The Danzig Case: Does the LDS Church Influence Members to Oppose Same Sex Marriage?

I am not so sure the core issue is the church’s position regarding gay marriage. I think the core issue is larger than that. It’s about institutional control of thought and expression of church members. How free are members to disagree with the Brethren on doctrine and politics (or the combination of the two)? How free are they to express that disagreement? How should the church handle dissent? The fact that this particular story is about gay marriage is rather beside the point, I think. We have seen this same sort of thing with respect to racial issues, feminism, DNA and the Book of Mormon, speculative theology, etc.

Does the LDS church influence its members to oppose same sex marriage? Absolutely. Not only does the quote from GBH mentioned in comment #1 clearly indicate this, but it was implicit in the letter mentioned in the press release. I found it disingenuous for them to state that “In reality Church leaders had asked members to write to their senators with their personal views regarding the federal amendment opposing same gender marriage, and did not request support or opposition to the amendment.”

It was clearly understood by what my local leaders and ward members said that day that this was a request to write in support of the constitutional amendment. I believe that the letter was worded in the manner it was, so that when this day came the church could deny that they were encouraging members to vote in a particular manner.

Is the influence explicit from top leaders, explicit-but-rogue from local leaders, or is it a cultural perceived thing from members? (Any arguments that it is explicitly taught would best be supported with actual quotes.) I think that it is implicit from top leaders, and made more explicit by “off-the-record” comments by local leaders. See my first answer.

“Does the LDS church influence its members to oppose same sex marriage?”

Yes, but this is true of most churches. The idea of homosexuality is considered unnatural and an abomination in most religious circles.

“Is the influence explicit from top leaders, explicit-but-rogue from local leaders, or is it a cultural perceived thing from members? (Any arguments that it is explicitly taught would best be supported with actual quotes.)”

The following is a letter I found. Feel free to research its merit.

<<<>>

One can also look at the Family Proclamation as a potential document that denounces the idea of same-sex marriage.

************************
“If it is a cultural thing, is there a reasonable basis for a member to perceive that voting to oppose same sex marriage is considered equal to choosing good over evil, in an LDS perspective?”

Well, if a member hears their bishop read a letter like the one above from the pulpit, I think that will certainly have a big impact on the members. We had a similar letter read to the congregation about two years ago, but it was in more neutral language, yet a faithful LDS would hear that letter and be assured that it was the “right” thing to oppose SSM.

With regards to the civil union, I think a liberal-minded member but faithful to the brethern would be more open to that idea. The true conservatives, I think, would maintain their opposition.

That letter seems to say it quite clearly that church leadership at the highest levels view church membership as a sacred responsibility to “oppose any efforts to give legal authorization to marriages between persons of the same gender.” You can’t get clearer than that.

Now, is this something similar to the blacks and the priesthood thing where down the road we’ll get some revelation that changes this? Who knows. Unfortunately, this is the way the Lord’s representatives view things right now, and for those members who think it isn’t right, they must suffer through it. They could take a stand and lose their membership if they want. Maybe in the bigger picture, the grander scheme of things they will still receive all the blessings. But I don’t know, I wouldn’t want to threaten my eternal salvation over a small issue as this. Granted, I see it as a small issue while others see it as the focal point in a larger battle of acceptance.

“But I don’t know, I wouldn’t want to threaten my eternal salvation over a small issue as this.”

If it’s a small matter, why would the church threaten the eternal salvation of faithful members who express a point of view different from the Brethren?

I think the counsel of God is pretty clear:

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. . . . Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. . . . We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. . . . Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. . . . We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society. (The Family: A Proclamation to the World)

Chris,

We are to follow the counsel of God as it is given at the present time. God reveals his will on his own timetable. What God reveals today is the counsel we follow.

It is very clear to me that God is in support of the Defense of Marriage amendment. “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”

New revelation has been given on that subject, Chris. What was said on August 17, 1949, concerning that subject is not pertinent anymore. Today is February 25, 2008, and the Lord has revealed his will today.

Gay marriage has got to be the biggest non-issue there ever was.

In Canada, even though homosexuals can marry, according to the latest census, only 10% of homosexual couples chose to do so. It only amounted to something like 15,000 people. If the Unites States has 10 times the population of Canada, you’re looking at 150,000 people choosing to get married. The time and money could be better spent elsewhere.

Kari,

I’m sorry that you disagree with me, but you are incorrect in your assumptions. I do believe that prophets and apostles are fallible, they can make mistakes. But the Lord has anointed them to lead and guide us today, and as a group they will not lead the Church astray. If we do not follow them, we are on the road to apostasy.

It concerns me when members of the Church get upset if I quote scriptures and the current prophets and apostles. If the scriptures and the brethren are wrong, then who are we to believe? Who are we to follow? If the prophets and apostles have stated a clear position, as they have done in the Proclamation, then we are not free to choose as we will with regard to that position and expect to stay in full faith with the Church. We are commanded to sustain our leaders. We are free to choose whether we will or not, just as we are free to choose with any commandment.

John. No, I haven’t.

We cannot put personal revelation over revelation given by the Lord’s prophets and apostles, no. By following the prophets and apostles we are following God. They are inextricably linked.

Bryce,

While you’re quoting GA’s…try this one:

“What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.” (JD 9:150) Brigham Young

“How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves.” (JD 4:368)

“We talk of obedience, but do we require any man or woman to ignorantly obey the counsels that are given? Do the First Presidency require it? No, never.” (Journal of Discources (JD) 16:248) President Joseph F. Smith

Bryce,

Thanks for the reply. I don’t think that anyone is upset that you quote scriptures and current leadership. The problem I have is that you quote them as if they are the final determination of the matter at hand. It should be clear to you that those of use who frequent this blog also read Sunstone, Dialogue, BYU studies, FAIR, and even FARMS, and don’t necessarily believe that once the prophet(s) have spoken the thinking has been done. You can consider us apostates, that’s fine with me. But how about you use your quotes to further particular position with regards to the original post? Otherwise, you might has well just chime into every discussion here with the same tired quotes that you use. We value original thought and analysis — well, not necessarily from me, but from the many more erudite folks who frequently comment.

You ask, If the scriptures and the brethren are wrong, then who are we to believe? Who are we to follow? I answer that I have been given the light of Christ and the gift of the Holy Ghost for the opportunity to receive revelation for myself. I also have my god-given intellect to “study it out in my mind” and to pray about it. The answers I receive for myself do not need to always agree with the leaders of the church. I don’t speak for the church, I speak for myself. The issue is that, particularly for political issues, if I state a position that my leaders don’t agree with, I can be punished for this. I should be allowed to state that I disagree with the position of the church, and further state that an amendment that specifically prohibits SSM (not to be confused with S&M) would be wrong for the Church and wrong for America. And if I am employed by the church, my employment should not hinge upon my political opinions (as long as I don’t present my beliefs as those of the church).

I think that Brother Danzig chose his words a little too carelessly. He would have been better advised to have friends and family read his letter and make suggestions as to how to word his opposition. He certainly should have known that accusing the church, publicly, of “intellectual tyranny” wasn’t going to end well for him. However, in my ward, as I stated earlier, the attitude and environment surrounding this particular letter (voicing our opinion of an amendment) was definitely one of “you should be out fighting against this — write letters of opposition to your Senator.” Brother Danzig clearly felt that the letter, as presented in his ward, was pressuring him to take a particular position.

Well, my comments have become more about the role of dissent in the church, than about the original post. Sorry.

Bryce, dude. Faithful members of the LDS church the world over bristle at the charge often leveled by those outside the faith that Mormonism is a “cult.” I don’t use that word myself as I don’t think it leads to productive dialog and civil discourse (and everyone knows I am all about those things). But reading your comments is kind of scary. They come off sort of, um, zombie-like. I mean, really, you might want to consider actually expressing an original thought rather than just parroting scriptures and cherry-picking quotes from prophets (whom, I gather, we know are prophets because, well, they said so). You seem like you are sincerely trying to represent a faithful viewpoint but the manner in which you are doing it is likely to leave people cold, I think.

Nick,

I am not willing to reject the Proclamation on the basis that it has not been sustained as scripture in General Conference. The First Presidency and Twelve wrote it and declared it a “Proclamation to the World,” and since then have gone out of their way to uphold it. To me, that is good enough to be from God.

Kari,

Why do you think I quote the scriptures and brethren as if they are the “final determination of the matter”? I quoted them because I thought the scriptures and the brethren might actually have something to add to the conversation. Are you willing to listen to them too?

I too have read Sunstone, Dialogue, BYU Studies, FAIR, and FARMS. I don’t believe that when the prophet(s) have spoken the thinking has been done. I never said that. And I don’t consider you apostate. Your level of presumption is astounding. If the scriptures and the brethren are tired, old, uncreative, and have worn out ideas and thoughts, I can only imagine what Conference must be like for you. I value original thought and analysis too, but when it is in harmony with the gospel and the prophets, Hugh Nibley being the best example that I can think of.

I still maintain, as President Kimball noted, that as soon as one “begins to go his own way in opposition to authority, he is in grave danger.” God has not called prophets and apostles to just give us good advice. They are His spokesmen on earth.

