Many of you may be aware of an ongoing case in Utah involving Peter and Mary Danzig. I’m not going to summarize here, as you can read about the details on various sites, but I’ll post links to the back-stories below. This post is just about opening a conversation. The core issues I feel are under debate are about how much involvement the LDS church officially has in the opposition of same sex marriage. The Danzigs resigned their membership because they felt the church was pressuring them to act against their own consciences. The church says (in a very unusual press response to a personal case) that it does not encourage one position or the other, but rather to be active in politics to support your values.
Obviously the topic is loaded with a lot of personal emotion. Hopefully we can keep this civil and respectful and get to the real issues worthy of discussion. I think the issue is much bigger than this one case, and it might be better to approach it from a high-level view. In my view, here are the pertinent questions:
- Does the LDS church influence its members to oppose same sex marriage?
- 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.)
- 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?
- 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?
As promised, here are the back-story links:
Here’s President Hinckley in conference:
Here’s the church opposing same-sex marriage:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/church-joins-other-faith-groups-in-defense-of-traditional-marriage
Notice the amicus brief.
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.
Equality, I agree that dissent and reaction is an important issue, I still think my questions are pertinent. In this particular case, the question of whether the Danzigs are simply disagreeing with an real intended pressure from the church, or if they are blowing the issue up to more than it is and doing so in the public… that can only be determined by understanding if their claims are actually true. If the church does not influence members to one choice in the matter, then they were not actually pressured to vote against their conscience. That is why I see the issue as having a lot to do with the detail of this particular topic.
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.
You bet the church influences its membership on this issue, and they do it subtly, as Chris W. shows with President Hinckley’s quote. It is “voluntary.” Unfortunately, there is great social pressure to conform. If you don’t, other members will consider you as “going against the prophet.” After all, do we not “listen to a prophet’s voice?”
“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.
For some reason, the letter didn’t appear in my first post, perhaps due to the punctuation I used to set it off. Here is again:
May 11, 1999
To: Area Authority Seventies, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, Bishops, Branch Presidents, and all Church members in California (to be read in the priesthood and Relief Society meetings of each ward and branch by a member of the stake presidency or high council on May 23 or May 30, 1999)
Dear Brethren and Sisters:
Preserving Traditional Marriage
On March 7, 2000, Californians will vote to affirm that the union of one man and one woman is the only form of marriage that will be legally recognized in California.
This traditional marriage initiative provides a clear and significant moral choice. The Church’s position on this issue is unequivocal. On February 1, 1994, the First Presidency wrote to all priesthood leaders:
“The principles of the gospel and the sacred responsibilities given us require that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints oppose any efforts to give legal authorization to marriages between persons of the same gender.” Therefore, we ask you to do all you can by donating your means and time to assure a successful vote. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and is essential to His eternal plan. It is imperative for us to give our best effort to preserve what our Father in Heaven has put in place
A broad-based coalition is being formed to work for passage of the traditional marriage initiative. As details about the coalition become available, we will provide you with information on how you might become involved. We thank you for your attention to this vital matter and pray the Lord’s richest blessings to be with you.
Sincerely yours,
NORTH AMERICAN WEST AREA PRESIDENCY
John B. Dickson
John M. Madsen
Cecil O. Samuelson
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.
O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God. (2 Nephi 9:28-29)
What are the counsels of God on
blacks and the priesthoodsame-sex marriage?What?
“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 presume that you’re warning supporters of same-sex marriage to “hearken unto the counsel of God.” Is that correct?
My point is that some things that we take for granted today may be completely reversed. 50 years ago, the word in general conference was that the civil rights movement was a communist conspiracy and blacks would not get the priesthood until after everyone else. Now we don’t believe that and we try to eschew racism in all forms. Things changed, the church changed, and our beliefs changed.
It’s not clear to me at all that God is behind the Defense of Marriage amendment.
I think the counsel of God is pretty clear:
When I was serving as a stake executive secretary, several months before I chose to have my name removed from the records of the LDS church, our stake received a letter very similar to the one NM Tony has quoted. The language was almost identical, but changed to reflect that it addressed an Illinois petition drive to place a state constitutional amendment on the ballot. Also, the letter very specifically stated that it was wrong for anyone to say that the LDS church was directly involved in this effort, but that members “could” take part. Contact information was given for the organization fronting the petitions.
When I read the letter, I was distressed. While I had not come out of the closet, I shared my concerns with the stake president on constitutional grounds, as well as what I saw as potential ramifications against LDS doctrine. I indicated that I could not support such an effort, and asked if this was, in fact, a “call to action” for LDS members to jump on that bandwagon. I further indicated that I couldn’t support such an effort, and that I understood if he wished to release me, so as not to bring any embarassment to the stake presidency.
