All is not well in Zion, folks. Relax, I’m not going to attack anything more than what deserves to be called out. I’m certainly not going to talk about church leaders either–they can speak for themselves on this as on all matters. Rather, let’s talk about ourselves, fellow Saints. Let’s take a good look in the mirror. The utter lack of empathy and charity in the name of loyalty exhibited by some in our ranks is nearly as astonishing as the recent policy shift that is creating such division.
When the pants movement took place, I initially didn’t want to participate because 1) I’m not an activist by nature, not at all, and 2) I was living in a place that was hot as blazes, and I didn’t even wear pants to work at that point. I empathized, and I was concerned about the way our congregations tended to look down on women who came to church in pants, although not so much where I lived (pants are more common as formal dress for women in Asian cultures), and I wanted to support being welcoming. But I honestly wasn’t that into it until two things happened: 1) a dear friend asked me to join in support of her, and 2) I read the online comment of a BYU-Idaho student who said all activists should be shot point blank in the face. That bullying smug attitude, ready to do violence to dissenters, reminded me of what Jesus would do. He sided with the outcasts. The elite insiders had their reward. The pants backlash was child’s play compared to the vitriol I’ve seen unleashed online this week. People have sunk to a new low.
Loyalty is a tricky virtue. Sometimes it requires bravery, and sometimes cowardice. But don’t be deceived, it’s not loyal to support someone in doing what is wrong. It’s not loyal to bolster wrong thinking or self-deception. And no one has declared that it’s open season for bigots and homophobes to shoot off their mouths at church and on Facebook or other social media and feel smugly justified in condemning those who dislike this policy as apostates by association.
A favorite quote of mine from Jane Austen’s Emma is about loyalty. Mr. Knightley has upset Emma by pointing out her callous treatment of the impoverished and ridiculous Miss Bates. He says:
It is not pleasant for me to say these things, but I must tell you the truth while I still can, proving myself your friend by the most faithful counsel, trusting that sometime you will do my faith in you greater justice that you do it now.
I hope that the love we bear one another in our congregations will allow us to be a balm to one another, a support, and not turning on one another like members of the Donner party, doing the unimaginable in order to survive. Let’s examine some of the things that church members have been saying about one another since last Thursday’s policy change was leaked:
- The tares will be rooted up and burned, and the wheat will be gathered up and treasured. This is what comes from not actually reading the scriptures. The parable of the wheat & tares is a cautionary tale to those who are overzealous, who think they know the difference between the good wheat and the bad tares. Long story short, God will judge at the end of the day, not you lot who seem so convinced you are the wheat. Wheat & tares look too much alike to be distinguished from one another. They grow together until the day they are reaped, just as we all live in mortality until the day of our reckoning. The wheat don’t get to reap the tares or rejoice in their burning. If that’s who you are, guess what–you’re not the wheat. That’s the point of the parable.
- No true Mormon would criticize the Brethren. Well, that’s just silly. It may be unwise to criticize our leaders. It may be futile. It may even cause one to stumble spiritually. As disciples of Christ, we should have charity toward all and malice toward none, including our leaders, even when we disagree. But all of us, leaders included, must work out our own salvation with fear and trembling before God. Being God’s mouthpiece isn’t the same as being God. And again, looking in the mirror, ask yourself if your injunction against criticizing the Brethren is really because you think any human is infallible or because you happen to agree with them on this issue or because you simply don’t feel you have a dog in this fight. If you agree with them, then guess what–it doesn’t make your faith superior to defend a viewpoint you already agree with. Even if our top leaders go forward in unanimity, that doesn’t even mean they all agree or that they don’t have different opinions behind the scenes. Likewise, church members all have different opinions. That’s life, folks. You don’t get to divorce someone from the body of the Saints merely because you dislike their opinions, their politics, their personality, or their way of being Mormon.
- Even the elect will fall away in the last days. So they say, but again that doesn’t mean that you are right about who the elect are or what it means to fall away. When I review the teachings of Jesus, he called people out for their outward show of righteousness that was belied by their lack of charity toward those on the fringes of Jewish culture. Agreeing with the party line doesn’t take a lot of special skills; it doesn’t make you elect.
- But look–a gay person said the policy was great. One gay person who approved of the policy doesn’t mean it’s great any more than one who dislikes the policy means it’s bad. The policy stands or falls on its own merits. As church leaders have repeatedly pointed out, it’s not a popularity contest. But being unpopular doesn’t make something automatically right either.
- You’re an apostate if you support gay marriage. It’s starting to seem like the word “apostasy” is some of trump card you can play to get out of rational discourse. Once you use the word, you are suddenly above reproach. Apostate is the nuclear option. We’ve taken what was once called “sin” or “weakness” and are now calling it “apostate.” Apostate is a dog whistle term. It’s code to leaders and members that this person is untouchable because even associating with them makes you ineligible for the temple. Where does it end? This new use of the term puts homosexuals in the ridiculous position in which being sexually promiscuous is a grievous sin, but monogamy and commitment are “apostasy,” which is actually more serious.