You can have any position on any subject that you like. You have your agency to do so. The problem comes when members who are opposed to official Church positions come out in open opposition to the Lord’s anointed servants, and encourage others to do so also! That is apostasy.

Christopher,

Yes, I have dedicated my blog to Hugh Nibley, having studied his works for many years. He advocated, more than any other, staying in harmony with the brethren, that is why the brethren trusted him so much. Have you read “Criticizing the Brethren” lately?

Equality,

The scriptures and the brethren were never meant to be popular or exciting. I’m sorry if you feel that they are rather drab and “zombie-like”. I will tell you one thing; the words of the scriptures and the prophets are worth mountains more than anything I could ever say, and I’m not sorry for it.

Have you read “Criticizing the Brethren” lately?

Actually, I have. And the part that sticks out to me is Nibley constantly reiterating JS’s teachings that Mormons shouldn’t be bound by any creeds or set of beliefs, nor should they blindly accept everything a prophet or apostle says, and they should strive for personal revelation above all else.

I don’t know where you get that Joseph Smith taught that Mormons shouldn’t be bound by any creeds or set of beliefs.

“I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much like methodism and not like Latter day Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled. It dont prove that a man is not a good man, because he errs in doctrine. The High Council undertook to censure and correct Br. Brown because of his teachings in relation to the beasts [in Revelations], and he came to me to know what he should do about it” (Words of Joseph Smith, 183-84).

And please don’t insinuate that I, or any other faithful members of the church here, don’t follow God’s chosen prophets. That’s insulting, rude, and innappropriate.

It should also be mentioned that church leaders incessantly wave the Proclamation on the Family in front of members, both in general conference addresses, in correlated classroom curriculum and through church publications such as the Ensign magazine. This is clearly explicit influence from the top down. Furthermore, portions of the Proclamation appear in amicus briefs submitted to state supreme courts and signed by attorneys for the church (the most recent being the Sept. 5, 2007 amicus to the State of California).

I know I’m coming in late in the game, but I’d like to highlight this section from the LDS Newsroom statement on the Danzigs (Kari also brought this up in an earlier comment):

In his Tribune letter-to-the-editor, Mr. Danzig said he “was troubled that my church requested I violate my own conscience to write in support of an amendment I feel is contrary to the constitution and to the gospel of Christ.” In reality Church leaders had asked members to write to their senators with their personal views regarding the federal amendment opposing same gender marriage, and did not request support or opposition to the amendment.

I can’t help but feel that this is duplicitous. Although the letter did not explicitly prescribe support for the marriage amendment, that was its clear implication. I would wager that very few believing, Latter-day Saints took the letter as an invitation to express either support or opposition to the proposed amendment.

My question is whether this is a largely meaningless parsing of words by a Church PR spokesperson, or an indication that opposition to gay marriage is not technically required of Church members.

My guess is that the statement is largely meaningless. Even if the letter on the marriage amendment didn’t explicitly require support of it, the Church has on numerous other occasions asked its members to vote in support of traditional marriage, and has expended substantial efforts and funds in the fight against gay marriage. Even if Mr. Danzig accepted the Church spokesperson’s questionable interpretation of the marriage amendment letter, he would presumably still have issues with the Church’s other statements and efforts. In other words, his objection was probably not merely based on a misinterpretation or mischaracterization of the First Presidency letter in question.

I guess I have to wonder what, if any, point the Church PR guy was trying to make in the above-quoted paragraph.

As an effort to tone things down a bit, let me say this:

Bryce:

I enjoy your site, but your tone here has been a bit challenging or incendiary. Not that you are alone in this. Certain others have also been somewhat incendiary, and I think it’s a shame.

Everyone else:

Stop picking on Bryce. He has a valid point: if the church leaders are taking a position against same-sex marriage, is it really worth jeapordizing your eternal salvation if you are wrong? Okay, maybe this issue will turn out like that of blacks and priesthood. Maybe in 50 or 100 years we’ll find out that this is a non-issue and everything will be okay. Or maybe we’ll find in 50 years that this is something that is never going to change and you absolutely have to line up with the church leaders on this one or you will find yourself outside the church (with regards to views about the morality of homosexuality and the appropriateness of gay marriage, not necessarily the need for a constitutional amendment). The real point is that what current church leaders are saying is what you are going to have to go by. Yes you have a right to revelation, but there are limits to that personal revelation–it does not permit you to receive anything that might be considered policy for the church unless that is your calling.

Let’s talk about this for a moment as I understand this (and others will likely find the relevant scriptures, because I’m terrible at that part when I don’t have much time): a person has the right to receive revelation for themself and all those for whom they have stewardship. As a member of the church, this means generally you and your family. When you have a calling, this expands to those for whom you are responsible as a part of your calling in the fulfillment of your calling. Thus a gospel doctrine teacher may receive revelation (or more commonly speaking, inspiration) on how to best present or prepare a lesson so that a specific class member may learn a specific principle, while an Elder’s Quorum president may receive revelation concerning the needs of those within his quorum. A Bishop is responsible for the temporal welfare for the adult members of his ward, as well as caring for other needs. Thus he may recieve revelation to this end. He may set policy within the ward, as long as it is within guidelines set by the general and stake authorities.

But no member may go beyond their own sphere. Thus I do not have the right to receive revelation for the church as a whole. I likely never will. Clay, you cannot do the same. You may receive confirmation that President Monson is the Prophet and that a particular policy or talk that he has given is indeed revelation, but you will not receive revelation for the whole church. Sorry about that. As I recall, Joseph Smith was forced to excommunicate several early members of the church for this very reason. They didn’t understand that difference between personal revelation and the role of the prophet. I’m not trying to be confrontational at all, but I want to make it clear that there is a fine line between trying to understand why the church is doing something, praying diligently for revelation to understand the Lord’s will, and deciding that you have better insight as to what the Lord might do in 50 years than the prophet. While the prophet is fallible, I also think it is unwise to dwell overly much on that fact. Instead one should focus on the fact that despite his fallibility, Hinckley did a lot of good (Monson, as yet, has done nothing public that I can see). I think that may be one of the reasons a geriontocracy is a good thing–it ensures that no one is leader for too long, and thus we end up with a self-correcting situation, albeit slowly.

With this in mind, the prophet is not and should not be regarded as infallible. That is the role of personal revelation. We seek confirmation of the words of the prophet. What you do not hear, and likely will not hear, in General Conference, is what to do if you fail to receive the confirmation. I would submit that the first thing to do is make sure that you are really open to receiving it. If you are truly being humble, then I suspect that the thing to do is quietly petition the Lord in prayer, asking Him for greater understanding of the issue at hand.

Now, to the issue at hand, because I have long struggled with this particular issue. I do not think that the government itself has any business regulating marriage. I have long felt this way. Marriage is a religious institution and should therefore be defined by the various churches as they see fit. Civil unions should be permitted and should carry legal obligations in terms of separation and commitment. The types of civil unions that should be permitted is ambiguous in my mind because I am uncertain as to the sociological, economic and psychological implicactions, and I am reasonably certain that no one has enough information to be completely certain what will happen if we open the flood gates.

All in all, what I’m getting at is that we should be striving to understand what the Lord really wants here. So, let’s all try to get along, and quite arguing over this like little school kids. I hope the Danzigs are willing to accept that the church is able to accept some dissent. I also hope that their leaders are willing to put up with some disagreement on what is essentially a non-central issue–to call the issue of a constitutional amendment central to the gospel is silly. Is it Faith, Repentance, Baptism, or Receiving the Holy Ghost? I’m not really sure. Those are the central tenets of the gospel. The nature and character of God? No, not there? Frankly, I’m not sure where it fits in, so I choose not to worry about it.

My real concern is more along the lines of taking care of the poor, the sick and the needy. Let’s make sure that our society is doing that, and then I’ll be willing to take care of this issue, which I honestly think is MUCH less important than that. Priorities, please. Would Christ spend his time worrying about whether or not a law allowing homosexuals to gain either a tax or social benefit or preventing them from it to pass, OR would he spend his time bringing relief to those who were sick, building up homeless shelters, improving healthcare, taking care of children, and making sure that those who are poor are taken care of? That is what I think we should be focused on, and I think that this issue is divisive, silly, and all in all should be tabled until we have solved other, more pressing issues. In the grand scheme, it is rather unimportant. To those who are homosexual, and wish to be married, I’m sorry. I know you find this offensive. I know it hurts to hear that someone elses problems are more important than your own wishes, but please step back for a moment and consider this: do you truly equate your situation and desires with those of the people who cannot get adequate care for debilitating diseases or children who have cancer, or the elderly who cannot afford medicine? Or those who do not have a home? Or those who cannot find a job? Or those who are chronically in jail because they cannot escape the cycle of crime? Yet when they are freed from jail are unable to find work or shelter and so they turn to crime again because its what they know. They return to old habits and friends because they know how to survive that way. Jail isn’t so bad for them because it’s familiar.

