The church’s recent statement on the Supreme Court decision was notable for its lack of judgement, with no attempt to exercise political influence. Gone were the phrases “we hope,” “we were disappointed,” “we encourage.” Replacing it was a respectful acknowledgement of the authority of the courts, and an appeal to the free expression of our own religious beliefs.
Respectful coexistence is possible with those with differing values. As far as the civil law is concerned, the courts have spoken.
“Those Who Don’t Share Our Covenant Obligations”
Elder Oak’s General Conference address was timely, setting a new tone for the post-crusade era of SSM. Particularly noteworthy was his use of the phrase “those who do not share our beliefs, values and covenant obligations.” Rather than judging Gentiles by our own beliefs, Elder Oaks implies that they cannot be judged by our same laws as they are not under the same covenant.
Now that the political war has been lost, the LDS church is looking at the future. Will SSM be imposed upon religions? Will our own religious freedoms be compromised? Elder Oaks offers Gentiles a truce. We will respect the freedom of Gentiles to believe in or practice SSM, and they must respect our freedom not to practice it:
“We should love all people and show concern for their sincere beliefs. Though we disagree, we should not be disagreeable. Our stands and communication on controversial topics should not be contentious…In doing so we ask that others be not offended by our religious beliefs and the free exercise of our religion.”
However, it will be difficult for the Gentile conquerors to grant the LDS church the freedom of expression it had so vociferously refused others. How can we, who refused to grant homosexuals the free exercise of their beliefs regarding SSM, now expect them to grant us ours? The fallout from the political war is huge and will not be easily overcome. Not only has the LDS church fostered a fanatical and ultra-conservative reputation among liberals, it has lost thousands of its own youth who have been unable to reconcile their own experiences with homosexuals with the church’s political crusade against it.
The Lost Crusade
“Put again thy sword unto its place, for all those who take the sword shall perish by the sword.”
When the church launched its attack on SSM marriage with Proposition 8, from the leadership’s perspective it might have seemed like a simple, ecumenical gesture. We were merely assisting other religious faiths in protecting values we all shared, and which were universally self-evident. However the local membership did not see it this way. Weened on stories of extreme pioneer sacrifices, members saw this as a call to arms in the great apocalyptic showdown. Gays were an evil which threatened the very foundation of society. Local leadership marshaled the full power of the faith of the church in an extraordinary political operation. How thrilling it was to be called into battle by a prophet of God, under a righteous banner, and crusade against a growing tide of wickedness.
But like crusaders of the past, modern LDS anti-SSM crusaders lost sight of the true mission of the church. Jesus stated, “my kingdom is not of this world, if my kingdom were of this world then my servants fight.” And although this has not been a war of bloodshed, the war of words has nevertheless resulted in many spiritual casualties. Not only has the LDS church fostered a fanatical and ultra-conservative reputation among liberals, it has lost thousands of its own youth who have been unable to reconcile their own experiences with homosexuals with the church’s political crusade against it.
Healing
Healing will take time. It will take a paradigm shift among members. We must learn that defending the rights of others to practice and believe as they see fit is the best way to protect our own rights. Continuing to attack others beliefs and seek to limit their freedom of expression is the surest way to compromise our own rights.
Above all, Mormons must learn to embrace Elder Oak’s paradigm that Gentiles do not share our same covenant obligations, nor are they under the same laws and responsibilities. They are invited to join and make covenants, but they are under no obligation to do so. We cannot judge them by our standards. This new attitude, celebrating freedom of belief and expression, non-judgement, and love, may eventually help us restore our reputation as defenders of freedom and lovers of humanity.
A Higher Way, Not a Universal Way
Both conservative and liberal members have been guilty of universalizing LDS Law. Conservative members have crusaded to impose LDS standards of marriage and morality upon Gentiles. Liberal members have crusaded to impose Gentile standards of marriage and morality on the church. Both need to stop. The LDS way is a divinely appointed “peculiar” way. We are the “leaven,” not the loaf, as Elder Oaks describes us in his recent address. We have a different mission, a different law, and different level of light and knowledge. Ours is a higher way, not a universal way. Our kingdom is not of this world.
Almost all religious wars have been a result of universalizing belief. Catholics burned Protestants at the stake not because they hated Protestants, but because Protestantism was an evil that threatened all of humanity. Protestants beheaded Catholics for the same reason. ISIS does the same. But the reality is that God loves all of His children, and works with all of them according to their various beliefs and their degree of light and knowledge.
The LDS church must not embrace SSM in its temples, but it must not refuse the right of others to practice it. We must cultivate our differences respectfully. Having differences is not a sign of weakness. It is a sign of strength.
Questions:
- Is the crusade against SSM officially over?
- Is the LDS Covenant a Higher Law, or a Universal Law?
- Can liberals end their crusade to change LDS doctrine regarding homosexuality, if conservatives can end their crusade to impose their standards on Gentiles?
Wheat & Tares 
I think the fight the LDS Church has engaged in has been misunderstood by both member and non-member. The fight the LDS Church has been engaged in was to prevent the Gentile World from imposing their beliefs onto our practices and to mitigate the degradation of the meaning of marriage. I don’t think the LDS Church had any issues with Civil Unions and associated benefits. Hence, there was no attempt by the LDS Church to interfere with other’s beliefs or practices. it was a fight to ward off unintended consequences.
However, everyone being human and being overwhelmed with emotion led to an excess of hyperbole from both sides. Perhaps the words spoken in Conference will allow members to cool it while I don’t think it will have any impact on the non-member.
The crusade is not over if the gentiles try to interfere with LDS practice. The gentiles have never been able to let LDS alone (ie govt end to plural marriage – what was that all about – hypocrites! oooops! excuse the hyperbole).
