to the letter that Thomas S. Monson sent to your bishop.
At this point I do not feel it would be appropriate for me to include Monson's words on this blog because I have seen how the words of Spencer W. Kimball have been disrespected.
--
So, this post and subsequent comments have made me wonder if anyone who isn't LDS is voting for Proposition 8 for reasons other than following church leaders or believing homosexuality is immoral?
If yes: what are your reasonings?
--John
If I could vote on Proposition 8 I would definitely reject it but as I live here in Utah I may never have that opportunity so I will try and get my opinions out there when I can.
This is a really simple issue if you take the time to think about it. Proposition 8 is not trying to rewrite the LDS stance on homosexuality or any of the moral implications associated with it. This issue is purely dealing with rights and privileges regarding marriage. How can we as a people, who believe that we are all brothers and sisters, say to someone that is apparently different from us that they are not good enough to use the word marriage? If heterosexuals were banned from getting married I gurantee you that we would all be living with the one we loved wishing that we could express our devotion like the rest of the world can.
This is not a debate over what is morally right and wrong, it is a debate over what is civilly and legally right and wrong.
On December 15, 1969, the First Presidency issued an official statement on civil rights. Latter-day Saints were told, “Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protections under the law with reference to civil rights.”
From Wikipedia the following definitions are for civil rights and marriage:
Civil rights refers to two related but different terms. In civil law jurisdictions, a civil right is a right or power which can be exercised under civil law, which includes things such as the ability to contract.
Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state or by religious authority. It is often viewed as a contract.
The fact that homosexuals are not allowed to get married is denying them their civil right to enter into the contract all of us do when we get married. The LDS church doesn't need to grant them temple sealings or give them full membership and prieshood authority nor does it need to accept homosexuality as being morally correct.
Just as a faithful member of the LDS faith has the right to walk into the supermarket and buy a case of beer and drink it, obviously going against the word of wisdom, so should a homosexual couple be able to get married. In both cases commandments are being broken but the people are left to choose for themselves, that is all.
One last quote from Brigham Young and I hope that we all follow his teaching.
“The greatest fear I have is that the people of this Church will accept what we say as the will of the Lord without first praying about it and getting the witness within their own hearts that what we say is the word of the Lord.” - Brigham Young
President Monson, being the leader of the church, has to take such a strong stance on this issue. If he didn't then the church would not seem like it "walked the walk" when it came to The Proclamation on the Family. Perhaps he is right and we all should fight for the cause against the homosexuals. I for one can not convince my moral compass to go that way with a clean conscience. Everything I have read and been taught has told me to treat all people with love, respect and equality. This is the way I have lead my life so far and I could not change that now. It seems in such conflict with the teachings of Jesus to do so.
If I were a homosexual and had someone in my life that brought me happiness why would I not want to celebrate it? Why couldn't I go and have a fun, lavish wedding like everyone else? Instead I would be told that I'm not able to do that because the one I love has the wrong sex organs. I would be told that all we can do is live together, which is a sin anyway, and perhaps exchange rings so that we can feel a little like the rest of the population who are privileged to wear rings, though we would know that it was just second rate. Taking a few steps in anothers shoes goes a long way to opening your eyes to another side of the story.
Our stand on morality is not at stake here, only our stand on how we look at and treat others.
I'm all about fairness and equality
Something Samuel said sparked my memory. He said that, by making same-sex marriage legal, "people are left to choose for themselves, that is all."
He makes an important point here. Remember that the Church teaches us that in the pre-existence, two spirit brothers gave their plans about how life on Earth should be.
One brother said that he would take away freedom of choice and force everyone to follow God's laws; he was cast out of heaven.
The other brother said that he would allow men to exercise their own free agency, and that he would take the sins of the world upon himself. He was sent to Earth as our Savior.
Which plan does Proposition 8 most resemble?
Samuel,
Thanks for your comments. I think you summed up my feelings pretty well.
Personally, I struggle with the argument that certain members use that the Church had to tell people how to vote on this because it's a "moral issue," not a political one, just like when the Church got involved in the ERA. I see it as both.
While I believe that we have as much right to defend and campaign for our beliefs as much as anyone else, I also feel that our personal moral beliefs become irrelevant to anyone but ourselves. If people want to agree with us, great. If they don't, what are we going to do about it?
Thank you's to:
Jamie for the comments you wrote and the great example you were in your responses to the negative comments directed towards you. While reading the threads, I felt myself (NOTE to David that I'm taking the word "feel" and applying it here as a fact... Because that's what feelings are to each individual...) feeling more and more negative and sour. The personal attacks and flippant/sarcastic remarks were becoming ridiculous. Had I responded instead of you, I might not have been so eloquent and humble, and I'm sure MY comments would've been deleted :) But you were able to respond in the best way possible to such attacks: you addressed it, then transitioned smoothly on to bigger and more important topics. I also liked that your comments were generally positive and personal, and that you simply stated your beliefs.