- You must be secretly gay. I think this is my favorite one. Usually this is preceded by “Why do you care so much about this issue?” The assumption is that you can only care about something that directly affects you. That may work in identity politics, but disciples of Christ have agreed in their baptism to mourn with those that mourn. Having charity is having empathy. We should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Maybe that even means do unto others as they would have us do unto them. We shouldn’t only care about things that affect us personally if we are striving to be like Christ. He didn’t have leprosy and wasn’t a tax collector or a prostitute, but he cared about those people all the same.
- Gay people have brought this on themselves by choosing their lifestyle. Because being gay is not a choice, this is a classic blame the victim mentality. For a believing gay Mormon, as Laura Skaggs Dulin points out, they have three unpalatable choices: 1) marry a straight person (these marriages end in divorce 80% of the time), 2) stay celibate for life, or 3) leave the church. Many who were advised by church leaders to marry straight people later divorced, leaving their children vulnerable to this new policy if they landed in a committed gay marriage after divorce and have joint custody. If you think this choice is one gay people take lightly, imagine that you are faced with these same choices. Those are incredibly tough choices for someone raised in the church who loves the gospel. Yet many are forced to make that terrible choice. I’m not going to judge someone who is in that position.
- You don’t belong in this church if you don’t support this policy. That is not your call. Jesus invited all to come follow him. He didn’t say “unless you disagree with some church policies.” We’ve been studying the New Testament this year. The early church frequently disagreed on church policies. This is simply a human condition. We all go to church to listen to each other’s struggles and to share ideas to become better disciples of Jesus. I for one don’t go to church to hear smug people crow about how they are better than the gays. Millennials won’t stand for it. People of conscience should not either.
- Whoever leaked this policy wasn’t worthy of the trust of his office. The Book of Mormon says that the secret things shall be made known. We should act accordingly. The truth always comes out anyway. Why shouldn’t those who are going to be affected by this dramatic policy shift have been given a heads up? Besides which, when a policy is visible simultaneously to tens of thousands of people, it’s public.
- This is a test for church members. No doubt, but maybe not the one intended. There are a few zealots who claim they would love nothing more than to have an Abrahamic test, that they would not shrink from such a task. First of all, that’s seriously messed up. Secondly, these aren’t your kids you are so willing to sacrifice.
- We are just protecting the children; the policy is charitable. To believe this, we also have to believe that kids age 8-18 don’t really need to be baptized, and that the gift of the Holy Ghost is a nice to have, even when the kids are living in an environment that the church considers bad. My best friend growing up was not a baptized member. She could attend activities, but not be baptized. Her exposure to spiritual experiences was limited. By age 18, she did not choose to join the church. That is, as I imagine the church knows, the most common outcome. When we place hurdles in the way of positive church experiences, when youth are on the fringe with no responsibility and are seen as extra or peripheral, they seldom join.
- The church doesn’t want to undermine parental authority. Since when? My friend was often targeted by the missionaries, but her mother did not want her to be baptized until she was 18, feeling that there was too much pressure on young people to join. But that’s not even a parallel here because many gay parents who grew up in the church would fully support their children being baptized, being ordained and serving missions. Thanks to the rejection they’ve often dealt with throughout their lives, I have found that most gay people are very accepting and supportive of others. For many of these parents, hearts are broken at the idea that their children will be treated as second class and miss all the spiritual experiences they had growing up.
- If your parents were still alive they would be disappointed in you. That’s just low, to bring up someone’s dead parents and all the accompanying memories of that loss. Plus, I would like to think that the dead have the benefit of seeing things more clearly from beyond the veil than we do now. And if I could choose between having a child who is smugly self-righteous and one who errs by empathizing with those who are cast out, I choose the latter.
- Gay people hate the church. This sounds a lot more accurate when you reverse it. There are many gay Mormons who love the church despite the poor treatment they receive.
- You’ll be blessed for following the prophet even if you don’t agree. “We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them [even] if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without any questions. When the Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves.” – an editorial comment in History of Joseph Smith. (Samuel Richards was the editor–unfortunately, Joseph Smith Jr. was not the direct source of this comment). Source material can be found here.
- Once we get rid of gay people and their perversions we can go back to worshiping Jesus. This reminds me of the time we were on vacation and my MIL fell down a flight of stairs, broke her arm in 9 places, and gamely suggested we should leave her there in the rain and go to church without her. It would obviously be hypocritical to go to church while leaving a loved one suffering on the ground. This issue, like many others, is a crucible of Christianity. How will we behave toward one another? That’s the test we face throughout our entire lives. Right now, we need to examine how we are facing it.