My stake president was a very kind, good man. He said that his interpretation was that individuals should follow their own views, and that the letter was intended to avoid the suggestion that “all good LDS must agree” with such legislation. Personally, I think he intentionally skewed it from its actual intent, so as to “make room” for my feelings on the matter. When the topic came up in discussion at another time, the stake clerk couldn’t believe that I wasn’t falling in line, and expressed his firm conviction that homosexuals are simply wicked people who intentionally seek to anger deity.
That said, one of the bishops in our building posted the letter on his ward bulletin board. I now confess, my friends, what only I have known—that I secretly removed the letter from the bulletin board and destroyed it. Mea culpa. Hell, I’m proud I did it.
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.”
Statement by the First Presidency, August 17, 1949:
Was the First Presidency in 1949 (and Brigham Young) wrong or was the First Presidency in 1978 wrong? Are you confident that the Proclamation on the Family is the revealed word of God?
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.
Did God’s will change or did man’s understanding of God’s will change?
In other words, isn’t it possible that Brigham Young was just wrong (in large part because of common cultural biases) and that Spencer W. Kimball was inspired? If so, isn’t also possible that the Proclamation on the Family is wrong (in large part because of common cultural biases) and that some future Prophet will be inspired to know God’s true will on the subject?
As far as the raging debate over SSM, I’ll bow out of that for future discussions. I will say, however, that it isn’t clear that the egalitarianism that is behind SSM will continue unabated–that ideal faces a demographic challenge in the near future. I think the “last days” may get in the way as well, but I digress. At this point we can let Jesus sort it out from Jerusalem.
In reference to the Danzig case, he Church is govenered as a loose confederacy. In my profession I have seen that first-hand. The Stake President is the local prophet in many respects. I think a seminal point here is an understanding of the Priesthood. A person can hold Priesthood keys and be totally wrong. But perhaps this happens so that his flock can learn humility despite being right. Humility has a way of sanctifying the soul and making us more like Him. Is the point to be right, or is it to believe in Priesthood Keys and continue with the corresponding spiritual blessings that come with those keys? I think if you can’t respect the Priesthood, even if the holder is wrong, you have crossed the line and made null and void your membership in the Church, which is totally dependent upon deferrence to those with keys. I have been in this situation over some personal things that have happened to me, as I was once cut off for awhile in ways I didn’t totally agree with. However, at the end of the day, I accepted the decision of the Stake President and the High Council, and in doing so, I still had my peace with God and man. I have a testimony of keys, and that has made the difference.
As far as the Church influencing its members to oppose SSM, the answer is pretty tranparant. They do. It’s not an issue with me because I don’t support SSM. I worry about a Constitutional amendment. I think the Constitution states that issues not reserved for the Federal government are reserved for the state. I don’t know if SSM rises to the level where an amendment is needed. I also don’t think it has a prayer of passing. People who oppose SSM should spend more time changing hearts and minds in a rational way first before getting all hopped up on federal legislation.
As I look at the letter that NMTony referenced above, I see the following.( Emphasis mine):
“, we ask you to do all you can by donating your means and time to assure a successful vote. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and is essential to His eternal plan. It is imperative for us to give our best effort to preserve what our Father in Heaven has put in place.
Frankly, I see the word “ask.” I don’t see “order,” “command,” “compel,” or any such words. So does that mean we HAVE to do it. No, you can choose not to, just like you can choose not to go to the monthly ward spaghetti dinner.
I read in another post that social pressure will dictate your action. Social pressure from whom? I suppose if you go and blab your mouth off about every personal belief you have, someone in the ward might not like it. But, if kept to yourself, you have nothing to worry about.
I thought this was a discussion about the Danzig case. I see people posting 1849 talks trying to show a parallel. let’s stay in the moment here, shall we?
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.
You know, sometimes I get the idea that if a president of the LDS church ever goes crazy and shoots a man in the head, there will be LDS members who rationalize that it must have been deity’s will, because deity secretly knew the dead man would have been a mass-murderer.
“Is the point to be right, or is it to believe in Priesthood Keys and continue with the corresponding spiritual blessings that come with those keys?”
As I tried to explain in a previous post, I look at the act of believing in priesthood keys in spite of the destruction that course might cause in yourself or others as focusing on “being right”. To me that is asking me to bury my heart so I can keep my membership, to stand idle while others suffer. I do not interpret the message of Jesus as being consistent with that. We speak of God testing our humility. What if God is actually testing our humanity?