Thank you, Stephanie, for being the person to FINALLY bring up the point that just because someone chooses to follow the prophet it does not mean they're doing it blindly. It's a subtle trick of the which Satan has become a master. If I were the devil, I would try and make obedience look as ridiculous as possible. I would try to make the "faithful followers" look like blind cows following the herd.
Thank you Ruel. This one's the best. I wish I could have been in the room of everyone reading his post. It was like a whirlwind coming to a screeching hault. You hit the nail on the head with the statement, "I think this has the greatest impact on children who may not be able to discern for themselves when there is a conflict." Voting "yes" on Prop 8 will maintain the sacredness of Marriage between a man and a woman. I believe in equality WHEN it is plausible. What I mean by this is that I think it ignorant to assume that "all men [people] are created equal".
The Womens' movement was a great example of this. Women everywhere realized that they were being oppressed and not treated equally. As a society, the Womens' Rights Movement snowballed into today's world of "equality". However, although the outcomes have been mostly positive, we also learned a great deal about the term "equality". Studies have proven (sorry- no time to back up) that IN MOST CASES it is more beneficial for the stability and well-being of children to be raised and nurtured by a Mother. A family consisting of parents and children benefits diferently from each member. I'm not eloquent in writing, so I hope all can understand what point I'm trying to get across.
It is difficult to define "equality" when comparing between a relationship between 2 gay persons and 2 strait persons. The fact is, Women are NOT equal to Men. Just as Men are NOT equal to Women. Each gender has its own unique characteristics (I realize this is a general statement... let's not get side tracked on that- just try to understand what I'm trying to mean by this). Gender=different.
When a child is raised by or around same sex marriages, it can be confusing and disorienting. Just as studies have shown the difference that the primary care provider's gender has on the outcomes of raising children, so will studies show different effects that same-gender marriages have on the raising of children. I believe that God organized marriage. I know that, as Ruel said, choosing the Right makes us have joy. I know this from un-numerable experiences. Do you think God knows the effects that Same-sex marriage will have on society a bit better than we do? Does this make any sense to anyone? And please, cut it out with the bashing and sarcasm. I feel like I'm typing on ice and I can see holes in every sentence I write. At least I have spellcheck to keep me from getting too ridiculed. My goodness.
And thank you Amy for writing this post in the first place, standing strong in your convictions and writing with the power you always do. I enjoy reading your posts. Great job.
“The greatest fear I have is that the people of this Church will accept what we say as the will of the Lord without first praying about it and getting the witness within their own hearts that what we say is the word of the Lord.” - Brigham Young
This quote is like another one given during general conference this year (from Elder Oaks' talk Testimony:
In closing, I refer to the relationship between obedience and knowledge. 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).
We all act upon or give obedience to knowledge. Whether in science or religion, our obedience is not blind when we act upon knowledge suited to the subject of our action. A scientist receives and acts upon a trusted certification of the content or conditions of a particular experiment. In matters of religion, a believer’s source of knowledge is spiritual, but the principle is the same. In the case of Latter-day Saints, when the Holy Ghost gives our souls a witness of the truth of the restored gospel and the calling of a modern prophet, our choice to follow those teachings is not blind obedience.
Both quotes say that we should pray about it and get a witness for ourselves that what the prophet teaches is true. However, (in my reading of both quotes) neither quote really leaves it open for the prophet to be wrong. Brigham Young said, "getting the witness within their own hearts that what we say is the word of the Lord", not IF what she say is the word of the Lord. I read Elder Oaks' talk the same way.
that should be *we* say, not she say
I respect everyone's right to pray and receive a witness for themselves. I will admit that I'm not very skilled at that. I pray and never really feel much about anything. My experience with prayer has been largely a perpetual stupor of thought, even though things have generally turned out OK in the end. But, despite the fact that I don't really have a strong PERSONAL testimony of prayer leading to answers and confirmations, it doesn't mean that I don't believe that other people can get them. I believe that we are all blessed with different spiritual gifts. I have some and definitely not others. And vice versa with other people. I do, however, know of people who have humbly prayed and received a personal witness that Prop. 8 is wrong. They've fasted, prayed, and still feel within themselves that they can't support it. Doesn't necessarily mean that they think gay marriage is A-OK, but they don't believe that Prop 8 is what God wants.
So this is what I always struggle with in being a Mormon. Mormons can fast, pray and get a different answer on the same issue, whether it be Prop 8 or other things. I'm sure that George Romney probably prayed about black civil rights, got a different answer than Church leaders, and that's why he continued to fight for blacks.