Let us first solve these problems. Then I will be willing to consider the issues of same-sex marriage. Some will argue that the above will never be solved or that these problems can be considered in parallel, but if I were a politician running for office today my response would be this: I have limited time. My time will be focused on the above. Maybe someone else will consider this issue. I cannot give it further consideration because I do not have the wisdom to know how it will affect our society at this time. I don’t think that the government necessarily should be defining marriage, therefore I am focused on solving other problems that I feel are much more weighty. I would probably lose the vote of any homosexuals at that point.

I’ve said my piece now, so I’ll shut up. Let’s all try to get along.

every time I see controversy about SSM and the Church – I am compelled to wonder – If the bold statements supporting “traditional marriage” has anything to do with Polygamy.. if same sex marriage is ever legalized – will the door to “legalize polygamy” then be open??

if Polygamy is ever legalized, will the position of the Church with regards to the practice have to change..

#58:
My question is whether this is a largely meaningless parsing of words by a Church PR spokesperson, or an indication that opposition to gay marriage is not technically required of Church members.

You know, this brings to mind the question one reporter asked at Thomas Monson’s coming-out (no pun intended) press conference. A reporter asked about whether members needed to agree with the church’s political statements, specifying marriage equality as an example. Now, I didn’t see video, but it sounded like Monson was annoyed at the question. He said members could have whatever political opinions they wanted to, but that it was different if it became a matter of apostacy (sorry I don’t have an exact transcript). Now I wonder if Monson had the Danzigs in mind when he answered the question.

I think I have more questions than solid answers here:

Will a person’s moral stand on an issue such as this really endanger one’s eternal salvation? (as per #60) I would guess that a just God would reward the person who followed the dictates of one’s own conscience. This question is probably a thread-jack, but a related question that could be its own discussion.

Is there any question that there is any irony between the church’s stand on Same-Sex Marriage and polygamy? The ‘common law definition’ of marriage is originally found in a strongly anti-Mormon, racist and misogynistic case. The irony of the church trumpeting this case is not lost on me.

Is marriage solely a religious institution? I think that the history of my cultural background from Western Europe and England would say that marriage has predominately been a cultural and specifically non-religious institution until the relatively recent past.

“In reality Church leaders had asked members to write to their senators with their personal views regarding the federal amendment opposing same gender marriage, and did not request support or opposition to the amendment.”

Then in the same statement:

“For more than a year and a half, Mr. Danzig counseled with his local bishop and stake president regarding same gender marriage and other Church doctrines. Unfortunately he was not able to reconcile his personal beliefs with the doctrine Church leaders are charged to maintain by divine mandate.”

Seems contradtictory: If the church doesn’t expect the members to support or oppose, then why does it specify Danzig’s personal beliefs deviating from the church’s position as the tipping point??

No, don’t moderate Bryce. He represents a mainstream orthodox Mormon position. He is a fine representative, I would argue, of the majority opinion among active faithful Latter-day Saints. Let him talk. Let him show people who may be interested in knowing about Mormons and Mormonism exactly what church members believe and why. Disagree with him if you want, but don’t moderate him. He is laying out the doctrine quite nicely.

After the Salt Lake Tribune linked to my blog the other day, a faithful Mormon from Nephi, Utah posted anti-gay comments on my blog. Unlike Bryce, this fellow was vulgar and hateful in the language he used, so I banned him from posting comments (the only time I have ever banned someone from commenting at my blog). So, he started emailing me. Here’s a little taste of the fruits of the doctrines Bryce says come straight from God through the apostles and prophets:

From Sam W. Morgan, Mormon contractor from Nephi (http://www.morganfinehomes.com/) to Equality:

“Reading your webpage reminded me of one line in the temple ceremony…. ‘There will be many willing to preach the philosophies of men…..mingled with scripture’ Who do you think is smarter on the subject of homosexuality???? You??? or thousands of years of the Lords Prophets???”

As you can see, Sam and Bryce are making the same argument.

Another gem from Sam:

“I hope I get picked as
one to testify against you on judgement day as one who tried to tell you the
truth. My shoe is off to you in symbolic dusting.”

Again, expressing ideas found in scripture and taught in the Mormon church. When I asked Sam if he was serious, he responded:

“I’m as serious as a heart attack ex brother. Just when did you commit
adultery and leave the faith as predicted in D & C 42:23? It happens all
the time and to the best of them, so no reason to be ashamed…just time to
repent and come back. My father in law did and is now coming back after
nearly 20 years away. Ex mormons are usually just whiners that have to
complain loudly to compensate for the fact that they just couldn’t hack it
anymore. If you don’t want to believe anymore…that’s fine…but do it
quietly somewhere.”

Notice the citation to scripture? I figure Bryce will appreciate that.

My point in posting this comment is that the scriptures and the words of the prophets can justify the most hateful and bigoted attitudes. Here is what I said to Sam:

“I must say if I had even a sliver of doubt that I made the right decision in leaving the LDS church, your communications with me today have completely obliterated it. I am so very grateful I am not part of an organization that spawns such venomous hatred in its members. If the celestial kingdom is populated with folks like you, give me outer darkness.”

Bryce and Sam agree on the doctrine. They agree that the scriptures and the prophets are to be followed with exactness on this subject, and that people who dissent on the subject are in danger of hellfire and brimstone. That’s what the scriptures inspire in people. That’s the fruit that falls from the tree of dogmatic literalism and an authoritarian hierarchy. And the church encourages it. Notice that in its press release, the church took no responsibility for the way the Danzigs were treated. It’s their own damn fault for not getting in line and shutting their mouths. The church press release gives cover not only to Bryce but also to Sam.

I’m glad I am getting my fruit from another tree, thank you very much.

Thanks, Clay. Even LDS general authorities have begun to acknowledge this distinction in their comments. To take it further, unmarried LDS heterosexuals are permitted to (within appropriate minutes) physically and verbally express their affection toward individuals of the opposite sex, be it holding hands, embracing, kissing, etc. None of this is permitted for gay LDS. Displays of romantic affection toward a person of the same sex are explicitly forbidden at BYU, and would meet swift condemnation in virtually any LDS setting.

I have five daughters, and it’s quite likely that each will end up being married in an LDS temple, with a reception helf afterward in an LDS meetinghouse. I can just imagine what would happen if my partner and I were to dance together at such a wedding reception. At the very least, I would be told that I couldn’t dance with my partner there, despite the fact that I’m not even LDS. I’ve no doubt that in some wards, I would be immediately told to leave.

80. Peter,

I don’t understand. I am not seeing a difference between Sam and Bryce, other than word choice. Cosmetics aside, they are advocating the same thing, and their advocacy is in support of the mainstream, orthodox Mormon position articulated by church leaders and scriptures. Bryce and Sam’s attitudes are shaped by Mormon doctrine. You really can’t divorce Mormon doctrine from the fruits it produces in Sam and Bryce, can you?

Steve M.,

#75,

But doesn’t that presuppose that marriage is a strictly religious institution? Although it’s a religious union for many, that is not universally true.

And I doubt that many married people, religious or otherwise, would be interested in forfeiting the legal rights that marriage secures. Churches don’t have the authority to protect or enforce many of the rights that we often associate with marriage.

I’m looking at refashioning the whole structure, as I feel the current structure brings about too many problems. Maybe I’m a revolutionary at heart still.

Jeff, you’re making some assumptions here:
(1) You assume that dancing with my partner would be an embarassment to one of my daughters.
(2) You assume that one of my daughter would marry a young man who couldn’t handle the fact that his potential father-in-law is gay.
(3) You assume that I would only dance with my partner to make a point.
(4) You assume that I’m not a good dancer.

I would suggest:
(1) That would vary according to the daughter in question. My eldest might have some discomfort, but my second has basically zero tolerance for anyone criticizing me for being gay.
(2) I’d hope my daughters all have more sense than to marry a bigot.
(3) I dance with my partner for enjoyment. In fact, we go dancing together every Friday night, and sometimes on other nights as well.
(4) While I have a lot to learn, I actually started teaching dance recently, so there!

One of my main problems with the church on this issue (besides my general anxiety with the church’s wink & nod “grass roots” political encouragement – and the continued quelling of dissent) is the legalistic and insincere way in which it defends itself:

“In reality Church leaders had asked members to write to their senators with their personal views regarding the federal amendment opposing same gender marriage, and did not request support or opposition to the amendment.”

Come on! Was the church anticipating that most of those who heard letter read in sacrament meeting would write their senators in opposition of the federal amendment?

It is obvious that the church wanted members to organize and exercise their first amendment rights only if such exercise furthered the cause/position of the church. It is clear to me that it would have been perfectly acceptable for members who heard the letter in church and who agreed with the church on this issue to organize rallys, speeches events, letter writing campaigns, fund drives, etc., in favor of the amendment. It is also clear that members who heard the letter in church and decided to organize, letter write, op ed write, etc., expressing a view that was in opposition of the church’s view would have likely been subjected to church discipline.

This fact is troubling in and of itself, but the church’s defense troubles me even more…..it’s insincere and not at all convincing to say that it “…..did not request support or opposition to the amendment.”

One other question….why is it acceptable for mormon politicians to express “public opposition against doctrine Church leaders are obliged to uphold”, but it is not acceptable for regular church members to express public opposition on political issues?