What the prophets and apostles say is God’s true will. If God’s revealed will today is different than what was taught in the past, we follow the current revelation.
Is it possible that Brigham Young was wrong in his comments on why blacks could not receive the priesthood? Yes. We don’t believe in infallible prophets. Prophets are entitled to their opinion, which might be swayed by contemporary cultural biases. But was it God’s will that blacks not receive the priesthood at that time? Yes. Current revelation does not specify why.
The Proclamation on the Family was signed by the entire First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and is considered current revelation. Is it possible that a future prophet will change the position of the proclamation? I don’t think so, because fifteen apostles signed their name to it, and I think it would take the same to alter it.
I also think it is irrelevant to speculate if currently revealed doctrine will change in the future. What God reveals today is what is right. We believe and follow what God’s will is today, not what it was or what it may be in the future.
I disagree, but I’m glad to know where you’re coming from.
Disagree all you wish.
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.
Bryce Haymond,
Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. Have you read George Orwell’s 1984?
John. No, I haven’t.
“If the scriptures and the brethren are wrong, then who are we to believe? Who are we to follow?”
Is the purpose of our mortal existence to learn how to follow, or to learn how to lead? My answer to both of your questions: God. That is what personal revelation is for, right?
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.
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.
I always thought that by following God’s revelation to me as an individual I was following God. Now I know that when the leaders speak, the thinking has been done. Thanks for clearing that up, Bryce.
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
“Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop, an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone;” (Millennial Star 53:658-59, quoted in Gospel Truth, 1:319) George Q. Cannon
“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)
“President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when ‘Thus saith the Lord’, comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill.” (Millennial Star 54:191) Apostle Charles W. Penrose
“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
I never said that when our leaders speak that the thinking is done. As Sleeper has clearly shown, we are to seek confirmation by the spirit.
I did say that if we do not follow the guidance and counsel given by the Lord’s prophets and apostles that we are not following the Lord. The Lord called them for the very purpose of leading us to life and salvation.
While we are in the mood, let’s quote a more recent prophet, President Kimball:
All from chapter 23 of “Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball” which was one of the last lessons of priesthood and relief society last year.
(26) “As I tried to explain in a previous post, I look at the act of believing in priesthood keys in spite of the destruction that course might cause in yourself or others as focusing on “being right”. To me that is asking me to bury my heart so I can keep my membership, to stand idle while others suffer. I do not interpret the message of Jesus as being consistent with that. We speak of God testing our humility. What if God is actually testing our humanity?”
First, Clay, do you know for sure you’re heart is in the right place? Do you have the humility to accept that you’re maybe wrong? Once you get past that, and you still believe you are right as best as you are able, you have to decide if you heart can be consoled through the Atonement over this severe of a disagreement. I think it can be. If you believe in the kind of God Mormonism purports, justice will eventually win out. We have to have faith in that inevitability. I know that’s a difficult answer and it may not wash with you, but I’m a firm believer in reconciling disagreements through prayer and fasting.
(34)”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, for those of us for which that fact burns bright, it’s a no-brainer, but many people on this site don’t follow. They’ve been burned by too many inconsistencies. The difficult part of faith is reconciling this while remaining faithful. I believe that’s part of the test. Good to see you on here!!
(36) Sleeper–one of my favorite quotes. Thank you. Turns that Brigham Young from a provincial colonizer to a veritable philosopher.
#27:
The Proclamation on the Family was signed by the entire First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and is considered current revelation.
Not so. It’s not binding revelation upon the membership of the LDS church until they so sustain it in an open general conference.
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.
Too bad he hadn’t read http://mormonmatters.org/2008/02/23/a-guide-to-edifying-others/ and taken that for an approach instead of using the Salt Lake Tribune as a sounding board. /Sigh.
Not to toot your own horn, or anything….
The irony of Bryce’s comments is that they’re coming from a guy who dedicated his blog to Hugh Nibley. I am fairly confident that Nibley (knowing his politics and his personal familiarity with the shortcomings of Church leaders) would disagree with Bryce on this matter.
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.
Chris W. — I’m very much pushing my approach as the one people in this situation should follow. It is my comment on these kinds of conflicts as a generic type.
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.
I would suggest that the greatest issue people not familiar with the church take issue with the church teachings are twofold:
1. A centralized message demanding rigorous obedience to a central hierarchy (as typified here with the issue of same-sex marriage); and
2. An ability of the hierarchy to command by fiat and suggestion a legion of people to unquestioning obedience (as typified here in some measure by Mr. Haymond).