- This doesn’t affect the righteous; only the wicked. We are all part of the body of Christ. Either we believe that or we don’t. We minister to people in prison. We baptized Ted Bundy, for crying out loud. But we can’t be charitable toward those with political differences? We can’t be charitable toward gay people and their children? We can’t be charitable toward those who find this policy upsetting?
- The Brethren can never lead this church astray. I’ll agree with this one. We all have the gift of the Holy Ghost. If we are led astray by anyone, regardless of their position, it’s because we fail to use that gift. We are all personally responsible for our choices.
- If you pray about this, you’ll know the policy is from God. Not true. I have prayed, and God has placed many gay people, including gay believing church members, in my path. This has taught me that they are not enemies of the church. They are just like me–people with hopes and dreams who are trying their best to live good lives. They have harder struggles even without the church in their lives, and every societal concession toward equality to allow them the same pursuit of happiness we all take for granted has been hard won. I don’t feel justified in heaping more coals on the heads of those who are already marginalized and suffering. Those with a testimony of the gospel who found celibacy too heavy a burden to bear are often fairly positive toward the influence of the church in the lives of their heterosexual children. Like anyone, the thing that turns them bitter is mistreatment.
- This is why men are in charge; women wouldn’t have the stomach to do it. This is the Col. Jessup defense when he has to explain why he disciplined a soldier to death. He claims he did what others couldn’t do, and doing so saved lives. “You want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.” First of all, I’ve got plenty of stomach, and I’m a woman. Second, it brings up an interesting point. If women are supposed to be involved in the councils of the church, were any women, like maybe the General Primary President, consulted in a decision to prevent these children from being baptized or receiving the Holy Ghost? Doubtful.
- The ever popular “If you don’t like it–get out!” Those aren’t really the words you want to be judged by, are they? There are many people wounded by this policy including local leaders whose conscience won’t let them support it. If we show the most compassionate people the door, who will be left?
I hope we can all exhibit more charity and patience on both sides as we work through this difficult time of change, and it is difficult. If you don’t think it’s difficult, you are not paying attention. For those heterosexuals who are accustomed to a society in which homosexuality is shut up in a closet, it may be disconcerting. Gay people have never before had so many rights and so much respect in society. That’s a shift.
I’ll just remind everyone briefly of 1 Corinthians 13, perhaps the most quoted text in the New Testament, for good reason:
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
In the absence of understanding, of seeing things clearly, we should have charity. Prophecies–and policies–will fail, but charity will last.
While this policy is certainly not in its last iteration since there are too many unanswered questions, my further hope is that as these questions about the policy continue to be answered, the relief of receiving those clarifications won’t lull us into forgetting the larger question of the role of homosexuals in God’s plan. There’s too much at stake here for us to simply go back to our lives as if there is nothing to see here. There is a tendency for us to be so polite and non-confrontational that we avoid doing the heavy lifting. And this stuff is heavy lifting indeed.
As I thought about this, I was reminded of the final words of Robert Frost’s poem “Out, Out”:
They listened at his heart.Little—less—nothing!—and that ended it.No more to build on there. And they, since theyWere not the one dead, turned to their affairs.
It should never be so easy to turn away from our fellow disciples that we are indifferent to their pain and the demise of their testimonies or their hopes for their children. I’ll end with one of the final things Mr. Knightly says as he and Emma are finally reconciled: “The truest friend does not doubt… but hope.”
Wheat & Tares 
Faith, hope, and charity — all centered on Jesus Christ — is my goal in this life. I say this with sincerity, even as someone who chooses to sustain the new policy as a reasonable exercise of discretion. I regret the circumstances. It is possible to choose to sustain the brethren in this matter while still being a faithful Latter-day Saint who is true to correct principles and a loyal follower of Jesus Christ. I reject the notion that opposition in this matter is the “right” course and that those who choose to sustain the brethren are categorically “wrong.”
I just read the article, and I’m not going to read it again to double-check, but I’m fairly sure the author didn’t argue that point, ji. Are you carrying on a discussion being held elsewhere?
It felt like such an ironic juxtaposition to me that my facebook feed was full of the horrible examples of hate and intolerance this policy encouraged and also the wonderful memories of my dear friend’s wedding to her wife four years ago this weekend. I’m so thankful they were never members and that their wonderful son will hopefully never be subject to this hurtful and callous policy.
RE: #2 Well she does start by saying “Let’s examine some of the things that church members have been saying about one another …” but if you look at all 21 of the views she purports to debunk, it would appear that they are all views which are held by those who support the policy (hence the “loyalty” aspect of the post)and since she doesn’t critique at all those views held by those who oppose the policy its not a great stretch to infer from her post that it is her view that those who support the brethren are wrong. And if they are wrong, well guess who must be right.