The LDS Covenant is the Lord’s Covenant and is the Higher or Universal Law. The purpose of missionary work is to teach the world what they have forgotten, namely, that all God’s children made covenants before they were born. One is not released from a covenant simply because they forgot. So while those who decide to practice SSM will one day have to come to the judgement bar and answer why they broke their covenant of their First Estate. In the meantime, it is best for Christians not to judge unrighteously and to “love” our brothers (and sisters).
As should be apparent by what I wrote, Liberals will not stop their crusade to change LDS doctrine.
You make it sound like the leadership was measured and reasonable, like it was the membership that took the Prop 8 campaigning to some crazy extreme on their own. That’s just not true. I lived in CA throughout the Prop 8 debacle and we were read letters (coordinated from church HQ) about giving substantial time and money to the cause, literally telling us this would sift the wheat from the tares. People who didn’t feel strongly about Prop 8 (and even those opposed) were pressured by the leaders to go door-knocking for family home evening and to do public demonstrations on street corners.
The impetus of full-on political machinations may not have come from the first presidency, but it didn’t come from the regular members either. It seems rather to have come from upper (not executive) management. Like Whitney Clayton level management.
To our discredit, Elder Oaks and others should have SEEN all this and chosen the higher way from the beginning.
I, too, lived in CA at the time of proposition 8 and I think your remark (Here before) is an example of the LDS fight being misunderstood. I have since heard that the LDS Church in CA was prepared to stop performing marriages if proposition 8 did not pass. That is what motivated the fight. Now that proposition 8 has been overturned my question is why is the LDS Church still performing marriages? I suspect because the elements that would have caused the LDS Church to stop doing marriages (the “unintended consequences”) did not get overturned. Since our leaders are so good at lawyer-speak and make things so convoluted, it is probably accurate to say that no-one knows what proposition was all about and it’s unintended consequences would have been, only what they/we thought or understood at the time. The simple solution is to get the govt (ie double-speak lawyers) out of our lives. That simple solution would probably do much to help all of us live in peace.
Blog author states that LDS leadership was trying to limit others practices if their beliefs. That isn’t accurate. Others want to participate in something that was originally defined via religious beliefs. The actual gentle laws came into play much later. The issue is not legal contracts, it is the definition if the word marriage being redefined and imposed.
Some couple just lost their bakery because they wouldn’t do a wedding cake for a gay couple.
With that said, who is imposing on expression of beliefs?
Did the baker or the church make an effort to prevent a relationship or cohabitation? A legal contract? Free speech?
The church has handled this beautifully. They stayed true to their values and their right of political free speech and advocacy. They did their duty according to their religious beliefs and their patriotism. Now they have gracefully stepped aside because that battle has been won by the secular crowd. They’ve encouraged kindness and peace with those who differ in opinion.
On the other hand, the liberal and secular crowds have forced their beliefs on one small business owner instead if simply going to hundreds of other bakeries that would have loved the business. They’ve destroyed a families livelihood and trampled on their right took religious freedom and free speech. They’ve interrupted the natural free market of dollar voting.
Furthermore and perhaps worst if all, they’ve labelled anyone who disagrees as a bigoted religious fanatic. Civil unions are not enough- they have to destroy a biblical concept rather than accomplish the same rights through a civil union.
I’ve never loved the church so much as I do now. I consider the way things played out to be God’s will ultimately in freedom if expression and even perhaps marriage being redefined but I also consider that the whole political argument was intentional too. HF wants these things carefully considered and we all make up the tangible form of GOD when combined as the whole of humanity.
I would be pleased as a God if my many children didn’t just flippantly change things, particularly covenants they made with me. I may even see that covenants should be redefined when the time was right. Now people are ready to respect their gay siblings and neighbors partnerships. They weren’t there in the past.
“Now people are ready to respect their gay siblings and neighbors partnerships.”
jenonator, I seriously doubt this whole drama was necessary to teach us that we should respect our gay siblings and neighbors. A much more effective and less costly way would have been to encourage that respect for others all along and leave the politics out of it.
It always sounds me how the same people who worship the almighty $ and want government “out of our lives” often go to great lengths to justify coercion in the name of religion.
astounds
Hoffbegone, thank you for your comment. That is an interesting idea, that the crusade was a preemptive strike if you will, to stave off future attacks on our personal freedom. I would like that to have been the case, and I’d love to see some official evidence of that. But it strikes me as a bit too cunningly strategic to be realistic.
Regarding what Here Before says, and how Hoffbegone responds, I would say that probably LDS leadership had a variety of interpretations and approaches, ranging from interventionist, isolationist, and libertarian. Perhaps some interpreted the crusade in the manner Hoffbegone interpreted it, but many probably interpreted it in the way Here Before was saying. In the end, the crusade came about, as would be expected since most of the leadership is strongly conservative. The more apocalyptic voices predominated, as they have alarmist urgency on their side.
Jenonator, thanks for your comment. I think it is an interesting idea that the membership was not ready to love and accept our gay brothers and sisters, and now we are, after having been burned. It sounds a bit like the theory about blacks and the priesthood, that the membership wasn’t ready to accept blacks, so the priesthood was withheld until they were ready. Is that what you were getting at? I agree, as long as we are including church leadership in that group. I believe the church, like individuals, has a learning curve, has to make mistakes to learn.
I wasn’t clear on what you meant in your first paragraph, but I agree that it is unfortunate what happened to the baker. The baker is a casualty of a war in which both sides are playing take no prisoners. I wonder if the baker was LDS, and he had just listened to Elder Oak’s talk, whether he would have would have decided baking the cake for the gay couple just wasn’t such a big deal, not worthy of starting a contentious legal battle. I hope that Mormon bakers will start baking cakes for gays now.
I also live in CA and Here before’s experience outlined in #2 mirrors my own.
The church’s — along with other institutional churches’ — attempts to impose religious values on civil society predates Prop 8 by about 15 years. In 1993 the church was already actively opposing gay civil rights in Hawaii.