I am not a member of the church despite years of association and love for many of its members. To me, it is these two points that confirm my belief that notwithstanding the good that the organization offers, the dangers of excessive zeal is too common and warrants additional caution when meeting someone who is Mormon.
If only the church was a church and not a club with baggage! But I guess that which makes it unique can also make it scary.
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.
How about that. Nibley quoting a prophet, something he did quite often.
I don’t know where you get that Joseph Smith taught that Mormons shouldn’t be bound by any creeds or set of beliefs. Joseph Smith established the doctrine and set of beliefs that the Church was to follow in this dispensation. Those that did not follow what Joseph Smith taught did not join the Church.
How can anyone believe that there shouldn’t be a central hierarchy and authority in the Church? The head of the hierarchy is Christ himself. Those that want to follow Christ must follow those who He has chosen, ordained, and sent forth to do His work here.
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.
Does the LDS church influence its members to oppose same sex marriage?
Yes … with the big buck$ to back it up …
In 1998, the LDS Church (Corporation of the President and Corporation of the Presiding Bishop) spent $ 600,000 to influence a ballot vote in Hawaii concerning “traditional marriage”.
See link –> http://hawaii.gov/campaign/ballot.htm
Is the influence explicit from top leaders, explicit-but-rogue from local leaders, or is it a cultural perceived thing from members?
IMO, Influence is from top leaders. Letters from levels above the Stake have been read over the pulpit urging support for ‘traditional marriage’. My experience is that some local leaders feel uncomfortable having to ‘toe’ the line and provide the pulpit to this issue.
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).
Christopher,
Anyone who does not follow God’s chosen prophets is not following God’s chosen prophets. If you want to interpret that as insulting, rude, and inappropriate, you may do so. But I will not apologize for it.
God has chosen, called, ordained, and sent forth his anointed servants to do His work on earth, to act in His stead, and to say the things the He would say if He were here. They are His representatives, and act in vicarious authority as if they were Christ here in person, and if we don’t stand close to what they say, we are not following the One who sent them. For He has put into their mouths the things which they should say (D&C 100:5-6, 24:5-6).
When Paul was converted and called he was told, “The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard” (Acts 22:14-15). The living prophets and apostles are called in the very same way today.
The Church has said, “it is not acceptable when [our] digging and questioning leads to public opposition against doctrine Church leaders are obliged to uphold. . . . Unfortunately [Danzig] was not able to reconcile his personal beliefs with the doctrine Church leaders are charged to maintain by divine mandate.”
Many here have said over and over again that it is not necessary for us to sustain what our leaders say, that we should think for ourselves instead, that what they say is unoriginal and old-fashioned, and that we must put personal revelation above everything else. That is not following God’s chosen prophets, and will certainly lead to apostasy, as we have clearly seen. President Kimball said, it is “mentally stoning the living [prophets].”
Nibley himself often said that his words were worthless, and that his writings should be taken with a grain of salt. He also spared no expense in extensively quoting from the brethren and the scriptures, ad nauseam. How old-fashioned of him. Couldn’t he think for himself?
How could the Danzigs believe that their position on same-sex marriage was in harmony with the “gospel of Christ” when they are now no longer in the church which proclaims that gospel? They will now not be able to partake of the blessings and ordinances of the gospel of Jesus Christ unless they repent and come back into the fold.
“But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand” (John 10:26-29).
“O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God” (2 Nephi 9:28-29).
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):
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.
#27 Bryce Haymond
“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.”
I will put must trust in The Lord NOT in the arm of flesh.
Here is one example of “leading the Church astray”: When Gordon B. Hinckley declared to the world that polygamy is not doctrinal and he condemns it.
The last time I checked, Section 132 is still part of the canon and still part of LDS doctrine. I’m tired of prophets, seers, and revelators who are not truthful.
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.
Bryce,
It’s bad Bloggernacle etiquette to condemn others, or to call their faith or worthiness into question. It’s not very conducive to civil discourse.
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..
It’s bad Bloggernacle etiquette to condemn others, or to call their faith or worthiness into question. It’s not very conducive to civil discourse.
Steve M, while that may be true, it makes for a rather staid conversation sometimes…
“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.”
I never said anything about policy for the whole church. I’m just talking about what feels right for me. Maybe I’ve just been deceived by the cunning heart-string tugging gays, with their sob stories, but I don’t feel right about denying people like Buckley Jepson or John Hamer the right to have a sacred committed relationship with another person.
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.