Q: “Why do you care so much about this issue?”
A: The most urgent issue is that I feel kids and even adults will commit suicide as this policy tips them over the edge. And some of these will be teenagers that have been PERFECT kids and unable to even tell anybody about their gayness. They often take their secret to the grave.
Hawkgrrrl – Any chance of getting a reference for that Joseph Smith quote in #15? I am not getting the “(h/t Rick Brown)”
Hawkgrrl, I’m pretty sure you and I are the exact same person, except you’re a woman and I’m a gay man. Anyway, ‘Emma’ is my favorite book, bar none, and ‘Out, Out’ is among my favorite poems (along with Frost’s ‘Desert Places’and Tennyson’s ‘The Lady of Shalott’). Combining them in a post about Mormon LGBT issues basically results in a post handmade for me. Everything you said is exactly right. Thanks!
Rich Brown quoted this on the previous post.
“We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them [even] if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without any questions. When the Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves.” –Joseph Smith Jr., Millennial Star, vol. 14, no 38, pp. 593-595
I was just about to respond when I saw MH’s comment. Thanks.
I admit I do not know the context which prompted JS’s statement. It’s a bit like trying to understand what was going on in the 1st-century church by only reading Apostle Paul’s letters. I’m sure there’s an historian out there somewhere who can help us out.
ji and Ojison. I won’t pretend I don’t have an opinion on this matter. The post is a reminder not to be poor sports at church when your view prevails, that charity is always a better course. So yes, all my examples are of the variety who are crowing over their supposed vanquished ideological foes. It’s unseemly. It’s unChristian. It’s unkind. It adds insult to injury. And yes, IMO, they are also wrong.
As someone who constantly has to bite her tongue to be diplomatic because I don’t share the political views of my fellow congregants, it seemed to me that a post about these specific Christian values was due. I could add to it the notion that several have claimed that those who support this policy are being persecuted. I see it the reverse. Everyone is right in their own mind of course. Nobody feels they are in the wrong. Our minds aren’t wired that way.
Thank you for this, hawkgrrrl. I find this notion that “loyalty” to the Church requires absolute, immediate agreement with every thing that comes from Salt Lake to be both baffling and deeply disturbing. That our fellow Saints feel that the best way to demonstrate their “loyalty” is through vicious attacks on anyone who happens to disagree is appalling.
Loyalty is not unthinking agreement. In fact, it is my commitment-my loyalty even- to the church that motivates me to speak out. I cannot stand by while an institution I love and to which I have dedicated significant time and energy takes actions that are inherently contradictory to its values and principles.My loyalty demands I defend my Faith, even if that puts me in opposition to the Church.
Luckily, I haven’t encountered 3 of those arguments. One that I have encountered not specifically mentioned in the OP is essentially “This isn’t my cross to bear” or “This doesn’t affect me, so a personal opinion either way is pointless.” It’s related a bit to the “Why do you care?” idea. That one enraged me. It is a complete violation of our baptismal covenant to carry each other’s burdens, mourn with them that mourn, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort.
RE# 9 To be clear, I posted in response to the post at #2 which suggested that right and wrong was not part of the original post. I appreciate that your original post was an expression of your views which I think is more than acceptable. I also thought that it was diplomatically worded, which supported the overall tenor of your post. It is true however, that all the vitriol and uncivil remarks have not emanated from the “loyalty” side, particularly as it relates to remarks about the church leaders. And for the record I do have sympathy for those individuals who are affected by the change and can see why it may be disturbing for some of them. As for the change itself, it may be difficult to understand the reasoning behind it but my experience with high level decision making in a variety of settings – business, church, volunteer organizations – is that there is usually a great amount of input and discussion that goes into such decisions that is not apparent in the ultimate decision itself. And, while it would nice to have access to all that went into making the decision that it not likely to happen so, based on my experience, I am inclined to give the leaders the benefit of a doubt.
Another argument (related to #11) – “This will be difficult for those kids, but becoming a member will mean so much more to them because of the challenges they had to overcome to get there. The gospel will be that much sweeter, their commitment that much more intense. They will be spiritually refined.” Usually in comparison to those who had to deal with unwilling parents, threat of death by family members, or threat of government persecution.
Rich Brown – unfortunately, the JS quote was editorial, from Samuel Richards likely, not a direct quote. Could he have said something to this effect? Sure. But editorial freedom was a bit footloose and fancy free back in the day.