I think it’s lovely that they have thrown in the towel and found some graceful way for Mormons to accept their gay fellow citizens. But it’s worth acknowledging that any demand for a temple sealing could ONLY ever come from Mormons and non-Mormon Americans were merely collateral damage. Further, any attempt to deny the equal protections of the US Constitution from any American was as wrong on the very first day they mounted the campaign that lasted 20 years and hurt inestimable numbers of lives as it was this past weekend.
Personally, I will believe the church’s sincerity on the day when they accord women and girl Mormons the same concessions they have been forced into for gay Americans.
I wasn’t clear on what you meant in your first paragraph, but I agree that it is unfortunate what happened to the baker. The baker is a casualty of a war in which both sides are playing take no prisoners. I wonder if the baker was LDS, and he had just listened to Elder Oak’s talk, whether he would have would have decided baking the cake for the gay couple just wasn’t such a big deal, not worthy of starting a contentious legal battle.
Let’s change this up a bit and apply it to–say–those students in Hong Kong who got tear gassed last month:
“The students are a casualty of a war in which both sides are playing take no prisoners. I wonder if the students were LDS, and they had just listen to Elder Oaks’ talk, whether they would have decided just going home like they were asked to do wasn’t such a big deal, not worthy of starting a contentious legal and physical altercation”.
What then?
I hope that Mormon bakers will start baking cakes for gays now.
Why should (s)he? Aren’t weddings, by tradition, by their nature celebrations of a sexual relationship? Isn’t a wedding cake an integral part of that tradition? And isn’t gay sex inherently wrong?
A couple of years ago, a couple named their son “Adolf Hitler”. They went to a local grocery store and asked for a birthday cake with the child’s name inscribed in frosting. Is it your position that the store’s baker–even if Jewish, or black–was both legally and morally bound to go ahead and bake that cake?
Every fundamental law we have reflects an attempt to impose a Judeo-Christian religious value on civil society. What we are experiencing a a secular effort to unravel those laws in favor of the philosophies of men. Which is fine, of course. Just acknowledge the effort for what it is. We don’t “need” marriage. There isn’t one law related to marriage that can’t be redrafted to apply to men, women and children on an individual and collective basis. The effort to legalize SSM has never been about rights or benefits. It’s about moral acceptance of homosexuality. We’ve gone from abhorrence to aberration to aversion to acceptance to admiration of homosexuality in the span of 20 years.
JimD, in Elder Oak’s address, he talks about certain self-evident and universally acknowledged wrongs, which are not protected by free speech: wrongs like terrorism or murder. He then contrasts these self-evident wrongs with what he calls more “controversial” disagreements, like same-sex marriage and cohabitation before marriage. These are the specific disagreements he invites us to avoid contention. He cites the “manner of baptism” disagreement, which is a sacrament, like marriage, and says that even people who “do it right” shouldn’t get agitated about people who do it wrong.
So with the example of students protesting an oppressive and tyrannical regime, I don’t think it can be compared with someone protesting the manner of performing a religious or cultural sacrament like marriage.
IDIAT: “The effort to legalize SSM has never been about rights or benefits. It’s about moral acceptance of homosexuality.” This may be true, and its good to be honest about it.
“The secular-effort to unravel Judeo-Christian values in favor of humanist ones, philosophies of men.” From the LDS perspective, we should understand it as the natural and nescessary unraveling of apostate religion, which is what the Judeo-Christian world is. Christianity was never meant to be a world religion, and its universal victories were purchased in blood and wickedness. “The ax is laid at the foot of every tree and every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire.” The Judeo-Christian world has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. It will be replaced with the secular humanist world, which will have it’s day in the sun. Our little kingdom is of no consequence to these world events.
Nate, not to threadjack, but I read your comments over at M*. I don’t always agree with you, but overall I find your posts/comments measured and thoughtful. I read M* regularly, and I admire you trying to inject some reason and analysis into the M* echo chamber.
The gay ban is more about drawing a tribe more tightly together *against* something (a perceived enemy or “evil”) than it is any clear scriptural doctrine or clear threat to marriage LDS or secular. It’s a God approved venue for the pleasure of feeling privileged leg up self-righteousness by virtue of someone else being in a one down position and since we can’t use blacks anymore gays are the new black minority.
Aristotle
Howard, I can’t get to the fully cynical place you’re in but I must say I’ve been very surprised at how the church cozied up to the Catholics when they targeted a common enemy. Things certainly have changed since I was a girl!
1. does anyone think that gays will sue to be able to be married in the temple?
2..right now are gays able to hold hands and sit together in church or are they asked to leave?
from what I’ve heard from families living in ca wards during prop 8 it was presented as a line in the sand, who’s on the Lord side who? And in one wealthy ward each family was asked to donate 10k plus by the bishop.
Plurality FTW
I’ve always had issues with legislating the majority’s morality on others. What happens when I’m not in the majority any longer? Legal gay marriage does nothing to infringe upon my religious right to worship my God as I choose.
I view what has happened with the emergence of SSM as another step in America’s steady march towards ultimately rejecting the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The scriptures refer to our day as the times of the Gentiles. The times of the gentiles broke forth with the restoration of the fulness of the gospel to the prophet Joseph Smith. That was in 1820, 194 year ago. The scriptures further teach, and I might add—sadly so—that the Gentiles “shall reject the fulness of my gospel” (3 Nephi 16:10) “because of the precepts of men” (D&C 45:29).
Then comes the startling prophecy that “in that generation shall the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. And there shall be men standing in that generation, that shall not pass until they shall see and overflowing scourge; for a desolating sickness shall cover the land” (D&C 30:30-31).
The concern I have is not with homosexuals. They only represent 2 to 4% of the population. What is concerning is that enough American’s, particularly the movers and shakers, don’t value “marriage”.
For the first time in America there is a growing swell of anti-christian sentiment that is growing and gaining adherents.
What’s next in the March to rejecting the gospel of Jesus Christ?