The way I see it, if there's no room for the prophet making mistakes, why should anyone even bother to pray about anything? If you pray and get a confirmation that he's right, then it just confirms what you already know. If you get a different confirmation, then obviously you're deluded.
So who is right and who is wrong?
Can both be right?
I ask these questions in all honesty and respect. In fact, I just did a posting about it on my blog a few days ago.
http://thefaithfuldissident.blogspot.com/2008/08/who-is-on-lords-side-who.html
Hey, it looks like the posts are taking a turn for the better!
I have been thinking and realize that the activity by the church regarding Proposition 8 is not so much to try and put down the homosexual population as it is to keep on the front burner the stance it has on the morality of it all. I don't see the church wanting to deliberately impinge upon the civil rights of the homosexual population. They are making a pretty loud statement to the world and to those of its faith saying that eventhough the world will eventually regard homosexual behavior as acceptable, we still feel it is against the will of God. The only way they really have to do this is by supporting Proposition 8. Yes there may be a large population of LDS voters in California, but I'm not too convinced that the vote hangs on the LDS mambers. The LDS vote is very small compared to the state of California and the Church knows this. It seems like a fine line that they have to walk trying to keep the message alive during changing times.
Whether or not members of the LDS faith in California choose to participate as they were asked in their sacrament meetings should not be regarded as a direct correlation to their faith in God or President Monson. There is a lot of judging going on in the world and we need to remember that the only real judges are ourselves and God. If you feel so compelled to side whole heartedly with the words of President Monson, trying to keep the spark of morality alive, that is just fine. If you feel that it is more important that everyone is treated fairly, knowing that the issue of homosexuality will not be going away, that is fine also.
This issue is not one of black and white, it is actually two separate issues depending on a single vote which is why many members of the LDS faith are so divided. On one hand you want to say to the world that homosexuality is morally wrong yet at the same time doing so is telling everyone that you support segregation, that some groups of people are more privileged than others. See, voting either for or against Proposition 8 is the right thing to do, what you need to come to terms with is what issue you feel stronger for. With this issue being as it is, the vote can't be judged as what people are for and what they are against. It needs to be judged as what people feel is more important, either speaking out for morality or for civil rights. Most don't understand this concept and until they do they won't feel perfectly comfortable with where they stand on the issue.
So what Brigham Young stated was absolutely correct. All of us need to pray and come to an understanding of what we need to stand for. God wants his children to both be morally clean and treat each other fairly. As human beings we are prone to error and never have the full truth on anything, unless we get it from God. Don't take this the wrong way, and I am in no way trying to degrade the Church, but at one time Joseph Smith said that the moon is probably inhabited as did Brigham Young. A long time past in history, when knowledge of microbiology and disease were unknown, people believed that disease was the wrath of God on disobedient people. What I'm getting at is that sometimes we all have to make decisions based upon incomplete or inaccurate information. Not everything the prophet says should be regarded as scripture, hence the statements made by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young regarding the moon should in no way discredit the doctrine of the Church. They were expressing what they felt was accurate according the limited information they had at the time. President Monson has taken the stance on preserving morality which he very well should being the voice of the Church. In order to do that he needs as much help as possible to make the statement as loud as possible. If you want to assist him in that, if that is what your gut tells you, then vote yes for Proposition 8. If you feel more compelled that standing for civil rights is more important, and after praying you still feel that way then vote no. Either way you are still a good upstanding member of the LDS faith. Either way you still believe in the Church and the Prophet. Which ever way you vote you are doing what the prophets have told you to do all along, to become politically active in your community.
FD, I don't know. Judging what is "right" and what is "wrong" can be subjective based on different criteria (as both you and Jack pointed out), but I do feel that what the prophet says is the will of the Lord, as Brigham Young said. Yes, everyone needs to decide for themselves. For me, I follow the prophet in all things. I am one of these people who listen to conference and write down all the guidance I hear and try to follow it. I don't feel that the prophet will lead us astray. I believe he is a watchman on a tower, seeing things that we can't see, so I have faith that the Lord reveals His will to the prophet, and I will be blessed as I obey. That doesn't mean that I am judging anyone who doesn't agree with me or the prophet. But, I am free to share my testimony of the prophet and why I choose to follow his counsel.
Someone on another site had this point: what if the will of the Lord changes in 50 years? I believe it can. For example, what about during the civil rights time (like in the 60s)? What if the prophet asked the Lord to extend the priesthood to blacks, and the Lord said, "Not yet"? How did members of the church fare (in terms of their testimony or their affiliation with the church) if they didn't agree? Did they leave the church or go against the prophet? If they did, they may have been "right". The Lord did intend for ALL worthy adult males to have the priesthood - it just doesn't appear that the world was ready yet. When the proclamation came, did those members come back, or did they regain a testimony of the prophet or the gospel? I don't know - I am speaking hypothetically.