Ojisan – thank you for those additional thoughts. I don’t agree, but thank you anyway for your courtesy and thoughtfulness. As for uncivil remarks toward leaders, while I’m aware that’s always a risk with public figures, I haven’t seen many of those personally in this instance. Mostly I’ve seen friends who are heartbroken, a dozen or so who tendered their resignation over this specific issue due to a broken trust with the leaders (my view of it anyway), and the statements from leadership make it fairly clear that they didn’t think anyone would have a problem with this and were unprepared to be challenged; it is also evident that the policy was not going to be communicated widely despite its far-reaching impacts. I could be wrong about it, and I sincerely hope that the outcome is better than I expect it to be.
Tom – love it!
So many things to talk about. So little patience to do so. I will start and stop with “Thanks.”
There is no place for hateful speech on either side of the issue. But you’ve been a bit one-sided in your approach because there are as much hateful speech being bandied about about the Church as well.
There is another explanation:
Some people choose to believe what has been taught regardless of what the world does or approves of. That is not a crime against humanity and doesn’t require hateful or condemning responses either. It really requires no response at all.
Because if some do merely express loyalty to the Church and support for its teachings in a respectful way, it is just as likely that they get blasted for it, just like the examples you have used.
I keep wondering if I’m friends with the wrong people, cause I’ve seen very few of these, but have had plenty of reports of them. What I see more of are the arguments and insults the other direction. To wit,
“Even the elect will fall away in the last days. ” – which is meant more that it’s the Apostles who have fallen away.
“It’s against AofF 2!” – which ignores that AofF2 rarely applies anyway, since women have to swear to hearken to their husbands for what Eve did.
——-
Then there’s the old standard, used by both sides, “They aren’t following Jesus properly”
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: after all that is said, written or done, there is only one thing that really matters for followers of Christ. Are we experiencing the Holy Ghost and the gifts of the Spirit? If yes, then we’re doing something right, if not, then we need to find out why.
Elder Carlos E Asay wrote:
It is wise from time to time to do some reflective thinking and determine whether you really know the Holy Ghost…Pause long enough to measure your acquaintance with spiritual gifts and powers. See whether foresight, discernment, sanctification, revelation, spiritual gifts, angelic speech, peace of assurance, and attendant blessings are evident in your life. Determine whether spiritual experiences are sprinkled generously throughout your daily living. And, if you find yourself wanting, have the courage to change and place your life in order. Carlos E. Asay, “The Companionship of the Holy Ghost”, Ensign, Apr. 1988, 15
Jeff: I am one-sided. I’m one person. Blind loyalty should be blasted. The justifications for this policy change are weak sauce indeed. I’ll be patient and see where we land. Hopefully not in Westboro.
“since women have to swear to hearken to their husbands for what Eve did.”
Frank, we’ve been trying to get sexism out of the temple for a long time. Nobody should be cursed for Eve’s transgression any more than Adam’s or Cain’s or Ham’s or a gay parent’s transgression. There have been many posts here complaining about sexism in the temple ceremony. You’ve given me a new idea to attack this sexism in comparing it to AoF 2. Surely the idea that women should hearken to their husbands based on what Eve did is a violation of AoF 2 as well and should be removed from the temple endowment.
Wouldn’t this be a good time for the church to have a leader?
MH – you missed the point. AofF2 was against the idea of “original sin”, not that no one suffers for the decisions made by their parents. Trying to redefine it to what it “should be” (meaning no one should be condemned for their parents actions) isn’t valid because it’s rarely been used in that context in the Church.
“Should be” isn’t a valid argument against “is”.
Hawkgrrl:Sorry to have passed along a spurious quote. I seem to have misplaced my bound copies of the Millennial Star (Jeez, if you can’t believe what’s out there on the internet anymore, what hope is there for our society as a whole?).
Yes, Joseph Smith could well have said that. But then during his Nauvoo days, in particular, he was saying a number of things publicly and doing the opposite in private (e.g., spiritual wifery/polygamy or whatever you want to call it).
“I seem to have misplaced my bound copies of the Millennial Star” This is the Mormon-History-geekiest statement ever! (Meant in the best way possible).
“during his Nauvoo days, in particular, he was saying a number of things publicly and doing the opposite in private” My thoughts exactly. The sentiment is perfect, though, whether embellished by Richards or not.
“if you can’t believe what’s out there on the internet anymore, what hope is there for our society as a whole?” I think it was Abraham Lincoln who said that.
Yeah, the URL of “pull-your-heads-out-nutters” offers a clue to what side the OP is taking.
I actually agree with the sentiment that we should be charitable to our fellow saints, irregardless of their clothing choice, marital status, sexual preference or whatever.
I just don’t find other church members to be as lacking in compassion as the OP makes out. I have never heard any of those 21 comments, which thus come across as straw-man arguments to my eyes.
Oh, I have met some unkindness among church members of course, but they seem to be in the minority.