I’ve tried to read this twice but I’m having a hard time getting past what I perceive as contention; use of words such as Gentiles, war, attack, liberal, conquerors, truce.
@ Nate:
So with the example of students protesting an oppressive and tyrannical regime, I don’t think it can be compared with someone protesting the manner of performing a religious or cultural sacrament like marriage.
But I wasn’t talking about the way cultural sacraments are performed; I was talking about the state requiring an individual to take part in such a sacrament over that person’s moral objections (specifically, the baker example). Our government seems to be tending towards compelling individuals to act in violation of their own consciences; and if they continually resist that compulsion they face the exact kind of force faced by the students in Hong Kong. You seem to say that it’s all OK, really; because the grounds for their protest is “trivial”. Pardon; but that’s what oppressors always say.
And, going back to my hypothetical–if you think a black or Jewish baker should be legally compelled under force of law to make a birthday cake that says “Happy birthday Adolf Hitler”–or serve people who would give their child such a name–please come out and say it. If you don’t think an African American or a Jew should be compelled to do that, please explain your reasoning and distinguish it from the gay-wedding cake baker scenario.
The Judeo-Christian world has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. It will be replaced with the secular humanist world, which will have it’s day in the sun. Our little kingdom is of no consequence to these world events.
No; but those world events are of significant consequence to the kingdom–as hundreds of Christians who died in the Roman arenas could have told you. And secular humanism’s track record for tolerance is not ideal; particularly if you include communists under the secular humanist umbrella. A hundred million murders in half a century in just two countries would have been beyond the wildest dreams of even the most bloodthirsty crusader.
@ Winifred:
Re your 1) – why not? Marriage is a state benefit, which we now know must be administered without regard to sexual orientation. Religious ministers, in administering civil marriage, are functionaries of the state. Moreover, temples are built on tax-exempt property and (as Senator Warren would remind us) benefit from taxpayer-subsidized infrastructure including roads, utilities, and fire and police protection. Religious freedom is all well and good; but it’s a freedom of belief, not necessarily action or (as the Kentucky Human Rights Commission proclaimed earlier this month) speech. Moreover, religious freedom is clearly subject to the needs of a civilized, diverse and inclusive society.
And that’s just the beginning. In the era of Leviathan government, a policy that government must use every bureaucracy to stamp out discrimination and the belief that religious action is subject to the greater good, can make life for Mormons very interesting indeed.
I agree with you 19. Nate asks whether the crusade is over? It may be but it’s supporters are still fighting.
I always found Elder Oaks talks about the members of the church believing as he did, exclusionary because I did not believe that, even though I was a TR holding member of the church.
When I joined the church the leadership were racist and white supremacists, but I did not know because that information was not available to me. The Church is no longer defending that position.
When I was engaged to be married, in 1970 my wife as advised, by her bishop, not to marry me because I was of a different culture to her. The church doesn’t teach that any more but hasn’t made any statement as to why. And even inter racial couples now marry in the temple.
When we had 3 children in 4 years and doctors advised my wife to have a break before the next pregnancy if any, the church opposed birth control, and when we discussed it with our Bishop he just re stated that position, likewise the SP. We had to decide to ignore them. The church doesn’t oppose birth control any more, but hasn’t said why it changed.
We were in California for part of the crusade there and found it extremely offensive.
We came to realise that all these things were the conservative culture of the leaders of the church, and as has been admitted with regard to the racism period, nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Those above who are extrapolating the end of civilization might look back at the history of the Church and realise that the culture of the leaders was/is the problem, not the wicked world.
There is nothing in the scriptures opposing homosexuality. If any of you have been to Pompeii you will realise that man on man action was not unusual, at that time (Christ’s time)and not necessarily describing homosexuals. It would obviously be wrong for heterosexuals, but for homosexuals to have homosexual sex is right. That’s how God created them after all. Look at any scriptures you find in that light.
In response to comments # 16 and 20. Legalizing gay marriage will NOT mean that the state can force the Church to preform same sex marriages in or out of the Temple.
I would call your atttention the 1987 Supreme Court case of Presiding Bishop v. Amos 483 U..S 327.
The Supreme Court held that Church could fire a maintenance enginer at the old Deseret Gymnasium because he did not hold a Temple Recomend.
The logic of this case would control any suit to force the church to preform a gay marriage.
I would point that gay marriage has existed in Massachussetts for 10 years. No suit has been filed to force the church to preform same sex marriages.
If such a suit was filed in eihter Massachusetts or Utah it would be summarily dismissed. That was true before same sex marriage was legalized and it is just as true today.
John Willis- ever heard of a court reversing itself? Or, differentiating facts of a present case from what some would believe was prior precedent? If courts can interject itself into private contracts of citizens, it can certainly insert itself into the private walls of the temple. Ultimately, I don’t they will force LDS bishops to do SSM’s. They’ll just condition their ability to perform marriages that are binding for state purposes upon them agreeing to perform SSM’s. We’ll soon follow Europe’s example where the state recognizes no religious ceremony, and those that want a religious ceremony do so separate from the civil ceremony. Maybe it’s time to throw the baby out with the bath water and repeal all marriage laws. I didn’t get married so I could file joint tax returns, anyway.
I agree, Jenonator. Neither the government nor society has any right to force people or businesses to not discriminate. Similarly, if those overbearing, meddling northerners didn’t like slavery, they should simply have stayed out of the south instead of foisting their morals on genteel southern society. Uppity blacks in Alabama in the ’60s should have found a school that wanted them instead of picking on those poor Christian segregationists who just wanted to follow god’s higher law. The Lovings should have left Virginia for a state that allowed the grotesquery of interracial marriage instead of forcing their goodly neighbors to recognize their wicked union. Need we go on? If you feel my analogies don’t correctly reflect your views, then please explain to me the difference.