In applying the same thought here, I personally don't think the Lord will "change his mind" on SSM, but there is always the possibility. The church has relaxed its position considerably over the past 10 years. Wherever the church is at, I personally feel comfortable aligning with the prophet and what He asks me to do because I don't feel that he has an agenda of his own - I believe he just does what the Lord tells him to.
In fact, I guess that's why I feel it is a little silly (even though I do it) to try and figure out exactly why the Lord is asking this and come up with my own reasons. I think that sometimes when we do this, we DO get away from what the Lord wants - look at all the church leaders who "theorized" on why blacks were denied the priesthood. They ended up looking [insert whatever adjective comes to mind - I'll say silly or racist] because they were giving their own opinions, which aren't the will of the Lord.
Personally, I feel that changing the definition from one man and one woman to anything else weakens the family unit as the fundamental unit of society, and I feel this will hurt children as fewer children are born into intact families. When I read the church's press release, I feel that this aligns with what the church is saying as well. But, as to exactly how or why, I won't go there because it is just my own theories (and, beyond what I said, I just don't know).
Sorry for all the comments - I wish I thought in one succinct thought instead of thinking about the same thing all day.
Anyways, the big reason why I think it was racist for people to expound on why blacks were not getting the priesthood is that they were putting all the blame on blacks themselves, when really, it didn't have anything to do with black people. It had to do with the racist world around them.
Similarly, I don't think that the church's support for prop 8 has much to do with homosexual people and how they conduct their lives as much as it has to do with our society and how we view and value traditional marriage as a means for raising children. I think that to attack homosexual people as a way to reason prop 8 is (at least a bit) [insert whatever word comes to mind here - I'll say that it comes across as hateful].
Hi, Rick! I want to respond to some of the points you made way, way up in the comments. (Is this the Energizer Bunny of blogs, or what?!)
You wrote, "I would argue that removing something so central to a person as their identity as a child of God is much more harmful to an individual than is backing an official position to a church to which they happen to belong. I mean, politics are going to continue happening - and if a church wishes to ID with a certain political viewpoint, oh well."
If what you say is true, if a person's religious identity is such an important but fragile thing that is "central to an individual's personal development," etc., then that's all the more reason for the Church, the institution responsible for nurturing that religious identity, to shield it from the rough-and-tumble of worldly politics.
When a church takes its beliefs and values into the public sphere of politics, those beliefs and values become fair game for debate. I'm sorry, but I refuse to grant religion what is in effect a special privilege. I won't accept that a church can say, "We can argue our political position, but you cannot argue back. We can go on and on about why we believe as we do, but you cannot say anything that might weaken someone's faith in those beliefs."
If a church doesn't like that, then it should opt to stay out of politics. Some churches do precisely that. The LDS Church has opted not to. Oh well.
You also write, "How can you say that personal experiences are an unreliable guide to Truth?" Good question. Let me clarify. Not all varieties of personal experience are the same. A spiritual testimony is a personal experience. So is Charles Darwin's pondering of the fossil record and the observations he made in the Galapagos Islands. The latter experiences were worked into a hypothesis that could be proved or disproved by others, and the subsequent testing of that hypothesis has validated it as a truth in a way that can never happen to one's personal spiritual testimony. How can the testimony of the Mormon ever be validated over that of the Muslim?
When religious testimony does lead to a testable hypothesis, that hypothesis tends to get shot down, like the geocentric theory of the universe, the creationist theory of the origin of species, the Mormon theory of the origin of Native Americans.... Yet many people continue to hold such beliefs true on the basis of a personal testimony, and I'm sorry, but that's just bogus.
It's particularly obnoxious when people introduce such bogus beliefs into important debates over public policy.
--David
P.S. R.I.P. Del Martin, lesbian rights pioneer and true American.
I'm glad you made those posts, Stephanie, because it reminded me that there are things we all (seem) to agree on here.
We all think that it is better for children to be raised in families with two loving parent. We all think that it is important for the state to give benefits to married couples because it make society more stable and because it protects children.
What we disagree on is which families should be protected and have support from the government. I believe that all loving homes should have the protection and stability that government recognition and benefits provides. Others believe that it should be limited to families where the parents are of the opposite-sex. For me, it is not fair to deny children the stability and benefits that come from having legally married parents. Like others have mentioned before: it is not the child's choice which family he or she is born or adopted into.
P.S. It is sad that was have lost a woman as courageous, active, and loving as Del Martin. Hopefully her wife, Phyllis, will be able to cope with her grief, and hopefully the she will not be financially destroyed when the government taxes her inheritance of Del's estate (which would not happen if they were a heterosexual married couple).