In the places I have lived, it’s pretty typical to have kids in Primary and youth programs who aren’t baptized because of familial lack of permission. I had heard that in some cases they will even waive the 1-year membership requirement for serving a mission, if the young person had been attending regularly for years, perhaps graduated seminary, but could not be officially baptized until reaching adulthood. I’ve taught Primary classes where half or more of the students had divorced or unmarried parents. Is this really so unusual churchwide?
“n the places I have lived, it’s pretty typical to have kids in Primary and youth programs who aren’t baptized because of familial lack of permission. ”
Yes, that has been true in all the Wards I have been in. There seems to be this hue and cry over the thousands of kids of Gay parents who will not be able to be baptized when we’ve had that situation over the years for a myriad of reasons. No one has raised an issue over that. Nor is anyone raising the issue of the literal thousands of kids who cannot be baptized because their parents are not active. Nor is anyone raising the issue of the thousands of kids who were baptized but cannot live up to the obligations they took on because of their parents.
This reminds me a lot of the pro-life movement. Just allow them to be blessed or baptized but what happens after that?
But Jeff, the church would willingly let these children get baptized even if their parents aren’t active. That’s the difference. And I have complained about the policy regarding polygamist kids (now that I know about it. I didn’t complain before because I didn’t know, because it was in a secret handbook not for public consumption.) It’s not right either. And the fact of the matter is that when a child of inactive parents seem receptive to the child’s baptism, the missionaries are all over them like a duck in water, and there is no First Presidency prohibition on baptizing children of inactive, smoking, drinking, drug addicted, sinful parents.
Hawkgrrrl,
You say blind loyalty should be blasted. Will you allow that some members of the Church reasonably and purposefully choose to be loyal?
Devil’s advocate:
At the University of Missouri, we just saw a successful example of something like low-level guerrilla war by other means. There was no attempt to persuade — there was the exercise of power, plain and simple, with suppression of speech thrown in. It worked.
The Church, to some extent, sees itself as being at war with the forces of darkness. (Which is consistent with Christianity as a whole; see Ephesians 6:12.) What is appropriate in time of peace — persuasion, love unfeigned, etc. — may be suicide in time of war. Loyalty is a tricky virtue, but it’s not nothing, either. And I believe a great many of the expressions of dissent from this new policy (which I believe is a grave mistake, not least because it is inconsistent with our doctrine of free-will baptism at the age of accountability) are hard to call “loyal” with a straight face.
“There’s too much at stake here for us to simply go back to our lives as if there is nothing to see here.”
I tried to prepare myself for an onslaught of discussion about this at church on Sunday, but no one said a single word about it. It was almost like no one even knew that anything had happened. I think we’re too afraid of the ramifications to have real conversations in public, especially at church. So we (me, too) hide behind anonymous avatars online and we put our heads down and we don’t rock the boat.
“I just don’t find other church members to be as lacking in compassion as the OP makes out. I have never heard any of those 21 comments, which thus come across as straw-man arguments to my eye”
There are a few gems on the Christofferson post on this website.
In the comment section, that is
Comment section of Deseret News is a good place to look also. Basically, wherever members post.
And, of course, the SL Tribune if you want the nastiness of non-members.
Frank, you’ve given me a post idea. We’ll hash this out next week. I’d love to hear your perspectives on divine curses, but I won’t sidetrack this discussion.
ji: “Will you allow that some members of the Church reasonably and purposefully choose to be loyal?” Absolutely, and I am one such.
“Comment section of Deseret News is a good place to look also. Basically, wherever members post.
And, of course, the SL Tribune if you want the nastiness of non-members.”
Who has time to read a regional newspaper from thousands of miles away? Why would I want to go out of my way to subject myself to that kind of thing?
And are you going to claim that those “nutter” posts are typical of the general membership around the world?
Naiamith–You wrote “I just don’t find other church members to be as lacking in compassion as the OP makes out.”
I’m just helping you out here, brother. Letting you know they exist, since you haven’t seen any.
I don’t know if they are typical of people around the world. Just typical of the members in the center of “Zion”.
MH – AofF 2 seems to be based on Moses 6:54, which would seem to focus on original sin as Frank said. Biblical verses that apply to parent/child sin liability include: Ex. 20:5, Ex. 34:7, Deut. 24:16, Jer. 31:29-30, Ezek. 18:20, Matt. 23:35-36 (Luke 11:51), Gal. 6:7 (kinda), D&C 121:21, and D&C 124:50. You’ll also want to read the quote by Joseph F. Smith attached to 121:21 in the D&C Student Manual (2002). It kind of straddles both ideas.
Mary Ann, maybe we should both write on it, as it seems you have a lot more info than me! (Or perhaps I should simply turn it over to you!)
MH – if I weren’t sewing a costume this week for my daughter’s play I’d take you up on it.