If your answers is that it’s not okay for mormon politicians to express public opposition against church doctrine, how can the church (and candidates like Mitt Romney) say that the church would not weild significant influence over certain public policy positions? Essentially the church is saying that it’s not okay for members to publicly dissent. That’s a problem……

There is no such thing as a “New Order Mormon.”

There are no such things as “Tiggers”.
Oh wait! I guess there are.
But of course you know the most wonderful thing about Tiggers…

#92:
One other question….why is it acceptable for mormon politicians to express “public opposition against doctrine Church leaders are obliged to uphold”, but it is not acceptable for regular church members to express public opposition on political issues?

Honestly, I think it comes down to one word: publicity. In recent years, a number of disciplinary councils have been cancelled due to the accused going public with his or her story. I was personally privy to the church side in one case where there was direct general authority oversight, due to publicity/media concerns.

Suppose LDS leaders tried to discipline an LDS politician for contradicting LDS political statements in his or her official duties. There’s simply no way it would remain quiet, and the public outcry would be profound. Ecclesiastical interference was, after all, the primary concern of opposition senators in the Smoot hearings.

92, adcama:

Excellent question. Peter Danzig expressed his disagreement publicly (1) with the way Jeff Nielsen was treated at BYU after publishing his opinion piece, and (2) with the church’s political stance on gay marriage. Neither of these issues implicates gospel doctrine. If a Mormon politician gives a speech and votes against the church’s position on the gay marriage issue, how is that politician any less “disobedient” than Peter Danzig? How can the church say that members were free to express themselves to their senators and at the same time say that members (with the exception of politicians) cannot express themselves in the form of a letter to the editor? And, what the hell did Mary Danzig do wrong? Why was she suspended?

Yes, dpc, I can just feel the love and encouragement pouring forth from all circles for Sister Danzig, can’t you?

Clay said:
“Thus I do not have the right to receive revelation for the church as a whole. I likely never will. Clay, you cannot do the same.”

The church has softened incredibly on the assessment of homosexuality. Initially it was hatred and disgust. Then you had the Packer era of therapy and rehabilitation (which was generally unsuccessful, and in some cases led to worse things like broken families and even suicides), and now there was a recent pamphlet that has basically conceded that homosexuality can be a genetic predisposition. Unfortunately, the prescription is still to either forfeit your salvation or live a life of complete loneliness. Its pretty easy for folks to go around talking about how you should obey leaders today even if you can’t reconcile your own personal revelation with them, and to just be patient, when you are able to enjoy your family and operate daily without discrimination and judgment for being (as the church now admits) who you are.

Clay, I’m of mixed minds about this. The first question is this: is homosexuality a sin? If the answer is yes, then the church’s position with regards to it internal policy is clear.

With regards to external policy I tend to agree with other posters that the correct agenda is to push for government to step away from marriage definement altogether. I personally believe that government should be as minimal as possible. The less government the better. If we need government in a particular area, then fine, we can have it, but I see no pressing need for government to define marriage. I think, instead that civil unions are more appropriate.

Regarding the genetic predisposition toward homosexuality–so what? It may be there. It may be that we discover that the trait is purely genetic (although I seriously doubt that–sexual deviancy and fetishism is easily enough induced in other ways that the case for homosexuality to be learned in some cases is not difficult) in some cases. It makes no difference. We already know that there is a genetic predisposition for all sorts of vices, including alcoholism. Does that make it any less wrong to become an alcoholic? [The correct answer, by the way, is 'I don't know'.] It does not change the fact that current church leaders have emphasized that homosexual behavior is indeed a sin, and that ALL sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage is a sin.

Should the state legalize SSM? I don’t know. I would prefer that, if something must be done, states enact civil unions that allow same-sex couples the legal benefits (for insurance, attorney, tax and similar purposes) of marriage without the name of marriage. Of course they would use the word in casual conversation with friends, and understanding others, and the word partnership or whatever in conversation with those who are more traditional.

Everyone here should remember, however, that the Danzigs chose to remove themselves from the church. Would they have been excommunicated? Perhaps, but it also seems like they had determined from the outset that they did not wish to reconcile–that this issue was the final straw and if the church would not change they would leave.

Okay, so if you think the church leaders are wrong, what do you do? Presume that you are in the Danzigs position, but you are absolutely convinced of two things: first that the church is true. That this is the Lord’s work. That this is how things should be going. This is an important stipulation for what I’m asking because I am wanting a geniune discourse on what can be done, not a complaint fest. Second, you are convinced that church leaders are making a decision that is absolutely disastrous. The current policy situation is a good one to use as an example because apparently a number of members feel this way.

What do you do? I mean, let’s face it–there’s an awful lot of cognitive dissonance there. I have nothing at stake in this, and even I feel it. Why? Because despite what I said earlier about caring more about certain other problems, I do think that when social questions arise they sometimes need to be addressed as they arise.

So, what do you do? Do you just keep your head down? Do you write the church leaders. Let’s move this to the local level (where I’ve absolutely faced this problem), say you have a problem with your bishop. He makes a decision. You disagree. He claims inspiration, you pray, and feel strongly that it wasn’t so. What do you do? Naturally you go to the Stake President. He sides with the Bishop (generally speaking this is how it will go unless you have strong evidence or expertise). So, you go to the GA’s. They say: Listen to your local leaders. You say: I can’t. They say, but you should. What do you do? If it comes to a choice between your eternal salvation because you don’t have the patience or endurance to put up with a stupid, wrong and stubborn local, regional or even general leader, or putting up with said person until things get better, I think the choice becomes clear. It may be annoying, it may be very difficult, and it may even be extremely lonely, but the question is one of relative worth.

I’ll shut up now.

Another thought. It is important to distinguish between members who are disciplined as church employees, and those disciplined as members. Sometimes the lines blur as the one slips into the other. Church employees must be held to a different standard than a church member, as any employer holds their employees to a certain standard of behavior.

This is perhaps a separate issue, but does anybody note the issues with respect to SSM and the law of chastity?

I have regularly been a party to discussions with members and others who will actively point to the vow of chastity of some Roman Catholic clergy as a source of social evil – particularly pedophilia. The argument usually runs that 1. if a person has a sexual drive, and 2. if that sexual drive is suppressed, than 3. Sexual deviance / social ills are bound to result.

I am involved with a legal case covering clergy (and other’s) abuse of children, so I hear this argument as much as I heard it while a missionary or in Utah. I seem to recall this was a tenant of discussion of early church leaders critical of Catholic theology.

Of course, the solution for early church leaders was to emphasize those sexual appetites and drives could only be contained within the bonds of marriage. The church is stuck in a double bind now if it adheres to this line of reasoning: if 1. people have these natural sexual drives and if 2. they are not allowed to marry, then 3. social ills / deviant behavior will result.

For the record, I make no claim to the accuracy of the line of reasoning; however, I believe it accurately reflects church teaching.

Are members of the orchestra paid employees of the church? Even if they are, help me understand how being called in by your local bishop is related to formal action by the orchestra or your employer. Yes, the church can fire BYU professors and church employees for stands they take that are in conflict with the organization, but eclestiastical disciplinary action is a completely different story. Furthermore, it sounds like your only resolution to the conflict you discuss is to “repent” and fall in line, or else….that’s the problem.

#107:
We can all only wonder what would be more important to us than our membership in the Lord’s kingdom. Peter and Mary have found that something for themselves.

I’m not so sure it’s a matter of finding something “more important than membership in the lord’s kingdom,” Don. If one comes to the conclusion, through information and/or experience, that the organization they’ve participated in is not “the lord’s kingdom,” then membership in that organization may have minimal value.

A person with a witness of the truth and a humble heart need not worry about going throught this experience. However, we all need to worry about not forgetting the witness we have and keeping our hearts humble.

I might suggest that a truly humble person would never assume that anyone who becomes troubled by LDS doctrine or practice must be lacking a “humble heart.” To diagnose those who leave the LDS church as prideful is, in itself, a manifestation of pride.

Queno, note the (hypothetically) in my comment referring to Harry Reid.

It seems to me that the state does have an obligation to itself and the members thereof to promote social stability.

I agree – but there is then the issue of Church/State separation.

For some there is also the question of whether social engineering by the State is appropriate even if it did increase social stability.

Argh! Cases like this make me so tense. The Church’s position — Honest disagreements are not the same as public advocacy of positions contrary to those of the Church — seems reasonable at first, but it raises several questions for me. For example, where does personal advocacy end and public advocacy begin?

More important though, what happens if the Church violates its end of the contract? For that is what it is, a sort of quasi, unspoken contract between institution and member, essentially saying: “We (the institution) won’t bother you if you privately disagree, but we’ll be forced to take action if you publicly disagree.”

Fine. I don’t like it, but I recognize the Church’s right to define doctrine as well as boundaries for discourse. But to me, the Church crosses the line when it moves out of the spiritual/doctrinal realm and into the political realm, which is what they clearly did in the late 90s in California with the “Preserving Traditional Marriage” campaign. They framed it as a “moral issue” and not a “political issue,” but these are just word games. Not to mention an incredibly slippery slope, as most political issues could just as easily be framed as moral issues.