Rick, don't civil unions provide "protection and stability that government recognition and benefits provides"? Perhaps the problem is that it is only on a state level in some states and not on a national level with national benefits? I'm not arguing that if you and your husband have children that your family should be denied those rights. I don't think prop 8 changes that either. For me, it really is about the benefits to society of upholding traditional marriage (perhaps anon Dave would argue that that makes me a liberal here, but then I think that translates to benefits of children later on). Perhaps that doesn't make sense to anyone else but me. But, it's how I feel and where I stand.
Arg, I meant jackson - why do I keep confusing the two of you? I think it is because you both have "ck" in your name. Sorry.
FWIW, a recent poll has Prop. 8 losing 54 percent to 40 percent. See here. The upshot is that Democrats are heavily against it, Republicans are heavily for it, but independents are heavily against it. Of course, it's only a poll. I have no idea if the polling outfit is partisan or not. But if the poll proves accurate, then it looks like gay marriage is here to stay.
--David
Hey, David, I couldn't agree with your points more (that you made directed at my comments a couple of days ago in response to your comments - yes it is the energizer bunny!)
Anyways, Yes - I absolutely agree - I don't think a Mormon's conceptualization of truth should be less valid than a Mormon's - If you've come to know my stance at all, I'd hope by now that your realize that I, unlike most LDS posters - feel that all personal experiences are just as valid, as long as they don't harm someone else's faith - I also feel that the you have every right to oppose the church's policy in this regard - AS DO I (and I do - again, in all my posts from the beginning, I've affirmed that this is my position). I simply didn't think it is right to attack and undermine INDIVIDUALS experiences - because to THAT PERSON, their testimony is just as REAL as anyone else - yours or mine. That's all.
People can believe that there are men living on the moon (I know you get my reference :) And that is fine - Bogus, but fine, as long as that person's individual testimony isn't directly hurting another person - politically, you can say, your stance (that you've adopted in response to your testimony) is wrong - but don't say that their testimony is rubbish -
I also agree that it is the hight of obnoxious when people introduce testimony into debate - but again, their testimony (personal experience) is still a valid point in their own eyes -
SPENCER - hey, you said you posted text from Miracle of Forgiveness as a way to see how people would react to the "prophet of God" - - Sorry, buddy - but MOF was published in 1969 - long before he was sustained as the prophet - so, you were quoting the words of Spencer W. Kimball (not the words of the prophet of God).
Was Joseph Smith a prophet of God when he had the first vision, was visited by Moroni over 3 years, or received the book of Mormon?
All of this happened before the church was formed or before he was ordained the president of the church.
When do you draw the line to say, "Joseph Smith was the Lord's prophet at X point in time."
.....
Was Samuel the Lamenite a Prophet when he stood on the wall and preached things that the people in the main city of Church headquarters didn't like? He preached that Christ was going to come and people wanted to kill him because of it.
If a prophet of God stood up today and prophesied in a public city like SLC or NYC, or Chicago, that Christ is coming in 30 years, do you think that the media would attack him? How would Samuel be received today? If Samuel posted his mesage on a blog, would people shoot verbal arrows at him?
Samuel was not the president of the church at the time and the people tried to throw rocks at him and shoot him with arows; however, when Christ came he asked Nephi to show him the scriptures and asked why the teachings of Samuel the Lamenite were not included.
I do not want to be in the position of ever having Jesus ask me why I didn't listen to his prophet. I spent much of my life walking the line and deciding where the edge is, now I do my best to cling to the rod.
....
Spencer W. Kimball received the sustaining of the Church as an apostle, prophet, seer and revelator in October General Conference in 1943.
Spencer W. Kimball became the President of the church in December1973, but he had been working under the direction of the president as a "special witness of Jesus Christ" and as an prophet of God since his call to be an apostle 30 years earlier.
The Miracle of Forgiveness was published in 1969, and I believe that Spencer W. Kimball was a prophet of God when he wrote it as an apostle.
.....
I KNOW that Thomas S. Monson is God' Prophet on the earth today, and I will follow his direction.
--John
John, do you think Joseph Smith was a prophet of God when he spoke about Zelph, the "white Lamanite"? Do you think Brigham Young was a prophet when he said all those racist (and obviously false) things about black people? Surely you can't believe that the Church's prophets never say anything that is wrong.... And if that's so, then what criterion do you use to determine when they're speaking the truth as the prophet, and when they're speaking untruth as a mere human being? Isn't that an "edge" you ought to be interested in as well? Or do you just follow their direction anyway?
It strikes me as a very curious way to exercise one's agency, to say, in effect, "I will make one BIG choice, to follow the prophet in all things. Once I've made that one choice, the other choices can be made by the prophet and I can go through the rest of my life on cruise control."