Hawkgrrl, I’m seeing this post linked by others in my Facebook feed. It’s helping people. Thank-you.
I have my faith. I have my convictions. Others do too, and by all means – it’s your right. I sit and read both sides’ comments and vitriolic banter, disgust and disdain and I think to myself…yup. Expectations fulfilled. “That’s not Christian of you!” “I’m better than you because I am a true believer.” ,,,,,,and the best one without a person even realizing it…..how dare you be intolerant (while I am intolerant of your intolerance).
People, this is the reality of Christianity. We all might profess one thing but until we are humbled by personal experience, one can’t truly understand. either way, being judge mental is not UN-Christian. A perfect person doesn’t need Christ. The rest of us sinners do. 100% of the comments I read about this topic is perfectly UN-Christian. Being an imperfect follower of Christ makes you 100% Christian. While one person might throw stones at the gays, he/she is just as Christian as he/she condemning them for doing so.
I can’t let myself get caught up in being offended because that just leads me down the road of bein angry, and, I don’t want to be angry. I liked a lot of this arrivals (author’s) references and thoughts, but it could also be conceived just as judge mental as those that hkgrrrl was talking about. Both sides are the SAME EXACT PEOPLE, only talking about each other. Neither side is understanding or tolerant of the other. So, what now? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Hate and vitriol or vitriol and hate?
ji said “You say blind loyalty should be blasted. Will you allow that some members of the Church reasonably and purposefully choose to be loyal?”
I know hawkgrrrl already answered, but to me the key is “blind” that you left out of your question. “Blind” to me would indicate that someone would take every quote from a GA as gospel without ever asking God if it were true for their case.
I did catch the URL used and wondered if “nutters” was your first choice? No response required 🙂
Thanks for the post hawkgrrl. You are my new hero!
Blind is blind no matter what side you come down on.
Enjoyed the OP.
I’d wish everyone did see blind obedience as horrifying. I was visiting my parent’s ward in the summer. It was a fast and testimony meeting and I could not believe my ears when several testimonies were born of the virtue of blind obedience (yes, they even called it that). More horrifying still, the first to do so had been (at least) twice Bishop of the ward, and previously served on the stake presidency, and was referring to a conversation he’d had on the subject with a now emeritus patriarch in the ward, who had described blind obedience as a beautiful thing. Another was one of my brothers, also visiting (who serves as a Bishop elsewhere). I felt like I’d stepped into some bizarre alternate universe. I’m still processing that. It was very upsetting. And now this. I’d like to wake up at some point…
I think the tough thing is that ALL faith is partly blind by nature. Perhaps it’s just where you draw the line. How much lack of seeing is faith, and how much is simply kissing the ring? Jesus said that when you do things for the praise of men (the approval of authority is the praise of men), you have your reward. That kind of loyalty and faith and blind obedience is often born of cowardice (fear of standing alone, fear of disapproval, fear of taking personal responsibility, fear of going to hell, fear of being different), not bravery. It’s self-serving, a survival tactic.
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
As an ‘orthodox’ Mormon, ex-wife of a gay man, mother of a gay son who is happily married to one of the purest and most noble men I have had the privilege of embracing, and as a fatherless war-orphan who has felt the hungry need for mother and father, and who believes in that heterosexual union, I continue to have much to sort out in my life. I feel compassion for our general authorities as they strive to negotiate the troubling waters we now face. I feel keenly the loss of the many gifts brought to us by our once secretly gay members. Ever since the Garden, God has required our deep soul searching to balance His laws. And so it remains today.
Grand slam, Hawkgrrl. I’ve been trying to overcome each of these tendencies throughout my life. It’s quite hard. Some I’ve overcome well in my maturation. Others I fall prey to in areas of my brain where the natural me still tries to dominate the Christian me. Though I have no qualms regarding monogamous gay marriage, I struggle with other issues of life that keep me from being my best self, and many of the fall-back arguments listed above are too easily used, even if only in my wretched thoughts. any one of the 21 arguments you’ve exposed are so easy to grab hold of to bolster one belief or another….one opinion or another….or even one policy or another. Sound bites of the mind. They give a quick feel good moment so we hurry on, often without any deep thought, study, pondering, fasting or prayer. Because we have figured it out. Or, more sadly, our leaders have done the thinking, et al for us. This is a post to save, study, and ponder throughout life. You did good!
I have been heartbroken since learning of this policy. Nothing I have read has helped me and your article gave me a glimmer of hope. I keep thinking about the 2nd article of faith. Why are we punishing children for “sins” that are not theirs? Thanks for an excellent, thought provoking article.
Would have been more convincing if you weren’t rude back. Why so much anger on both sides of the issue??
@50 Allison,
Anger can be a normal and healthy response to violation of boundaries.