If the LDS membership in California was out ahead of the leadership during Prop 8 – a dubious claim – the leadership certainly did nothing to reign them in. The most earnest and obedient are, unfortunately, always the first to be thrown under the bus.
The Church has little to fear from the gentiles. As long as it wants to continue to preach that homosexual relationships are sinful, the outside world will likely tolerate it. Instead, it should fear its own members. It should fear the mothers and fathers of gay children who choose to embrace their children and their partners rather than condemn them. It should fear the members who see no wickedness or unhappiness in the lives of their gay families and friends. It should fear a steady stream of people walking away, looking for moral leadership elsewhere. Because every day, people are realizing that their own moral compass points in a different direction than the church’s dogma.
Nate,
I am in total agreement with Here and others in being surprised by your unwillingness to acknowledge that the political force of will to mobilize church members actively came from top leadership. As you say we should call a spade a spade. All the needed evidence exists that this was the case going all the way back the Oaks own memo in the 80s that defined the church’s legal and political strategy to fight gay marriage. I know so many people from California and the only wards in which a sort of neutral stand-off happened in the few wards where local bishops and stake presidents refused to toe the church line because it would simply rip the ward apart (as happened to so many). It was an act of courage for these leaders to resist the hard push coming directly from the top and coordinated from the top. It is no cooincidence that Whitney Clayton star has clearly risen post-prop 8. He is a key player in the 70 now that he has demonstrated completely loyalty to the 15 in his forceful leadership of the political mobilization of California Mormons.
The other thing that I think you will find us “liberals” disagree with is that the appropriate moral strategy is to leave well-enough alone in the church. Let us “live our covenants” and leave the “gentiles” to their civic law. The reason is simple. This does not solve the problem faced by gay mormons in any way. They are still faced with a choice between a life of celibacy and no intimate partner or church discipline and sanction. There are very reasonable spiritual and theological disagreements to be had about this approach. Many, like myself, believe in our heart of hearts that this is not what God intends for his gay children. Officially now the brethren have stated that we have no understanding of what homosexuality is, its origin or its eternal future. All we have are some very suspect OT and probably specious NT scriptures along with centuries of bigotry. It is because we care deeply about the gay mormons that are still killing themselves and leaving the church because they can not be mentally and emotionally healthy in the church. We have faith and hope that there is more to learn and further changes coming. All ti takes is imagining one of your children being gay and then taking a hard look in the mirror and asking yourself if you really think God wants you to sign them up for their future as currently taught in our gospel.
Finally, I think it is important to make the point that the horrendous legal and social consequences that were used to motivate our poltical activity are really suspect. Religious freedom protections in the US are incredibly strong for churches. This is why, for example, the LDS church can still have policies that allow them to refuse to employee women with children in CES etc. with no legal problems. This “pre-emptive” strike strategy has the smell not of cold, legal analysis but political opportunism – creating bogeymans to get people to the polls and knocking doors. The idea that we are one step away from the state forcing the LDS church to start sealing gays is simply preposterous. Oaks is or at least was a fine legal mind. He either knows better or has become entrenched in a very small and relatively extreme set of alarmist, legal theorists – mostly political operatives putting their law degrees to suspect use.
One of the problems of crusades like this one, is the loss of credibility for the leadership. As I said in 21 there have been a series of cultural things that the leadership claimed were requirements from God, and then a few years later they have been quietly dropped.
Anyone with a memory, or now a days the internet, can look back, when a leader claims for example that it is Gods will that only men have the priesthood, and see a series of examples where that was said and later no longer said.
INTEGRITY?
JimD, #20 – in responding to Nate . . .
. . . you create a straw-man of competing coercive scenarios, and ignore what I think might be Nate’s actual point, which is that the bakers should be free either to bake or not bake the cake, but that Nate hopes that they will decide, of their own free will and choice, that it isn’t a big deal and that they will bake it. Nate said nothing of legally compelling anyone; that was your faulty interpolation.
If an evangelical Christian baker wants to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple, he should be free to refuse – the court’s reasoning on “public accommodation” in the NM case was pure horsehockey. But we should be free to call him an ignorant bigot, or intolerant, or to applaud him and give him our business, as we wish. Likewise, if a Jewish baker refuses to bake a cake for a 3-year-old named “Adolf Hitler,” she should be free to do so. In my opinion, that baker’s reasons are a lot better than the first baker’s reasons; the child’s parents chose to be Nazis. The gays didn’t choose to be gay.
But that’s my opinion, and unlike many people, I don’t believe that it should hold the force of law.
#23 – IDIAT, you mention Europe’s example where the state recognizes no religious ceremony, and those that want a religious ceremony do so separate from the civil ceremony. I think it depends on the state. When I served in Italy in the late ’80s, LDS marriages weren’t recognized as valid, and the only church marriages recognized were Roman Catholic. Now, Italy may be a special case, but things have changed since then, even there. Your bishop can marry you, or you can go to the Swiss Temple and be sealed (and soon to ROME! Yeehah!), and still be legally married under the laws of the Italian Republic. That said, I’d favor the state removing itself from marriage in every country, including the US, but it’s not going to happen. There’s
a compelling societal interest in strong marriagestoo much money to be made in it for the government to resist.#24 brjones, your “logic” is superficially convincing but ultimately not compelling. “Those overbearing, meddling northerners” only meddled with slavery because a desperate US president issued a proclamation freeing slaves as a military measure and a PR ploy to shore up support for a desperately unpopular war, one which started to keep the Southern states in the Union where they could be worked on peacefully. The other examples you give are examples of people suing for equal treatment under law and by government institutions, which are legitimate targets of legal action (and even then, took decades of work to effect change). jenonator’s example of a private businessman exercising control over his own property is not analogous. We don’t have to like it when private parties hold views we find appalling, and we don’t have to give them our business. But if the history of civil rights legislation has shown anything, it’s shown that legislating discrimination out of existence in the private sector is futile. In addition, it is coercive, and wrong. “Not a soul shall be lost, and they will all return.” Deeply wrong.