So if a visiting General Authority gave a talk in my Church about the sanctity of marriage and the abomination of homosexuality, I would bite my tongue and sit in agitated silence. But today, if the Church engaged in another political campaign (for example, see comment #7) a la the late 90s… I don’t know, but it feels like a violation of the unspoken contract… it feels like Joseph destroying the printing press, an abuse of authority. In the latter case, it was a violation of the freedom of speech, or freedom of the press; in the former case, it is a violation of the Church’s stated commitment to political neutrality.

If such a public “Preserving Traditional Marriage”campaign were to happen again today, I could not remain silent.

You are rare indeed, dpc.

I think the mindset of worrying what the church would have me do is prevalent within church culture today, and is the first thing that goes through their minds when an issue arises. Probably equal to that thought are the thoughts, “What will my friends at church think?” or “What will my bishop think of me/my children/my spouse if/when he finds out (whatever it is)?” (which could be perceived as being synonymous with your “what’s in it for me?” and “how is this going to affect me?” self-interested questions).

And in this instance of the Danzigs, they did exibit the less selfish, “What’s the right thing to do?” and look at where it got them. And many people posting on this topic are judging them as needing to repent and return to the fold. How sad.

“What exactly are the Church’s actions toward gay people?”

For starters, generally marshalling support (rhetoric & “doctrine”) for a constitutional amendment that would likely hurt/discriminate against gay people. Or, by way of a letter read in sacrament meeting wherein church facilities/members were used to advocate this position in the name of God. Or, excommunicating gay members who decide to have a loving, committed relationship. Or, disciplining (formally or informally) those, who as a matter of conscience publicly disagree with a public policy position taken by the church, as it relates to SSM. Or giving millions of dollars to “like minded” advocacy groups that are fighting against SSM. Or, under the auspices of divine mandate and the protection of families, encourage members in church (Elder’s Quorum, etc) to be foot soldiers in support of prop 22.

The general outline that serves as basis of my own morality is that of the golden rule. When chosing what position to take, I look to the Savior who, to the chagrin of the Pharisees and Sadducees, broke bread with sinners and did not condemn the woman taken in adultery. I’m having a hard time accepting the chain of events here as Christlike/golden rule-like…..and thus I would agree with SML.

“The church is in line with a majority of Americans on this issue. The church can ask its members to do anything. it is the members who decide. If they are like the majority of Americans, they would probably agree.”

This may be true, but how does it justify their position as moral?

“The church has always maintained it will speak out on matters of a moral nature. This is one of those.”

Any political or public policy issue can be defined as of a moral nature….it’s a slippery slope and if left unchecked will run afoul of the exemptions given 501(c)3 corporations. While the church’s reasoning may be sincere, this position can also be viewed as the squishy PR window dressing placed on lds.org in order for a religious institution to enter the political fray.

“Where did this happen?” Jeffrey Nielsen was released as a SS teacher and his contract at BYU was not renewed. Danzig lost his temple recommend as a result of his stand.

Were you just as upset when the church campaigned against MX missiles in Utah? Or are you against their position against violence toward women and children? or Pornography? or gambling?

Nope. MX missles issue did not aim to deny basic rights to any one person or group. The violence against women and children example (while the way you used it is silly) aimed to protect those who could not protect themselves (see my golden rule/Christian rule comment above) – that’s what the Savior would have done. Pornography? Last I heard, the church did not support a amendment to the constitution limitiing porn.

Does anyone ever forsee the Church changing its stance on this issue, like extending priesthood blessing to all worthy members in 1978? I personally don’t see it ever happening.

John, unlike some, I really haven’t much concern over whether the LDS church continues to teach that homosexual relationships are wrong. To that extent, it makes no difference in my life. Rather, I object to the LDS church spending hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in an effort to impose that doctrine on non-LDS citizens of the United States, via legislation. I say the LDS church should teach whatever it likes, but leave non-LDS alone to live as they choose.

Besides, if LDS leaders think that preventing marriage equality will somehow prevent homosexual activity, they are not just mistaken, but laughably foolish.

I think it is important for everyone to remember not to feed the trolls.

I think it is important for everyone to remember not to feed the trolls.

Kent, I don’t think George is a troll. I think he’s basically sincere in his comments. Just because someone says something I don’t agree with, doesn’t mean they’re a troll.

So then, why is the Church taking such a “moral” stand against Homosexual marriage Nick? If it isn’t a moral issue to them, then why did they just spend 600 grand fighting it in Hawaii?
If it isn’t immoral to them, why should they care?

“George, my sexual orientation doesn’t have much at all to do with whether or not the LDS church actively persecutes homosexuals. Are you asking merely for the purpose of assigning a label, which will conveniently allow you to dismiss my comments out of hand? If so, at least be honest about it.”

I was seriously curious to know if that’s your orientation. If you don’t want to say so, then so be it. I like to know what people’s background is that I’m dealing with. I know basically who you are going back to your LDS Temple Endowment page that was awesome back in the day, and I would just find it surprising if you happened to be a homosexual, because I didn’t picture you as one. If you don’t care to reveal whether you are or not, thats your business. You just seem to be taking the stance of an advocate for it, and that either means you are just an advocate, or that means you are a homosexual. Whatever. If you don’t want to say so, then don’t.

Well, I’m relatively new around here you know.

Which brings up another question for you Nick. Why did you take down your page, and since you have withdrawn from the Church, why not put it back up?

RE:155

Yeah, because recognizing them as legal and lawful means that the next step is government intervention to force the Church to give them full membership when it is a moral issue to them. This is a far more serious issue than plural marriage ever was in the grand scheme, because this may well be something that the Lord simply will not allow the Church to capitulate to the government on. If that happens, we are in real trouble and in for a real rough ride.

Oh c’mon George (#156), the government can’t force membership in any church. If SSM is recognized by the state, it will not force the church to give same-sex couple full membership. The government doesn’t allow discrimination based upon sexual orientation (or adultery or masturbation), but the church can ex-communicate members for any type of sexual activity it deems immoral. I can think of tons of other examples. Religions get to set their own standards for membership.

WHAT!!!???

George (at #159) stated the following: “Look at Canada. They are silencing the clergy by throwing them in jail who speak out against it or teach from the bible against it. Its only a matter of time when the homosexual lobby gets enough power to sway washington against religion, and they pass laws that the Church simply will not abide by.”

I can’t claim knowledge of what the future contains; however, I do have some knowledge of the Same-sex Marriage debate. I was in the court house when Nova Scotia expanded the ‘Common-law’ definition and I have followed the subsequent developments. In short, George, you are wrong. There are not people thrown in jail for preaching against homosexuality. However, just like you can’t yell fire in a crowded hall, there are limited to the enshrined rights of speech and religion. The limit is promoting hatred for a particular group. Implicit in the definition of the term ‘hate’ is a continuum from hate propaganda, to discrimination, to physical violence in the worst case scenario. Furthermore, hate-crime law does not apply in cases where the statements made are proved to be true or in cases where they are expressed in good faith or in an attempt to voice an opinion on a religious subject.

If I would venture an opinion, I would suggest that the church’s period of great tribulation was post 1860 to 1890 Utah. The Principle was threatened and the church caved on the principle by which it defined itself to God and the rest of the world. The church failed that test.

Please note that the Crown, despite its readiness to try and jail anyone anywhere, does not prosecute polygamist communities in BC because of the unique protections afforded to religion in Canada.

George (#159) shared Heber C. Kimball’s words, ““Yes, we think we are secure here in the chambers of the everlasting hills, where we can cloes those few doors of the canyons against mobs and persecutors, the wicked and the vile, who have always beset us with violence and robbery…”

I sincerely hope you’re not saying gay couples who are married are “wicked and vile” or violent. Supporters of equality for gays are hardly mobs and persecutors, or wicked and vile. I’m just trying to decide who exactly in this debate you are directing this “prophecy” toward.

#159:
Look at Canada. They are silencing the clergy by throwing them in jail who speak out against it or teach from the bible against it.

George, can you point to even one specific case where this has happened? The only case I know of wasn’t in Canada, and in fact involved a clergyman actually advocating the commission of violent crimes against homosexuals–a very different matter.

By the way, don’t you notice that your “prophetic” quotation points to consumerism on the part of the LDS members as a precursor to persecution, rather than pointing to “those damn gays?”

Are we still on this topic? Have we changed the world yet? Perhaps someone can do a post specifically on the current state of interia with respect to SSM, since this post has gone every which way but north.

“George, you’re use of the HCK quote seems out of harmony with the church’s recently prescribed method for approaching doctrine”

I approach doctrine this way: (1) Does the spirit say its true, (2) does the spirit say its true, and (3) does the spirit say its true. Nobody said it was officially binding. I quoted it because I believe its true. Joseph Smiths King Follet Discourses is not binding, but I believe its true with the exception of the baby resurrection doctrine, that babies never grow after resurrection. I don’t believe in Joseph Smith’s moonmen doctrine, that they are dressed like quakers. I don’t believe in Joseph Smith’s doctrine that the Ten Tribes are on another planet either. I believe something when it feels true. If you don’t believe its true, then whatever. and it doesnt’ matter to me I guess.

RE: “rather than pointing to “those damn gays?””