You also wrote this: "I do not want to be in the position of ever having Jesus ask me why I didn't listen to his prophet. I spent much of my life walking the line and deciding where the edge is, now I do my best to cling to the rod."
And the Muslim no doubt says, "I do not want to be in the position of ever having Allah ask me why I didn't listen to his prophet Mohammed." Me, I think that anyone who thinks himself God's mouthpiece on earth is pretty much the last guy you'd want to turn your agency over to.
--David
Me, I think that anyone who thinks himself God's mouthpiece on earth is pretty much the last guy you'd want to turn your agency over to.
The big difference is that President Monson didn't "think himself" a prophet. Many of the false prophets of our day declare themselves to be prophets. They receive "revelation" that they are the mouthpiece for God. It doesn't work that way in the church. When an apostle dies, the entire first presidency and quorom of the 12 fast and pray to know the Lord's will for who the next apostle should be. When they all have the same name, that person is called. The prophet is basically always the longest-standing apostle, which means that after he was chosen by the Lord through all of the apostles, he spent years doing the Lord's work. Given all of that, I think it would be hard to claim that he "thinks himself" God's mouthpiece.
Interesting quote by Harold B. Lee:
“Now the only safety we have as members of this church is to do exactly what the Lord said to the Church in that day when the Church was organized. We must learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through his prophet, ‘as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; … as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.’ (D&C 21:4–5.) There will be some things that take patience and faith. You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory.’ (D&C 21:6.)” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1970, 152; or Improvement Era, Dec. 1970, 126).
See, and I have no problem with Muhammad thinking himself to be the Prophet, or Thomas Monson thinking himself to be the prophet - and I have no problem with people following either one - as long as their following doesn't result in them never thinking things through on their own and making decisions on thier own and "through the guidance of the spirit" - - I believe in personal revelation - that what the Lord tells us through fasting and prayer is the most important thing - hopefully it will always line up with the prophet - but sometimes it may not entirely line up with how we were expecting it to - and I don't want to answer to God one day when he says, "I gave you personal revelation for you in your own life, and you ignored it, choosing instead to follow your own vauge ideas of what you thought the prophet wanted you to do. Why would you ignore my revolation?" That to me would be alot harsher of an accusation by God than, "why did you not automatically follow the prophet and accept as doctrinally binding every single thing that came out of that HUMAN BEING's mouth?"
There is value in people following a prophet to some extent - but not to the level, I believe, that John is indicating
Stephanie, you write that, considering the process by which President Monson came to be the prophet, "it would be hard to claim that he 'thinks himself' God's mouthpiece."
So, now that he is the prophet, what does he think--that he's just a regular guy? Of course not. He thinks he's the prophet. I can see where you would object to my unwillingness to believe in Monson's status as the prophet, but I can't for the life of me see why you would deny that he would think himself to be what the rest of the Church thinks him to be!
Rick, I basically agree, although I would add that there is indeed a problem with someone thinking himself a prophet, and others obediently following him, when that prophet takes his authority and his followers into the realm of politics or, worst of all, war. Just ask any of the victims of Muslim jihad.
Monson is a pretty tame guy. But there was a time when the Church president rather wretchedly abused his prophetic authority. I'm speaking of course of Brigham Young, whose militia no doubt would have gone right on ahead and fought the entire U.S. Army if Young had not gotten cold feet back in the Utah War.
So the danger is not merely that robotically obedient followers will cease thinking for themselves. The deeper problem is a structural one: the creation of a sort of super-human being who is thought by large masses of people to have a direct line on the truth. It sets up a situation where it's not just my group's opinion vs. your group's opinion, but my truth, which is the Truth of God, and your lies, which are the Lies of Satan. In such a structure, fanaticism and violence are always latent.
--David
agreed, David - Politics and War are no place for religion - they are like the Anti-religion - which is why, regarding this very tired issue, I feel the way I do - that is, leave Marriage to the church, and let the state arbitrate recognized civil unions - and make them mutually exclusive.
I think all of us need to help religion understand that homosexuals exist, at no fault of their own, and accept them in as loving brothers and sisters. Why is it that most, not all, but most homosexuals don't feel apart of any religion? The reason is simple, religion portrays them almost like the devil himself. If they are not choosing to be attracted to their same sex then why should we fault them for it??
