In the church, it is easy to equate a feeling with a status of worthiness. In reality, I believe feelings are signals. It’s very difficult to figure out what signal the feeling is sending to you, but with bravery, honesty and dialogue, it can be done.

It is helpful to find someone you trust to talk to about difficult feelings and thoughts. That person should be able to separate feelings from actions and be sincerely interested in your experiences and how they have affected you.

Sometimes church leaders are able to do this, but sometimes they are not. It is often very difficult that bishops, parents and other people we look to for help and support are flawed human beings, just like us, and sometimes fall short of what we need.

If you turn to someone for help and guidance and they tell you that your feelings are wrong, harmful, unworthy or a sign that you are not righteous enough, I would recommend that you find someone else that you trust to talk to. Our feelings can lead us to DO things that are wrong, harmful and unrighteous, but we are much less likely to act out our feelings if they can be discussed and examined in an accepting and thoughtful manner.

I wish more people understood this. Instead, we are often too uncomfortable with difficult feelings to deal with things in a more helpful and healthy manner.

I am a nondescript (not homosexual) member of the church. On August 14th, I attempted suicide. I think isolation was my undoing. We do a lot of talking TO and ABOUT people - often out of obligation instead of sincere interest - when it’s the talking WITH that is perhaps more helpful. I can’t honestly blame anyone for my decision, but I’m rather confident that if I had found an outlet for sharing my distress, I would have made a more healthy choice. May the teacher learn.

I brushed it off, since I had multiple cousins in interracial marriages, and they were fine.

I have a hard time believing that would still be in any lesson manuals today.

Along the lines of what Adam said- if we can accept that the racist things BY said were based on the views commonly held during his life, it doesn’t mean he was a prophet, it just means he was also human. As we all are. I think that is why it is so important to seek for personal revelation.

Also, I think just because we disagree over a political issue with the prophet, doesn’t mean he isn’t a prophet. He is, and we should support him. The trick is to balancing supporting him, and doing what we believe is right. It’s not an emotionally comfortable thing to deal with, but difficult things help us grow, which is why we are here, right?

What a huge shame that the church is mixing politics and religion. What are they thinking? All that will happen is we will discriminate against people and the church will look bad. We have very unusual sexual practices in our past, and in our present with D&C 132, so we should not be telling others what is morally acceptable.

I hate to say it, but Monson’s wrong on this issue. Admittedly I’m a homophob just like the prophet, but we should keep in mind that our job is to respect others, love one another and not make them feel bad, discriminate or hate them.

Geez I wish I could publicly talk about this in church, but honestly I feel I’d be ex’d. Those at church just say “you mean the prophet’s wrong?”. Yes that’s what I mean. I’d encourage you to not give you your money and time to this cause. It too will pass.

Just thought I’d pass that on.

It has been a concern since the late 50s or so.

Try re-reading everything through that set of lens.

OK, it appears we are more in agreement than disagreement. I would hope that quote would be removed from the manual at the next revision. I, for one, would never tell my AP YM that quote.

Green Man, there are more races than just the African race, so it must apply more universally than your one-trick pony. But it’s old news anyway.

I wouldn’t be so quick to deny the church discourages interracial marriage. The fact that the Aaronic priesthood manual makes reference to race and marriage is not made in a vacuum. Look at the date: 1979, right after O.D. #2. I will have to rely on D.M. Quinn for a reference to the headline in the Church News announcing the O.D. #2 that “Church discourages interracial marriage.” The Senior member of the 12 was the editor. The teachings of the church before and during the prohibition on Priesthood holders of African decent is now re-iterated in a current priesthood manual, I don’t think this is an accident.

On another note, I like the idea of calling a marriage a civil union, if only to remind couples to always be civil.

Also, if we go to only civil unions, could we call divorce civil dissolutions, you know just to take away the stigma of the word divorce?

You’re misreading the tone of my comments. I just want to point out where the church is still discouraging (i.e. recommending against) interracial marriage. I don’t want to portray this as particularly ominous or evil. Allow me to quote myself from another thread:

To be fair, I think these factors should be taken into consideration when deciding to get married. Marriage is hard enough without having such socioeconomic differences. In this case, race is mostly a placeholder for different cultures. An interracial couple still faces external bigotry in many communities, but if I had to guess, the big difficulty is usually in the cultural differences that those different races imply.