I never used the word “damn” when referring to gays.
Furthermore, I am not against homosexuals. I’m against militant homosexuals just as I’m against militant Islam, militant enviro wackjobs, militant liberal communists. I’m not against any particular group. Only militant ones.

If you guys want to go do your thing in your own private sanctum, that is your business. I don’t agree with it, and I think its repulsive. I don’t care about it. I’m against the movement to destroy everything that we hold dear among your militant brethren.

It seems this site is infringing on my freedom of speech, because some of my posts have been deleted.

#169 I’m against the movement to destroy everything that we hold dear among your militant brethren.

George, gay people, “militant” or not, do not want to destroy everything that you hold dear. Gays merely want to be treated with respect and equality. What can be so terrible or threatening about equal treatment?

Ricercar said:

However, just like you can’t yell fire in a crowded hall, there are limited to the enshrined rights of speech and religion. The limit is promoting hatred for a particular group. Implicit in the definition of the term ‘hate’ is a continuum from hate propaganda, to discrimination, to physical violence in the worst case scenario.

The slippery slope argument, enshrined in law.

Furthermore, hate-crime law does not apply in cases where the statements made are proved to be true or in cases where they are expressed in good faith or in an attempt to voice an opinion on a religious subject.

That last part is simply not true and, as a Canadian, Ricercar should know it. The Alberta Human Rights Commissions fined a minister who wrote a letter to the editor expressing his viewpoint on homosexuality. Anyone who thinks otherwise can look up the actions of these ‘human rights’ commissions here

The devil, they say, in always in the details:

The Minister in question was also a British Columbia high school teacher who was found to have acted with professional misconduct by holding out his services to cure homosexuality.

The courts found that the individual was not acting as a public educator, not as a private individual. The assumption is that those who are government employees providing service to the public have a duty to ensure that non-discrimination (and the appearance of non-discrimination) is preserved. This was a professional sanction and not a criminal charge under Hate Crimes legislation.

The Charter is the constitutional bill of rights that restricts the government or government actors and prevents the government from intruding into the private beliefs of individuals.

#179:
Nick, Please let’s stop comparing totally different situations.

Kindly tell us all how these are “totally different situations,” Jeff. In order to sound thoughtful, try to avoid an answer which simply consists of “well the LDS church is true, therefore, the situations are different!” I know you’re capable of well-reasoned writing. Why not try it in regard to this question?

And frankly, it is YOU who is persecuting the LDS Church with your constant condemnation and unwarranted criticism. When it fact, it is you who has changed your position. The church has not changed it’s position in this case. Now that you are on the other side of the fence, you call it persecution.

Please. You’re getting to the point, Jeff, where you’re just speaking from religious outrage, rather than making any sense at all. Did I “change my position” in regard to the LDS church’s claims of divine sanction? Yes, I did. How, exactly, does this constitute “persecution,” Jeff? Should the LDS church now seek to promote a constitutional amendment to prohibit former LDS members from voicing their opinions with regard to the LDS church?

When in reality, the church does absolutely nothing to you, personally, other than exist.

Jeff, rather than make an unsupported allegation that blatantly ignores the facts of the matter, why not give a reasoned response, in terms of why you feel political activism to limit another group’s rights does not constitute persecution of the latter group?

Polygamy was a practice that was outlawed by the US government specifically because of the [LDS] Church practice of it.

The LDS church promotes a U.S. constitutional amendment to bar marriage equality, specifically because homosexuals wish to formalize their relationships in a way which allows them the same legal rights and responsibilities as heterosexually-married persons. Ultimately, it’s about the fact that the LDS church sees homosexual relations as evil–just as the U.S. government saw plural marriage as evil.

In the case of SSM, it is not now or ever been legal. People are not now thrown in jail for having homosexual relations or living together as a homosexual couple. That, to me constitutes a totally different situation. One practice was legal going illegal, the other not legal, still not legal.

Jeff, most of this paragraph is untrue. Marriage equality exists currently under the laws of several countries, as well as the Commonwealth of Massachussetts. Ergo, it is untrue to say that marriage equality “is not now or ever has been legal.” Further, I would suggest you consult an interesting book, titled Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe. While the book is unfortunately written in a very dry style, it presents considerable evidence to question the claim that marriage equality has never been legal.

While you may be correct that people in the United States are not now thrown in jail for homosexual relations, I’m sure you’re well aware that this is a quite recent development. Further, the same does not apply in several other countries. Some countries punish homosexual relations with jail. Others punish homosexual relations with execution. In Iran, homosexuals can avoid execution by voluntarily undergoing a sex change (at government expense, no less).

Changing positions does not, in and of itself, constitute persecution. Again, I encourage you to read some of your posts.

I believe, Jeff, that you are confusing strong disagreement (and sometimes not even “strong” disagreement) with persecution. You will further notice that I have never suggested that members of the LDS church should be prohibited by law from living according to their faith.

The [LDS] church is expressing support for a constitutional amendment which protects a situation that is totally aligned with its own doctrine, namely marriage between a man and woman.

The trouble, Jeff, is that the LDS church seeks to impose its doctrine upon members of a pluralistic nation, including billions of citizens who are not members of the LDS church, and are not subject to its rules of faith. I have no problem with the LDS church encouraging its own members to live by the requirements of LDS membership, and in fact, I would actively support such a right if it were threatened. Hell, Jeff, I’m still repulsed by the decision in U.S. v. Reynolds, and I’m not even LDS anymore! I do not, however, support the LDS church (or any other religious body) in attempting to impose it’s code of conduct on those who do not prescribe to its teachings, particularly in light of the fact that marriage eqality in no way interferes with the right of LDS members to practice their own faith.

They are not asking for any rights to be taken from you. No punishment is asked for, no adverse effects are being called for.

Jeff, you’re far too reasonable a person to say this with a straight (no pun intended) face. Has it occured to you for even a moment that the proposed constitutional amendment would immediately impact (and very possibly invalidate) the marriages of persons who were married to another person of the same sex in Massachussetts? Even aside from this, it is extremely arrogant of you to insist that I would suffer “no adverse effects” from the proposed amendment. You reach this conclusion without any legitimate basis, relying purely on your own opinion that marriage equality is spiritually wrong. With the same supposed validity, I might well unilaterally declare that abolishment of the LDS faith would have “no adverse effects” on current LDS members.

Simply leaving things the way they are.

Again, this is incorrect. You keep forgetting about Massachussetts, don’t you?

Since the majority of like-minded groups such as the church agree with the position, the church is not alone in asking the government to intervene to protect something that is in line with its own doctrine.

Jeff, “like-minded groups,” by definition agree on positions, so there’s not much point to this. In any case, it’s not so long ago that “like-minded” religious groups demanded that states be allowed to criminally punish marriage between persons of different races. Did the agreement between various groups make them right?

And for the record, I do not support a constitutional amendment. The states are able to handle this one themselves.

I appreciate your opposition to the proposed amendment, Jeff.

John M., if that’s as close as you could come, then you’ve made my point. Thanks. It takes quite a stretch to say that marriage equality is a “form of homosexuality.”

Mind you, I’m not saying that Kimball, or any LDS leader, would approve of homosexual relationships within marriage. I’m only saying that they have not taught specifically that the act of one person marrying another person of the same sex is immoral, in and of itself. If two men married one another, but both remained celibate, I see no evidence that LDS leaders would care. It’s the sex they’re hung up on (as if banning marriage equality would stop gay sex).

“Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out.
Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group.”
(President Gordon B. Hinckley, “Why We Do Some of the Things We Do,” Ensign, Nov 1999, 52)

#90:
Okay, that comes much closer to teaching that the act of marrying a person of the same sex is, in itself, immoral by LDS understanding. I’m not sure it’s completely “there” as a formal statement, but I think it certainly conveys that such was Hinckley’s opinion.

Nick (who Hinckley would call a “so-called” gay person, and who believes in what Hinckley calls “so-called” marriage equality)

RE: “If two men married one another, but both remained celibate, I see no evidence that LDS leaders would care. It’s the sex they’re hung up on (as if banning marriage equality would stop gay sex).”

I would like to say that I was angry somewhat in my posts earlier this week, and I’d like to apologize to all for my anger and my unkind remarks.

Now, to address the above quote. Nick, I can’t imagine what purpose homosexual marriage would be for than to legitimize gay sex. And I cant imagine what homosexuality is for other than to have gay sex, or to have the desire for it, or to have a desire toward the same sex. And even if same sex marriage were a celibate relationship, it would still only be an attempt to legitimize a relationship between two people who love each other. Celibacy doesn’t just mean avoiding inappropriate sexual relationships. Its also about avoiding inappropriate relationships of any kind. The Church clearly teaches against homosexual relationships of any kind, and that true celibacy would mean not having a relationship even if one has the feelings (i.e. not even having a “boyfriend.”)

Since I have a tendency toward polygamous feelings, I’m called upon to be “polygamously celibate” at this point in time in spite of D&C 132. I can only have a relationship with my wife, and no other woman. My natural man polygamous tendencies must be constantly checked and bridled. I am unable to pursue a girlfriend of any kind outside my wife or open my heart to any other woman. I’m commanded to cleave only unto my wife. Admittedly it would be very difficult to be with no woman, and certainly I cannot concieve of it.