I know that the stance of the church is that homosexual people who don't practice can be in full fellowship with the church yet at the same time they must turn love, acceptance, happiness, gratification, companionship, understanding completely from their lives. Is that a fair request? If God knows more about what is going on biologically then why does he not explain it to us so we understand. If we knew the reasons behind homosexuality would it not be easier to cope, or possibly cure than it is now? Would that not be the very best thing knowing that God's purpose is to bring about the imortality and eternal life of man? It seems like heterosexuals have a very unfair advantage in this life. Then agian perhaps this answer I am asking about does not exist. Perhaps homosexuality is 100% biological and no matter what they do it won't change. If that is the case then every single homosexual out there has to live a life devoid of all the gratification that we all take for granted. Why should they be punished so harshly?
I think this matter needs to be seriously thought about. I can see in the past, when advances in science were not as they are now, how people could judge homosexuality as being deviant. I mean people were condemned as witches when in fact they really were just mentally ill. Has the issue of homosexuality really been brought before the Lord or are we just relying on our past judgements?
travis, couldn't your questions be posed a different way? What about heterosexuals who never find someone to marry?
I know that the stance of the church is that [single people] can be in full fellowship with the church yet at the same time they must turn love, acceptance, happiness, gratification, companionship, understanding completely from their lives. Is that a fair request? . . . If that is the case then every single [member] out there has to live a life devoid of all the gratification that we all take for granted. Why should they be punished so harshly?
Stephanie, there is a difference between someone who cannot find a person who will marry them and a person who is forced not to be with a person whith whom he or she is in love.
great post Amy. Got me thinking. When all is said and done this really is simply an issue of "obedience" for people who are LDS.
And for people who aren't, well, they have to decide if this is a moral issue (which morals historically come from the Bible right?) or just another political agenda which makes us just another "politically correct" country. Hmmmm...
Jessie's comment above reveals the arrogance of too many of the religious. Consider the statement that people "have to decide if this is a moral issue (which morals historically come from the Bible right?) or just another political agenda." Here's how I take such a statement: Jessie and her co-religionists have "morals," while all people like me have is a "political agenda." Apparently Jessie doesn't see the gay marriage debate as a clash between one set of moral values and another set of moral values. Instead Jessie sees it as a clash between people who have morals and people who don't have morals. Totally inaccurate, totally insulting--and totally arrogant. And where did Jessie learn these bad habits from? They didn't just come from nowhere. They were taught by the church. (See below.)
Oh well. At least the arrogance of Jessie's response, shameful as it is, is not quite on the titanic scale of the arrogance shown when people dismiss their opponents' arguments as coming from Satan. I often find myself thinking of (say) Amy or Stephanie as mistaken, but I cannot even imagine myself thinking of them as leagued with the Cosmic Source of Evil Itself. Yet that's precisely how the LDS Church has long taught its adherents to think of people like me. And not only agnostics like me, but also members of other religions. Remember Bruce McConkie's classic definition of those Book of Mormon phrases Church of the Devil and Great and Abominable Church Which Is the Whore of All the Earth: "All churches or organizations of whatever name or nature--whether political, philosophical, educational, economic, fraternal, civic, or religious--which are designed to take men on a course that leads away from God and his laws and thus from salvation in the kingdom of God.... Any church or organization of any kind whatever which satisfies the innate religious longings of man and keeps him from coming to the saving truths of Christ...."
That covers a lot of territory. It consigns just about every non-Mormon institution to the Satanic precincts of the Dark Lord, and while every Mormon I know acts as if this obnoxious doctrine does not exist, it does exist. And it definitely colors the thinking of both individual Mormons and the Church as a whole. And it's supremely arrogant.
--David
Stephanie, you do have a good point. It can be a pretty lonely place for single LDS members. With the church being all about the family, having lessons about being fathers and mothers. It's also a lonely place for those women unable to have children yet going to church seeing families, hearing talks about being good mothers, seeing everyone else pregnant. I know, more than you know, what kind of pain this is. But at least there is hope. Hope for a better day when perhaps love is found, or a baby comes after many miscarriages. That knowledge that one day things may change for the better is what separates your comment from mine. Homosexuals do not have that hope unless they decide to live with the opposite sex just to become accepted by all of us. How unfair is that to them, and more so to their spouse whom full love can in no way be given? I personally know many marriages that fell apart because one partner was homosexual but felt they could change, which is what all their LDS counselling told them. Now there are children from broken families because we would not accept them for who they were. How long must this go on? Just because homosexuals can't be parents in the traditional sense does not mean that they are frustrating God's plan like everyone says. How many children are in foster families waiting for adoption? How many children are destined for street life in 3rd world countries because people won't adopt them? How many teenagers mess around, get pregnant and end up having an abortion instead of having their baby so a homosexual couple could have it? Artificial insemination is a perfectly good alternative also. So you can clearly see that just because a traditional family is not there, God's children are still being loved, taken care of, being taught good principles, and given a chance on life. Is that not what all parents are trying to give their children?
Stephanie asked:
"What about heterosexuals who never find someone to marry?"