N.I., maybe the goal isn’t to legislate discrimination out of existence, but merely to legislate discriminatory bakers out of existence. On that point, I’d say it has been very successful. I personally don’t care if someone wants to be a bigot in their heart, their home, their church, their parenting, etc. But I appreciate that the laws of this country draw a line at public commerce. I realize many disagree. I’m not sure what point you’re making about such laws being coercion. Of course they are, but so what? Would you like to provide an example of a non-coercive law? All laws are coercion for people who would rather not comply with them. I assume you’re ok with laws that coerce people not to steal, by threat of incarceration. All you’re really saying is you’re ok with coercive laws you agree with but not those you disagree with. Which, of course, is fine. But it’s a non-starter to criticize anti-discrimination laws as being coercive. Ultimately, whether such laws are “wrong” is simply a matter of opinion. You think they’re wrong and I think they’re right. Neither one of us is more correct.
In 1965, then BYU president Ernest Wilkinson told the entire student body,
The political “far right” origin of the current LDS anti-gay position including Values Institute, Packer, Oaks and Holland’s involvement are revealed in Private Pain, Public Purges: A History of Homosexuality at Brigham Young University By Connell O’Donovan (exerpts are extensively edited for brevity):
This unflattering history and current apostles involvement in institutionally administering these misguided injustices invites the continuation of the fight against gays in order to save face for all involved. After the coming Q15 die off the new Q15 will not feel the same need to defend their prior actions.
Please check the spam filter for my last comment.
Howard, re. the evidence that the church leadership is coming from a tradition of ignorance regarding homosexuality, that is no doubt the case.
rah says: “I am in total agreement with Here and others in being surprised by your unwillingness to acknowledge that the political force of will to mobilize church members actively came from top leadership. As you say we should call a spade a spade.”
I could call a spade a spade and put the blame on LDS leadership for any wrongdoing. But I don’t think that is the right way forward. Now that Elder Oaks has given a talk which I am in absolute agreement with, I want to jump on that bandwagon, and forget some of the other less flattering history regarding the church’s stance on homosexuality.
I consider the church a parental figure. Parents can make mistakes, but they still have authority over their children, and we are always commanded to honor them. Parents learn from their mistakes. So do churches. If your racist parent finally decided black people were OK, would you hold their previous racism over their head for years to come? No. You would be happy that they had changed.
The problem with the LDS church is that both liberal and conservative members think it IS or SHOULD BE perfect. I think the church can be horribly imperfect and still have authority. I am following a revelation to stay in the church, so I stay. I stay in an imperfect marriage too. I don’t disown my imperfect parents.
I love Elder Oaks for his talk. But I love him even more for what a good and righteous person he is. Even if I strongly disagree with some of the things he says, he says it for what he believes are the best of reasons. I blame God for creating paradoxes which are difficult to understand, not the church. God allowed, or even commanded His church to institute simplistic, correlated paradigms that had no place for inborn homosexuality. Then he created inborn homosexuals. We have to deal with the crap He gives us. We are all just doing our best.
a tradition of ignorance Nate, how can a prophet be ignorant when he is acting as a prophet? Is God ignorant? In the alliterative should we accept guidance in these things given they can result in severe angst leading to ruined lives even suicide by men posing as prophets but acting as men?
There’s a major disconnect here that can only be casually treated by sticking one’s head in the sand!
Rah
Dead wrong. If you encourage someone that its ok to be gay and they never repent and they arrive at the judgement bar in this condition, it will come up that you supported it. Its no different from someone telling you they want to murder someone and you encourage it. Same thing. church members who encourage same sex marriage and homosexuality will jeopardize their own exaltation
#32 Nate, you sound like a kind man and I can admire that spirit of generosity that doesn’t want to point a finger. As you say, parents make mistakes. But 15 men who claim special authority and guidance repeated their error over and over for at least a decade and the consequences, because of who they were, were global.
People died. Died, Nate. People were rejected by their families. Kids were kicked out of school. Families that were based on sham heterosexuality lost their fathers because the men couldn’t keep up the charades they were pushed into. People were shepherded into reparative programs that didn’t work and left some more wretched than they were when they acknowledged the sexual identity they were born with. Even families that didn’t have gay family members had argument and bad feelings between them. Many individuals and many families left the church.
And all that happened because 15 men continued to preach a rigid discrimination that we now know violated the Constitution and basic biology. They demanded that people accept their views over personal revelation that screamed that they were wrong, wrong, wrong. They used every resource of the church to do it including our tithes and our efforts too regardless of how some of us felt about the issue in question.
I’m glad they’re working on ways of backing away from those attitudes and the militant political actions they engaged in. I’m glad they’re counseling the body of saints to find ways of accepting and loving all of Heavenly Father’s children. But don’t you think some kind of apology would be in better taste and evidence better leadership than this bloodless OK-let’s-all-play-nice-now tack?
I do. I absolutely do. A good parent would.
Winifred 34.
What do you have to support such an assertion? The Saviour said nothing against gays although he lived in a sexualised society, The scriptures you might find in the Bible can be interpreted very differently see 21 above. Nothing in BOM.
So nothing to do with the Gospel! You may/will be very surprised at how the judgement is conducted and how the Lord values things like love for his children, and by each other, more than he does conservative values.
Even Elder Oaks now seems to be saying be more loving and tolerant, than you are.
Both alice and winifred are expressing strong moral outrage, alice against intolerance and ignorance, and winifred against misguided tolerance.
Both invoke death:
Winifred: “Its no different from someone telling you they want to murder someone and you encourage it.”
Alice: “People died. Died, Nate.”