So certainly it is a difficult order to expect of homosexuals in the church to be celibate entirely and have nothing to do with any man. But it is, nevertheless, essentially the commandment they are commanded to adhere to at this time, and if they don’t, then that is immorality, just as if a man with polygamous tendencies goes beyond the current bounds the Lord has set, he is being immoral.

“You see this in condemnatory language that classifies all homosexuality as “lust” and “animalistic,” completely ignoring the point that two men or two women just might happen to share the same kind of loving bond that a man and a woman can.”

I’m sorry you read that into my comment. Where did I say lust? Where did I say animalistic? Show me a quote from my comment.

Actually yes, that is what marriage is for, to legitimize sex, yes, to legitimize heterosexual sex so that people can procreate according to law, and strengthen their marriage emotionally and physicall. And yes, love is one of the things that makes sex desireable. I never said lust was involved in homosexual sex always, and that love wasn’t. I’m saying that it is love that is out of bounds. I’m saying that it is sex out of bounds. There’s the part where I’m using condemnatory language.

I am saying that it is repulsive because it isn’t natural. I’m saying that it is an urge that is telestial because it will only exist here. I’m saying its always sinful when practiced, always. I’m saying its something that homosexuals are called on to bridle and never participate in. There, does that clarify it for you? I have my head around the fact that homosexuality involves love. I certainly understand that. I’m saying its out of bounds and it always will be. It certainly doesn’t serve a purpose of procreation, even if you try to get around that by adopting.

My answers:

* Does the LDS church influence its members to oppose same sex marriage?

Yes.

* Is the influence explicit from top leaders, explicit-but-rogue from local leaders, or is it a cultural perceived thing from members? (Any arguments that it is explicitly taught would best be supported with actual quotes.)

It is primarily cultural, and by personal example. It is also implicit from the First Presidency’s letters that they want us to encourage our political leaders to oppose same sex marriage.

* If it is a cultural thing, is there a reasonable basis for a member to perceive that voting to oppose same sex marriage is considered equal to choosing good over evil, in an LDS perspective?

Yes, I believe so. The modern world view of marriage is as a legal contract between two consenting adults that legitimize their sexual relationship to society. Doctrinally, Mormons view marriage as an institution predating government and established by God for the salvation of man, and the procreation of children. It follows that philosophically Mormons hold to the older traditional view that Governments have then recognized this pre-existent arrangement and given it legal recognition and preferences because marriage is beneficial to society as a whole, primarily through the legal protection of a proper home for the rearing of children.

A Government changing marriage to include two people of the same sex is outrageous- first because it nullifies the only reasonable justification for government involvement in marriage, second because it aids in the reduction of marriage to approval of sex and then grants that approval to something that is not approved of by society- resulting in division and anger. But more importantly to any believing Mormon, the Government is literally attempting to remake an institution created by God and instituted by Him starting with Adam into an institution granting societal approval to acts of sodomy, which all Christian scripture agrees is repugnant to God and condemned by Him. (Sorry but there is no way around it unless you want to claim that Paul is a false apostle). Bluntly, I don’t see how a believing Mormon can reconcile the Scriptures with support of same-sex marriages.

* Perhaps tangential, but do you feel there is more or less latitude for a member to support civil unions as opposed to SSM, since civil unions do not impinge upon the concept of the sanctity of marriage?

Yes. Depending on the linkage between marriage and civil unions. If civil unions is just another name for marriage then no. However, most of the legal benefits of marriage are available outside of marriage, it is just extremely difficult and bothersome to get them applied. Civil Unions could be presented as a way of simplifying those arrangements into a package form. Civil Unions would then be legally separate from marriage, allowing the common law on the two to differ. Permitting marriage to return to it’s focus on children. Such an arrangement would be satisfactory to Mormons from a doctrinal viewpoint.

However, I doubt such an arrangement will be satisfying for gay couples, as what they really want is the societal approval associated with marriage. Sadly, it’s all meaningless anyways, because society will not give approval just because the government calls them married. If we did, well than we would be like the Corinthians- maybe even worse cause even they would never have thought to equate their boy-love with marriage. We know that story would end: Death, Chaos, Destruction, with balls of flame streaking down from the sky. Not a pretty picture.

Often it is argued that opposition to same=sex marriage is due to bigotry.

However, there have been several cultures in which homosexual relationships were perfectly acceptable. (ie the Greeks- except for Athens). I mean Thebes had a whole military organization made up of pairs of gay lovers. Yet none of these societies ever considered marriage as being applicable to these liaisons.

The thing is that to a traditional understanding of marriage, same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. It’s like saying “a harmful blessing”. Marriage is between male and female by definition.

It’s only in the modern concept of marriage that same-sex marriage becomes comprehensible. Since Mormons doctrinally are biased in favor of a traditional concept of marriage it is not at all surprising that Mormons oppose same sex marriage.

RE: “The argument that homosexuality is “not natural” has pretty much gone by the wayside, since homosexual activity has been observed in over 400 species.”

And in not one of them has it helped the species reproduce. It actually takes away from the gene pool and makes it more shallow by sucking away people from it into unproductive relationships.

RE: “never once stated until the horrible Oaks & Wickman “interview””

And truth just keeps getting more and more revealed!….

RE: “Neither does sex between heterosexual partners, where one is infertile”

Sure it does, because heterosexual partners are keeping the commandments when they do it, which gets them further along the path to exaltation where they will procreate, worlds without end.

Actually I’m mistaken. I admit now that I’m actually mistaken and I just realized it. Homosexuality is actually a principle of nature. It is nature naturally selecting out undesirable features in the population. Homosexual relationships do not perpetuate the species, and therefore naturally select out the undesirable features therein.

Exaltation is a further manifestation of survival of the (spiritually) fittest, and natural selection. Only those keeping the commandments are selected in to the gene pool to perpetuate themselves. The rest are selected out. The practice of homosexuality contrary to those commandments, therefore ensures that the individuals are selected out.

So actually, I admit you are right that it is natural. It totally enables those practicing it to be naturally selected out of existence as far as their genetic legacy goes.

RE: “so now you’re going to theorize that the LDS deity makes wicked people gay, so they won’t pass on their eeee-vil genes?”

Nick, your being absurd. My original post was sufficiently clear to absolutely distinguish between the practice of homosexuality and the tendency toward homosexuality to absolutely make it clear that you know this is certainly not what I’m saying.

You certainly know if you have half a brain (which I know you have a whole one, so stop playing games) I’m saying that the practice of homosexuality (as opposed to the tendency thereto, either by nature or nurture) both on the level of temporal natural selection and spiritual natural selection, gets selected out, and is adverse to the health of the species temporally and spiritually, and is therefore gets selected out.

Ahhh…so you believe the LDS deity wiped out two entire cities (save Lot and his children, of course) because they were engaged in homosexual behavior?

Please tell us, George, which behavior is worse:

(1) Your example citing select inhabitants of Sodom, who threatened to engage in a then-common practice of humiliating one’s enemies by means of male-on-male rape (a different matter than homosexuality, btw)

or….

(2) Lot’s response, which was to offer up his own virginal daughters, as preferable rape victims?

Gen 19:6-8
“And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.”

Apparently the LDS deity thinks offering your virgin daughters to become victims of a gang-rape is WAY better than supposed homosexuality, since the LDS deity saved Lot and his kids, right?

BTW, you’ll find that for this reason and others, legitimate religious scholars reject the theory that homosexuality was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. Rather, these cities violated the expected norms of hospitality toward strangers.

RE: “Your example citing select inhabitants of Sodom, who threatened to engage in a then-common practice of humiliating one’s enemies by means of male-on-male rape (a different matter than homosexuality, btw)”

No its not. It’s still homo-ism, but aint what the scripture is saying, so says I.

Good heavens, George. Is English your first language? Your response barely makes any sense at all. As for what “you says” the Bible is saying, I don’t think that’s really the standard for interpretation. Rather than off-the-top-of-your-head exegesis, you really ought to spend at least a little time learning about the cultures the Bible describes, so you don’t look ignorant in public.

RE: “Apparently the LDS deity thinks offering your virgin daughters to become victims of a gang-rape is WAY better than supposed homosexuality, since the LDS deity saved Lot and his kids, right?”

Apparently you never read the JST version did you:

Apparently you’ve never studied the history of Joseph Smith’s translation, including the fact that he said he wasn’t finished enough with it to allow publication. Likewise, apparently you’ve never studied Joseph Smith’s own preaching, in which he said that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was “failure to heed the prophets,” as opposed to what you presume. Joseph Smith was quite capable of speaking on the topics of sexual sin, and did so frequently, yet he never once supported your idiosyncratic view.

Yes, George, your reference to “homoism” truly demonstrates your vast intellectual superiority. As every educated person should know, your personal version of “common sense” is not in the slightest influenced by your own socialization, and should invariably trump any legitimate scholarship on the subjects you choose to pontificate on. “So says you.”

Note to Others: The practice of declaring one’s personal, albeit entirely uninformed, opinions as “good common sense” is extremely dangerous, and should only be attempted by those who have studiously mastered the precaution of ignoring science, history, and logic. Don’t try this at home!