However, I obviously don’t think it’s wrong to marry someone significantly different than yourself, it’s just riskier. Marriages would be more stable if people didn’t believe that love could conquer all.

You can draw your own conclusions from the fact that the SWK quote is included in official church material. Are you denying that this quote discourages (i.e. dissuades from) interracial marriage? Or denying that it is included in current official church materials?

I guess you wish to read it as a commandment or some evil design on behalf of the leaders of the Church and Pres. Kimball in particular. I just don’t see it that way and I doubt that it was as ominous as you want it to be.

Anymore than the ecomonic or education portion of the quote, which you ignore.

It seems that the word “discourage” has different connotations for each of us. For me, the word means something like recommend against, dissuade from. You seem to define it as forbid. The church is at the very least recommending that certain couples exercise caution when getting married because of their dissimilar background. In this case, it is at least recommending that interracial couples not marry.

If you’ll allow me to parse SWK’s quote a little:

We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background …

Conversely, he doesn’t recommend that people of dissimilar racial backgrounds marry.

… and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred) …

It follows that some of those aspects are an absolute necessity. Given the date of the quote, if I had to guess, I would think SWK meant that marrying within your racial background is of absolute necessity. It’s pretty clear to me that the church has a history of discouraging interracial marriage, and this quote is part of that history.

The question is why is the church still using this quote in its official materials if it has put that history behind it?

I think you are reaching on this one.

Well, this year’s Aaronic Priesthood manual (can someone verify that this is the one indeed being used this year?) is still discouraging interracial marriage:

“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question” (“Marriage and Divorce,” in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977], p. 144).

The quotation is pre-1978, but it is still quoted in a current manual.

Perhaps that was said and inter-racial marriage was discouraged. There were other reasons for discouraging it at that time other than just prejudice of the church leaders as you claim. I’ve known several inter-racial couples who suffered a great deal at the hands of society (not in the Church) for their choice of who they loved and married.

But, holy cow man, that WAS 30 years ago. Why can’t you just drop it and move on? And your Mark E. Peterson statement, over 50 years old! What’s the point? We all still feel the same way? I doubt it.

Again, not to kick a dead horse, but his quote re Blacks sounds similar to many I’ve read re gay marriage here and elsewhere:

“I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn’t just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn’t that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it.” — Apostle Mark E. Peterson, August 27, 1954

I remember reading that statement when it came out and even then thought it was a we’ll-give-in-but-hold-something-back moment.

The Bretheren just don’t like to admit they’re ever wrong.

Whether or not that was practical advice in 1978 is debatable — I’d say “not” — but either way, it didn’t need to be there.

Dwelling on past negatives is a buzz kill. Why beat a dead horse? But as a lens to view our current problems, I believe it can be beneficial and important.

So yeah, if someone can illuminate my foggy memory, and/or point to the source, I’d be interested for the sake of accuracy.

Oh no, we’re not Married, we’re Civil Unioned

I prefer the term “civilly unionized”. And “violently unionized” could be the new euphemism for shotgun wedding.

there’s the quote C.L. Hanson writes about regarding advice from spencer w. kimball that people not enter interracial marriages. but this particular quote comes from a 1976 devotional which was published in 1977. i have no doubt, however, that the advice lived on well beyond the 1978 revelation.

that quote is here:

http://latterdaymainstreet.com/?p=328

I’m picturing society down the road… I meet a nice heterosexual couple wearing wedding rings. I ask them, “So when did you guys get married?” The wife smiles politely, if a little stiffly, and replies, “Oh no, we’re not Married, we’re Civil Unioned.” Whatever. Very Starbelly Sneetches-ish.

It feels like we’re saying, with a sigh, “Okay, fine, we’ll let them get married…” but holding something back at the last minute, “…but they can’t use the word ‘Marriage’! That’s where we draw the line in the sand.”

Reminds me of 1978 when Blacks finally got the Priesthood, but someone had to add that embarrassing little caveat… “BUT… we strongly recommend whites don’t marry blacks.” Or something like that. Someone please feel free to supply the real quote, either from the press release or from church news. That also had a we’ll-give-in-but-hold-something-back-at-the-last-minute feeling, which dampens an otherwise glorious revelation and moment in Mormon History.