It’s hard to argue with Alice. Modern prophets certainly did not intend for anyone to die. They had everyone’s best interest. They loved homosexuals, as sinners they felt needed help reforming. They misunderstood the depth and nature of homosexuality because they believe in “a God who weeps,” an empathetic God. As President Packer asked, “Why would God do such a thing? He is our father!” They simply could not except a God who would give them revelations reinforcing their universalist gospel paradigms, and then create homosexuals as if on some kind of horrific, unrelated dimension. This is not possible. Homosexuality must be a sinful choice which can be overcome through repentance. Everyone faces “tendencies” of one sort or another.
But these prophets do not need to be perfect or all-knowing or all-understanding. They are simply messengers from the father, giving us signs and tokens. We either choose to follow or not. Homosexuality is not an option on “the strait and narrow way that few find.” That raises paradoxes beyond the capacity of universalists to accept or understand.
Winifred shares this universal paradigm, rightly claiming that being tolerant of homosexuality threatens their chance at exaltation. It’s the same as universalist Catholics who saw Protestants as destroying the authorities and saving ordinances of the church, and thus threatening everyone’s exaltation.
But as soon as we remember that this is supposed to be “a strait and narrow way THAT FEW FIND,” everything makes sense. Homosexuals, for the most part, will not be inclined to our peculiar faith. That’s fine, that’s the way God made them. “I will shut their eyes and stop their ears, that they see not and hear not.” This doesn’t mean God doesn’t love them, or lead them, or have is own plans for them. I know for a fact God works with them, because I’ve seen extremely spiritual non-mormon homosexuals, who are as close to God as anyone I’ve ever met. But its on a different path. No big deal. Their joy and spirituality does not threaten our own.
Then there will be a few homosexuals who renounce all, and follow the church. If they do this, it will only be because the heard God’s voice tell them “sell all you have and come follow me (through the Mormon church).” “The eunuchs will have a place in my kingdom greater than my sons and daughters” as Isaiah says. But if they don’t want to make themselves eunuchs, I’m still disinclined to judge them.
I think Elder Oaks would have the Winifreds and the Alices of the church join hands and learn to set aside their differences. Even if, as Winifred may believe, homosexuals are just a bunch of perverted yahoos who simply like it dirtier than heterosexuals, we should still respect their agency in a loving way. And even if Alice thinks attitudes like Winifred’s are killing homosexuals, she should still recognize that Winifred is acting according to the most sincere and upright belief, even if it is misguided. That will be a hard gulf to bridge, but with the Savior’s help, I believe it is possible.
They loved homosexuals How do you know this? Isn’t this your projection? They are simply messengers from the father How can they actually be delivering God’s message and be sooo wrong? Homosexuals, for the most part, will not be inclined to our peculiar faith. Nate, sorry to wake you up but they are BORN into our faith and are often highly indoctrinated before their sexual preference is apparent! As young adult and adult believers they are *stuck* in a very painful vice of self loathing encouraged by “prophets” of God with no way of successfully coupling within their faith! Your position seems very detached from reality here Nate.
Winifred, “if you encourage someone that it’s ok to be gay and they never repent” you’re jeopardizing your own salvation. That is a pickle. What happens if you encourage someone that it’s an abomination to be gay and their thoughts and feelings and desires are wicked and disgusting, and they kill themselves? I’m guessing in that case you’re safe because that was all their personal choice. How interesting that the beautiful doctrine of agency not only allows, but requires you to take responsibility for the actions of another in the one instance, but absolves you of all responsibility for them in the other. A convenient, if despicable, personal conduct policy, I’d say.
church members who support same-sex marriage jeopardize their own exaltation
Nate, I have no animus for faithful people following where they were led. The real evil (what can you call anything that created misery and continued to for so long?) resides with the leaders of conservative religions who picked out one narrow category of sin barely referred to in scriptures and gave permission — even a mission — to people who did their bidding.
Aren’t we all sinners? But how many of us have faced the public opprobrium that gay people have?
I have no animus but neither can I look the other way and pretend what happened didn’t.
Life has many cold hard truths. Ignoring them will not change them.
Soneone on m star wrote how disappointed he was that so many members support ssm it is a BIG disappointment
adherents to any religion should be supporting it and if u do not agree with it leaving may be the right thing to do
Lol. If you don’t agree with us on every issue, we’d prefer if you just left. I thought satire was a lost art, winifred.
If someone is about to go over a precipice, you do not push them over. You speak boldly and you warn them. They will thank you in the end.
I have no doubt all the mormon teens who have killed themselves are just waiting on the other side to wash your feet with their tears of joy. You’re a real humanitarian.
I say it is quite possible AND consist with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and Elder Oaks’ remarks to (1) be unstintingly against the PRACTICE of homosexual acts and the advocacy thereof, and (2) to reach out to the LGBT folk and share with them said Gospel (as with anyone, making no distinctions on the basis of sexual orientation), w/o judgement, self-righteousness, or rancor or scorn (read Romans 3:23), and beyond conveying our views in a forum wherein respect is maintained, LEAVE THEM ALONE. Beyond maintaining our ability to practice our faith IAW our respective consciences, I see no reason to get combative over the role(s) of LGBT folk in our society. As a Mechanical Engineer with over 30 years of practice, I regard the most useful expenditure of energies in spiritual matters to shed light and not generate heat.
#30 (Howard) – an interesting if not long-winded diatribe. And I thought that I had diarhhea of the keyboard. Did it ever occur to you, oh “Humble Howard” (Monday Night Football or Olympic boxing hasn’t been the same since the passing of Mr. Cosell…), that these young men VOLUNTARILY enrolled at BYU, knowing full well that it’s code of conduct was not compatible with their sexual proclivities? They could have picked other educational opportunities and lived their lives as they saw fit. It is NOT the fault of the late Dr. Wilkinson that his administration was proactive (though to a degree that even I consider unwarranted, paranoid, and heavy-handed) in rooting out sexual misconduct. Now, if we have reliable evidence that the BYU administration turned a blind eye towards the “typical” fornication that happens when you get a young man and a young woman together, proverbially “full of beans”, THEN you might have something. Since I didn’t graduate HS until 1977 (and wasn’t a member until 1979, and I went to Fresno State), I can’t say what the climate re: disciplining heterosexual misconduct was at the time at BYU. Still, not only were these young men knowingly and willingly violating their pledge to observe the BYU code of conduct, the fact that some, unfortunately, took their lives in wake of being exposed (no pun intended) shows either a lack of moral fiber (if one wishes to personally judge them, I don’t) or, as seems more likely, they had serious mental health issues and needed professional help…my judgement as to their likely mental unfitness is not necessarily for being gay but the suicide, methinks, is a definite qualifier..shame it has to be in retrospect, way too late to help them.