The people who are angry because of this policy feel anger because the boundaries of people they care about are being violated. They see things like the FOX 13 report of suicide hotlines in Utah being swamped right after this announcement, and it makes them sad, scared, despairing … and furious.
On the other hand, the people who are angry that anyone would dare to question this policy are angry because they want to see others get punished.
Corinthians 13 has been on my mind for the last couple of weeks. Very appropriate.
Thank you for pointing out Mr.Heretic that just because that policy already exists for polygamous children doesn’t justify it in either case.
The sad part for me is is the degree to which the institution, understandably, is driven by legal necessity. This unfortunately reveals certain limitations to the Kingdom of God that I don’t think can/should/do exist.
#51 – Jewelfox, “the people who are angry that anyone would dare to question this policy are angry because they want to see others get punished.” Mischaracterization. Most people I know who support the policy (and I know many who do) are doing so out of allegiance to church leaders. They are angry that supposedly believing members would turn on their own kind, would turn on their own leaders. Some may be looking for punishment, but I doubt that many have ill intent. They honestly cannot understand why members would not publicly support a policy handed down “from the prophet himself.” (in the words of some I know)
Allison: Why so much anger? Because real lives are being ruined. But yes, my slug was rude.
So, I saw that Naismith said that she hadn’t heard any of these arguments. So, I just wanted to let everyone know, in one conversation I got told #5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 21. When it hit 21 I bowed out of said conversation. (Admittedly, I stomped away). I just couldn’t take it anymore. The sad thing is the person I was talking to, their initial comment after reading the updated policy was, “that can’t be right.” Then they read the ‘explanation’ and everything after that was in defense of the policy. So, they basically ignored their own gut level reaction, which I found incredibly frustrating.
It is my opinion that Hawkgrrrl and many other highly educated and refined people admire and ascribe more to our highest church leaders than is reasonable.
My father is going to be 90 years old next year. He fought in WWII, went to the old AC (now USU) with two of the apostles who recently passed away. They spring from similar stock. He knew them and their families knew each other back a couple generations but was not best friends or anything. My father, typical of his generation is frankly hateful of homosexuals. Not homophobic, he is not one bit afraid of them, he wants to eliminate them. He doesn’t care if they were born that way or chose that lifestyle, either way they are a pox on society to be destroyed. He claims that while on a war ship, an officer made a sexual pass at another guy. His throat was cut and he was thrown overboard and reported missing in action. My father cites this episode as the way homosexuals should be treated.
We point out that some homosexuals have made important contributions to society, for example, Alan Turing, the inventor of computers that cracked the Nazi code and saved England and shortened the war in Europe. He thinks Turing got what he deserved: prosecution, castration, and ultimately suicide. (The mac logo, an apple with a bite out of it, quietly memorializes Turing’s suicide, biting an apple laced with cyanide.)
My father lives next door to a homosexual about 30 years younger than him. Although my father can barely walk now he has been such a “good neighbor” over the years that his neighbor is terrified of him. My father was the neighborhood mechanic and likes to fix things. When younger he has fixed his gay neighbor’s car several times and his furnace and that sort of thing. But he has also gone into his house and destroyed some of his gay explicit literature and movies and threatened to “dock him like a sheep.” At this point the situation is stable; my father is too feeble and his neighbor is too scared to do any physical damage.
We have found that he is not fit to discuss this topic in public and we avoid it and cut him off if he says anything, especially at restaurants. He seems resistant to any education or enlightenment on the topic. I find it sort of like a sport, to argue with him about it when alone but he never budges. His grandchildren know what he thinks and they accept it as old-fashioned attitudes and don’t hold it against him. But they do not recognize him as a reliable source on the subject. We love him and appreciate him for all the good he has done and forgive his flaws.
I think our church leaders likely once shared my father’s opinion. I think they have made much progress. But I think they still see something fundamentally wrong or evil with homosexuality and are not about to budge on their gut convictions. I also think they did not realize that the CHI 1 is not really secret and anything therein would be public quickly. They might have surmised that loyal bishops would quietly follow them on this matter and before the digital age this was undoubtedly true.
I think it was Max Planck who said: “Science advances one funeral a time.” I think there is wisdom having very old people lead us in the church, but it comes at a price and this is part of it. We do what we can to limit damages but in the end forgiveness is about where it ends.
Of greater concern, the grandchildren do not follow my father in his errors on this subject, but so many of our fellow members of the church are expressing such a frenzy of meanness over this. And it is so petty, nothing like the “cut their throats and throw them overboard” of the previous generation, that it is more difficult to oppose.
What to do about them? Persuade with gentleness, etc. That is more difficult.
Mike: That story about your dad hurts my heart.
People opposing the policies use a lot of the same bad logic.