Here is the fundamental problem as I see it.
1. Homosexual behavior is wrong - The church certainly teaches that all sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong. It also teaches specifically that homosexual behavior (not thought, but action) is wrong. If society legitimizes and legalizes same sex marriage, the church then has a big problem to confront. How to deal with same sex couples that are “legally and lawfully married.”
2. The State’s Interest in Marriage - It has been long argued that the government (ie the state) has a legitimate interest in the marriage relationship. If that is so, why then does the state make it so easy to be married and so easy to get divorced? If this state has an interest, does it not have an interest in preserving marriages? Since it has been shown not to be interested in saving marriages or making sure they are good ones, or protecting the children of marriages, then do they really have an interest? In my mind, the answer is no, they really don’t have a good interest, only an interest in controlling marriage, per se.
3. What is a marriage? - If it is determined by the US Supreme Court that the states have no legitimate interest in controlling marriage, then what can happen? Same Sex marriage is legalized. But, what about other marital configurations? Are they less legitimate? Like Polygamy? Polyandry? if so, this also creates a dilemma for the Church for the same reason.
Now, I realize that SSM and Polygamy are legal in some parts of the world, but a full scale legalization in the US would create a slippery slope that the church would have to confront.
You didn’t get any opinion from me here on the validity of those marital relationships, so don’t attack me for that. But, I see a couple of issues that the church would have to deal with under the guise of “legally and lawfully.”
if same sex marriage is ever legalized - will the door to “legalize polygamy” then be open??
It makes it more likely, at least in philosophical and legal sense. If we define marriage as a social construct, subject only to the whims of the members of society, then one can not argue that SSM limited to 2 people is okay, while polygamy or group marriage is not okay. There is simply no basis to argue against those types of marriages. If you argue that marriage is limited by tradition to a man and a woman and that it is more than a social construct, it makes it a lot more difficult to extend the definition.
#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 that the church should push a policy of removing marriage from the realm of the state, frankly. The state should have no business in regulating marriage. Let religions handle marriage. This is a benefit for all, because surely there are religions out there willing to give gay couples the solace they seek, and surely it will not pressure religions who desire only heterosexual relationships.
The problem here is the control of the state. Frankly I am troubled by how much the church is willing to let the state be the arbiter of marriage.
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.
Clay,
I had a problem with one of your statements:
“Unfortunately, the prescription is still to either forfeit your salvation or live a life of complete loneliness.”
As you know there are many people in the church that, for one reason or another, do not have the opportunity to be married or lose a spouse. Are they to live a life of “complete loneliness?” Since I suspect that they may be more of those people in the church than gays, what do you suggest for them? Should the church arrange marriage for them? Is that a good reason to bring back polygamy and assign these people to families in order to eliminate “complete loneliness?
“complete loneliness” is a choice.
“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??
“I think that the church should push a policy of removing marriage from the realm of the state.” My thoughts exactly. When I was married in the temple, the last thing I was thinking of was my new legal rights, or a bigger tax refund. Marriage to a Mormon is a religious issue, not a state one, IMHO.
“As you know there are many people in the church that, for one reason or another, do not have the opportunity to be married or lose a spouse.”
There is a difference between a straight LDS person who does not marry, or loses a spouse, and a gay LDS person who is in love and wants to marry but is told they must remain celibate and unmarried from the person they love if they want to keep their standing with God. The straight person CAN get married (or re-married) if they fall in love. The gay person cannot. Also, the life of a straight person who remains single in the LDS church is actually quite lonely.
Re: Jeff Spector (#66),
If society legitimizes and legalizes same sex marriage, the church then has a big problem to confront. How to deal with same sex couples that are “legally and lawfully married.”
What’s the problem? The Church would not be required to extend its fellowship to gay couples merely because their marriage was legal. It is free to disfellowship, excommunicate, refuse to extend temple privileges to, or otherwise refuse to associate with those whose behavior they deem immoral, however legal that behavior might be.
It’s perfectly legal for me to publicly oppose the Church or to have sex with women besides me wife (not that I have any intention to do either), but that wouldn’t stop the Church from revoking my membership.
Re: Dan (#69),
I think that the church should push a policy of removing marriage from the realm of the state, frankly. The state should have no business in regulating marriage. Let religions handle marriage. This is a benefit for all, because surely there are religions out there willing to give gay couples the solace they seek, and surely it will not pressure religions who desire only heterosexual relationships.
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.
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.
Here is a quote I found on the lds.org site that is relevant to the topic as well as Jeff’s question about the prescription of loneliness:
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 ima