BYU was then, and still is, a private institution, and has every right to set its own standards for admission and matriculation. If LGBT folk don’t feel welcome b/c the Church or the BYU Admin doesn’t “glad hand” them (again, no pun intended) in their sexual proclivities, then the answer is obvious: DON’T ATTEND. As highly as I regard the Brigham Young Universities (ALMOST as highly as Fresno State, my alma mater), there exists no shortage of institutions of higher learning with impeccable credentials and reknown in every field of education that the “Zoo” offers, without ANY issue regarding sexual orientation. Avail yourself, please, of the right to NOT associate with the Church’s educational system..neither party will miss each other, be assured.
Bro jones
still smug and self assured
Winifred, are you saying that someone that is born gay needs to repent for what they are?
Winifred,
Can you explain how you can be so certain that God doesn’t make gay people, and if he does, (The church now accepts that gay people are born that way) does he not intend them to lead a happy life?
I listed @21 a number of cultural things that have been taught as Gospel by the leaders of the Church, and that have now been dropped, such as racism, and inter racial marriage. 35 years ago we had conference talks on the evils of that practice. Now inter racial marriages are sealed in the temple.
I use this as my example of how to deal with the attitude the Church has had to gay people and gay marriage. I expect this opposition will now quietly disappear, and we may even be sealing gay marriages in the temple in 20 years.
Can you explain why you are so vehement in your opposition? Rather than just restating that you are.
How many people subscribe to the position that opposition to same-sex marriage is wrong and yet still hold that homosexual sex is a sin which is forbidden by God? Seems like a dwindling number of people actually believe both things.
Geoff
Why dont u go ask your bishop? Tell him
Exactly what you are saying here. You will get all the answers you need. Nothing i have said is out of step with church teachings
Geoff
Why dont u go ask your bishop? Tell him
Exactly what you are saying here. You will get all the answers you need. Nothing i have said is out of step with church teachings.
also I don’t know why homosexuality exists and I don’t pretend to have all the answers. the First Presidency has promised answers will come eventually. doesn’t look like we’ll get all the answers in this life. mortality is such a short time compared to eternity. if you commit major transgressions and you die like that, all will not be well. the Scriptures are replete with this warning against sexual sin
I’m pretty sure telling someone if they don’t agree with everything the church says they should leave is out of step with church teachings.
Winifred
I have discussed these matters with both my Bishop and Stake President at TR interviews and, like you they were not able to explain the church’s opposition to gay people as anything but cultural prejudice. They did not infer that I would be excluded from the Celestial Kingdom though.
I believe that we will be welcomed in the Celestial Kingdom if we live a celestial life, and that requires that we love our fellow man. I don’t believe love the person and hate the sin is any kind of love, let alone celestial love.
If you have another 20 years left on this earth I think you will see the Church accept gay people and gay marriage as they did with inter racial marriage once it was required, by law.
Perhaps you could begin now to be more loving towards others of Gods children.
All
I can’t be the only one who sees the writing on the wall
the official proclamation to the family specifically states that the disintegration of the family will bring the calamities foretold by modern and ancient prophets
Ebola appears to be an early consequence
Let me get this straight, Winifred:
Because Western nations are recognizing same-sex marriage, God is punishing Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia (all of which have anti-sodomy laws)?
I’m not sure what god you worship, but he sounds awfully capricious and unjust…
Africa thought that it could just cannibalize murder rape without consequence. now ebola is in the USA and Europe. YES. I believe God does not play around. the scriptures say that if there are no consequences man would not be afraid to sin
Winifred, it can’t be argued that the scriptural God does not indeed behave in the way you describe him. The modern world with its plauges, wars and famines can be interpreted by scriptural literalists in exactly the same ways. And I agree that the fundamentalist God is one aspect of God’s identity, and the way in which He communicates and reveals himself to a certain number of His children.
But this is not the only facet of God’s identity. There is a duality of God that can be seen even in the Old Testament, the Deuteronimic God, where every sin and every good work results in a blessing or cursing. Then there is the capricious and unjust God of Job and Ecclesiasties, “the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong.”
With regards to homosexuality, the buck stops here for most people, because it is difficult for most people to reconcile the Deuteronimic God with the seeming injustice of built-in same sex attraction. As President Packer says, “why would God do such a thing? He is our Father!”
I think President Packer’s question (even though it was removed from the official Conference record) is an extremely profound and far reaching question we can ask ourselves about God and ways in the world. When we truly seek to answer this question honestly, taking into account the true state of the hearts of the children of men, it completely shatters our simplistic notions.
I don’t blame you for not being able to embrace the paradox. Most cannot. As we can clearly see from the comments on this blog, most people will either deny the unchangability and god-given nature of homosexuality, judging all homosexuals as sinners, or else they will insist that one day the church MUST allow homosexuals to marry in the temple. We simply cannot embrace the God who demands that we say, “though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him.”
Nate
proceed with caution
dance with the devil the devil dont change the devil changes you
I agree with Winifred that calamities are coming, and I believe that it is already happening in California. It will not end with extreme drought. The Ebola virus is only one of the terrors that we can look forward to.
You guys are perfectly delightful. They should have put you two in Meet The Mormons.