The United States is a democracy, and Americans need to live by the laws of the land. As members of the Church, we need to uphold those laws. In a democracy, the majority rules. On the issue of gay marriage, each individual should have the freedom to campaign to allow gay marriage or prevent it from happening, whatever they believe in. While I have no problem with individuals trying to stop gay marriage laws from being passed (or fighting for it, for that matter), I have to say that it does trouble me that the Church has spent money to stop bills from being passed, when the Church is officially neutral in politics. Members should be free to campaign for their causes, but isn’t this a case of the Church dipping into politics?

In any case, gay marriage has become law in Canada, Spain, and it’s coming to a State near you. I don’t necessarily agree with it or like it, but that’s democracy, so put up a good fight, realize that you’re probably going to lose and get over it.

Nick, why does it have to be a conspiracy to persecute GLBT persons and a cynical missionary effort? Why can’t it simply be a sincere belief that “marriage” should not include homosexual relationships?

You know where I stand on this issue (fully in support of civil unions and general gay rights), so this is not an “anti-gay” comment in any way. I’m just saying that some things might simply be based on a narrowly defined, shared belief (no gay marriage), even when the actual positions on homosexuality within Mormonism and the evangelical community now are different. No conspiracy; no broad-based persecution; just opposition to one specific movement with which they don’t agree.

Sort of off-topic, yet related to the Danzig case, I ask a question on my blog (entitled Danzig vs. Bloggers) that has me wondering. Would love to know if anyone has an answer.

I would love to see us distinguish ourselves more from evangelicals. Personally, I think allying ourselves with the evangelical movement (vs. the individuals) is fraught with peril for the church. I’m not sure it’s being done deliberately, but I think we should deliberately avoid it.

When I joined the LDS church in 1979/80 (I had to be rebaptized in 1980, due to a clerical error), the scriptural injunction to stand independent of other churches was interpreted quite literally. As far as I ever noticed, ecumenical humanitarian efforts seemed to begin largely with the LDS response to Ethiopian famine. I still remember many LDS being surprised when the LDS church donated fast offering funds through Catholic Charities for this purpose, and leaders had to explain that Catholic Charities was not only reputable, but already had a firm infrastructure in place, so the method made sense. Another “milestone” was a much-publicized, sizeable donation by the LDS church to restore the Cathedral of the Madeline in SLC. The same was done with respect to a local Jewish synagogue.

Following this humanitarian cooperation, LDS members like Robert Millett seemed intent on convincing both LDS and evangelicals that their respective theologies had more in common than not (generally watering-down Mormonism in order to force the similarities). The natural outgrowth seems to be political alliances, which has centered primarily on efforts to promote anti-gay legislation. Monson is often touted as a driving force in these ecumenical efforts. If true, we may see this sort of thing amped up even further. Let’s hope he focuses on the humanitarian cooperation aspect, rather than the right-wing political lobbying.

FWIW, I too agree with Ray (on lots of things it would seem) – very pro civil union and gay rights, but not pro-marriage per se

Personally, I’m concerned that same-sex couples be afforded precisely the same legal rights and responsibilities that opposite-sex married couples have (something that can’t presently be done, no matter how much you pay lawyers for contracts, wills, etc.) I’m much less concerned about what label is attached to that legal status, though I’ll note that our country already should have learned that “seperate but equal” isn’t equal.

You know, I actually remember being an arrogant fool, who thought my tiny little church (a mere 13 million among the world’s population) had all the answers, and that everything that came out of LDS HQ was unquestionable truth. I’m really glad that I’ve outgrown that.

“UFO Apologist,” I have published only one article with FARMS, a book review in the FARMS Review of Books. I still stand by everything I stated in that book review. The book was an abysmal miscarriage of so-called history, written by an individual who knew almost nothing about his chosen subject. I slaughtered the book in my review, and would do so again in a heartbeat. I have little or no patience for false history, regardless of which side of the issues an author represents.

Your post suggests that you’re making some assumptions about me. You seem to assume that I chose to come out of the closet, and as a result, somehow needed to decide the LDS church was not what it claimed to be, in order to “justify” myself. I don’t really blame you for making that sort of assumption, since as a member of the LDS church you’ve repeatedly been told that when people leave the LDS church, it’s usually because they’ve chosen to “sin,” and need to rationalize it. Frankly, I’m sure there are individuals who fit this scenario.

The truth, however, is that my situation was much more complicated than that. While I never cared for some of the polemical games of FARMS and FAIR, I was once (as you note) a staunch defender of Mormonism. Due to my strong, sincere belief in Mormonism, I spent many years trying to fit the “married with children” model which the LDS church teaches. I invested a great deal of energy in hiding my personal feelings and deceiving others into thinking I was something I wasn’t. In short, I stayed “in the closet,” and endured a very difficult marriage, because I truly believed at the time that deity expected that from me.

I will note, however, that for many years, I drew a distinction between Mormonism (i.e. the religion taught by Joseph Smith) and modern LDS-ism (the religion taught by the LDS church). I felt that the LDS church had departed in many unfortunate ways from what Joseph Smith taught, but I also believed that the LDS church was the only church which continued to hold the keys which Joseph purported to hold. In this sense, I was similar to what you’ve described. I saw significant flaws, but was willing to set those aside for the “bigger issues.” This was essentially a balancing act. On the one side, I had a strong belief in Mormonism, with LDS-ism as the closest approximation of that faith. On the other side, I had some immensely powerful personal feelings. For many years, my belief weighed more heavily than my feelings. Looking back, I think my staunch defense of Mormonism at the time was at least partly an effort to bolster my own motivation to deny my own needs and desires.

Three main things changed that balance. First, I saw changes in the LDS church which began to tread beyond what I felt was “enough like” Mormonism. Most of these had to do with what I perceived as LDS efforts to become (or appear) more like mainstream christianity. Some had to do with ordinance changes which finally went beyond what I could tolerate. My belief in Mormonism had reached the point of counteracting my confidence in the LDS church. Things went beyond what I could excuse as “continuing revelation.” Second, my own historical research led me to the point where I continued to respect Joseph Smith as a religious genius, but I became less and less convinced of the truthfulness of Mormon origin stories. I didn’t rule everything out, but my confidence level in many particular historical claims was reduced. Third, my views became more universalist in nature, and I became increasingly uncomfortable with the traditional LDS/christian view of sin and atonement.

Between these factors, the balance simply tipped. My deep, personal feelings finally trumped my religious faith. I made some very different choices in how I lived my life, and my own result has been much greater peace and joy. That’s not to say everyone will share the same experience. There are many aspects of Mormonism that I still hold as personally important to me. The trouble is, very few of those continue to hold any place in the modern LDS church. As for Joseph Smith, I don’t see him the same way that most active LDS do, but I still consider him one of the great spiritual leaders in world history. I figuratively hang his portrait next to those of Moses, Jesus, Confucius, Mohammed and others. At the same time, I no longer have to worry about some authoritative figure watching over my shoulder, with the power to punish me. I can say what I believe to be true now, when it comes to the LDS church, or any other religious organization.

I apologize for the length of this post, but I wanted to really address your assumptions. I hope I’ve helped you to understand that my reality is more nuanced than you had thought.

Fwiw, Nick, thanks for sharing the overall picture so eloquently.

The only assumption I make is that the Brethren have the priesthood and the keys and the authority to authorize saving ordinances and get revelation to further the progress of the Church. Beyond that, I have no assumptions, because that is what I know is true. That is my testimony. You can take that as what my “assumptions” are.

Boys, boys, boys *shakes head bemusedly*

I am not amused at the story of the LDS couple leaving the LDS church because of feeling “pressured” to oppose same-sex marriage.

I left the Community of Christ for the opposite reason. I felt the church was pressuring me to support same-sex marriage.

The solution to the problem for LDS appears to be to leave the LDS church and join the Community of Christ. I can’t join the LDS church because I don’t believe in polygamy–when I joined the old RLDS church, I had already passed the LDS Church by.

George

This is the best argument I have heard against gay marriage.

Gay marriage doesn’t satisfy life’s purpose

It is amazing to me the extent that people will go to in order to achieve their personal goals. Take, for example, Prop. 8 that was on the ballot . This is the second time the California voters have passed this law, and yet those who fought against Prop. 8 continue to fight against the will of the people.

They keep saying this is a religious issue. That is not true. Everyone needs to answer the question of “What is the purpose of life?” Leaving religion out of the answer, as well as the Bible and personal opinions, there is only one answer that can be given that will satisfy the laws of NATURE. That answer is: “Reproduce yourself and your species.”

Can two female or two male marriage partners conform to this law? No! So, this is not a religious issue alone. It is an issue that defies the laws of nature. The animal, bird, fish, insect, and plant kingdoms all live this law. They reproduce themselves as per nature’s laws.

If any of these kingdoms failed to live this law, their kingdom would become extinct in a short period of time. If the plant kingdom failed to live this law, there would be no food for man or animals to eat. We would soon become a dead planet.

Only man wants to defy this law of nature. In so doing, they become destroyers of, rather than contributors to, the human race.

Society is based on the family of husband wife and children. This is how the next generation rises. I can just see states or countries legalizing gay marriage and then losing population.