I don't think it's fair to compare the two. Heterosexual LDS singles can still enjoy dating and non-sexual contact with the opposite sex. Even if it never leads to marriage, it does give some fulfillment to a single person and it's not as lonely a life as not being able to even hold hands or kiss someone that you're attracted to.
Let's think about two LDS singles attending BYU. One is straight and one is gay. The straight one is in a "meat market," as some like to call it. I knew a lot of people who went there not so much to get an education, which they could have gotten at home, but to find a mate. If that's what they're really after, then it's fine with me. Activities revolve around interaction with the opposite sex, dancing, dating, etc. What's it like for a gay person? There can be no expression of affection of any kind other than friendship. Would BYU accept two men holding hands in a non-sexual way on campus? I doubt it. Imagine if they showed up at a singles dance together? Yikes!
So I don't think it's fair of straight Mormons to compare it to all their other straight, single LDS friends who never marry. It's just not the same thing.
President Harold B. Lee:
The power of Satan will increase; we see it in evidence on every hand . . . Now the only safety we have as members of this church is to do exactly what the Lord said to the Church in that day when the Church was organized. We must learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through his prophet, "as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; … as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith." (D&C 21:4–5.) There will be some things that take patience and faith. You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory.(D&C 21:6.) (in Conference Report, Oct. 1970, 152; or Improvement Era, Dec. 1970, 126)
OK, so everywhere we look we see evidence of the power of Satan. Am I part of that evidence?
Not to belabor the point I made in a reply to the Palin post, but I would never look at the arguments of my opponents as evidence of the power of Satan. That is to say, I would never so literally "demonize" my opponents. I would think such a thing disrespectful and degrading. But I guess Harold B. Lee's conception of polite discourse is not so dainty.
We quite rightly object when people associate their opponents with Hitler, yet millions of otherwise decent people routinely find it perfectly acceptable to associate their opponents with someone even worse: Satan.
Think for a moment what that says to people on my side of the aisle.
--David
"OK, so everywhere we look we see evidence of the power of Satan. Am I part of that evidence?" -- David
Yes, David, your actions and many of your comments on this blog are evidence of Satan's power in the world.
However, I recognize that many of my actions are also influenced by the devil.
We are taught that contention is of the devil (3Ne 11) and so my contentious comments which were intended to fight back against many of your attacks are influenced by the devil. I may think I am justified, but I can look back and see the Devil's influence.
I try to be more kind, patient and loving with brotherly kindness; however, when I read your contentious comments it ticks me off. (I assume this is your objective.)
All things also testify of Christ, but if you are blind you are unable to see the witness of Christ. Take my word for it, there is a Christ and he loves you.
I can try to love you, but Christ does love you David.
John
John,
Please stop accusing people of being followers of Satan willy-nilly.
If anyone has brought the spirit of contention to this discussion, it has been you.
Thank you Jackson for pointing out the mote in my eye; however, I believe I just identified it in my last comment.
Oh, by the way... I think you may have something in your eye... that's wierd it looks like a beam. How could anyone see with that huge beam stuck in their face. wierd...
Maybe David can't see evidence of God because he has a beam stuck in his eye too? Hmm... just trying to be helpful...
--John
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” Matt 7:1-5 (KJV)
I am joining the discussion late and haven't read all the comments but after reading Amy's blog I had a few thoughts:
While we are supposed to follow the prophet we are also suppose to prove all things. Have we confirmed that Thomas Monson is a prophet. If we have and still don't support Prop 8 have we confirmed if he is speaking as a prophet on this issue. I have found that it doesn't matter if I agree with God, it only matters that I comply with God--after all at the judgement day is my opinion really going to count all that much. UJDW
For more information about LDS fundraising efforts for Prop 8, see www.mormonsfor8.com
My last comment should not have been deleted. I said nothing mean or offensive. I mormonsfor8 can post a link to the campaign for proposition 8, I should be allowed to post a link to the campaign against it.
I'm reposing my comment. If it is deleted again, I will consider leaving PoliticaLDS for good:
If you'd like to know how to donate to the campaign against Proposition 8, or how to volunteer your time to ensure that marriage stays equal in California, please go here: http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4375153
uh, yeah. I agree with Jackson -why was that deleted?
Jackson - all of us administrators agree that your comment should not have been deleted; we're not even sure who did it. Your second comment will not be deleted (at least not by me).
I have a blog and have occasionally deleted comments by mistake. Easy to do, especially if like me you have crummy eye-hand coordination....
--David
Thanks for taking my objection seriously. I can see that no one did this intentionally, so I'll be sticking around. (I'm sure to the great annoyance of some.)
sorry, I just couldn't help it - 200 - yeah!!!!!
Post a Comment