Me too. That said, I’m sure a single example exists. But seriously, who cares? Discrimination is human nature. Unfortunately. But why should gays be held to a higher anti-discrimination standard than heteros?

We should fight against discrimination regardless of its source, but to deny people the equal right to marry “because it might lead to discrimination” is just silly silly silly.

As far as arguements about quotas with HOA, adoption agencies and the like- I call hogwash. There are no such quotas for interacial couples or any other designation. Once upon a time, it was against the law for a black to marry a white- and that is incomprehensible to most people these days- yet it was true. This is the same thing, and will likely be looked at in the same light. Don’t let fear cloud the vision.

The equitable solution is to have a civil union for all couples, then allowing churches to have ecclisiastical authority to confer their own Marriage upon couples who meet their membership requirements. Already, to be a card-carrying member of the LDS church, you have to abide by it’s membership rules. No difference here, and the church’s (or any other church’s) autonomy need not suffer.

This will come to pass. It may not be this year, it may not be in California this time, but this is what eventually will happen.

(card-carrying, active, has gay family, adult convert, native Californian, living in WA state)

as a student of language and literature, the fight over a word baffles me. because words are far too slippery to control. there’s certainly no way we could ever police who calls themselves married and whether they actually had the requisite religious ceremony to earn the title. i just don’t understand the motive for trying to limit that term.

My own view that I’ve expressed before is that the state should only perform civil unions for all. Marriage should be a religious ceremony at the discretion of individual churches. That solves the discrimination issue and leaves the term “marriage” as a religious term. Those seeking SSM will find churches willing to perform SSM or will be satisfied with a civil union. Many heterosexual couples would also choose civil unions without a religious marriage. It seems to be the easiest way to make everyone happy and to eliminate discrimination while preserving the rights of religions to practice according to their beliefs.

More interesting are analysis like this one, which take us onto a different topic altogether: http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200505130807.asp

Or consider http://www.volokh.com/posts/1212515822.shtml

There is an interesting complex of cases and analysis.

But, as to your question, with a little work you can find the posts analyzing the guy who was fined and punished for refusing to accept business promoting same sex marriages and some other associational and speech analysis.

Interesting stuff, though I’m tired of the SSM analysis. The issues are cold and the problems are well settled.

Are the fears that the same things could happen here valid? Have similar suits arisen, similar claims? After all, we all know that the Boy Scouts don’t face any problems, do they?

Now should the Boy Scouts have contracts canceled and deals reversed? That is another question. But there is no question but that they are under attack all across the country.

the concern you bring up in #2 doesn’t seem as troublesome to me. i think it’s simple discrimination for either a real estate agent or an HOA to exclude homosexuals. regardless of the homosexuals’ marital status. i believe current legislation would cover such discrimination as it is. you do mention the idea of “proportionate representation,” so maybe you raise that issue purely as an example of affirmative action, in which case it could be an issue as you describe. i don’t think affirmative action is necessary in the instance of marriage equality. i haven’t heard people calling for such affirmative action and don’t think it will happen. has anyone heard of such appeals? affirmative action on behalf of homosexual couples?

If the real goal is equal social acceptance, that is an interesting agenda indeed, and frankly, the more likely agenda here. Legislating social acceptance does mean that if you don’t consider SSM equal to traditional marriage, then you are in fact discriminating and can be punished by law. Legally, this could lead to affirmative action (often considered “reverse discrimination”). Here are some potential examples:

1 - adoption agencies could be sued for discrimination or licensing withheld if they don’t have a proportionate representation of SSM adoptive parents. Perhaps that’s okay, but some adoption agencies are religiously affiliated. Does that mean they would be shut down or restricted if they refused to allow SSMs to adopt?
2 - real estate agents could be sued for discrimination or have licenses suspended if they don’t sell a proportionate represenation to SSM couples. HOAs that fail to have a representative amount of SSMs could be considered discriminatory.

Those are the first two that came to mind. The church preaches PoF (children have a right to both a mother and a father) so the adoption example (which someone cited elsewhere as an issue that has occurred in Europe) could be a very real issue. Downfall of society? Perhaps not. Eroding of principles in PoF? Yes.

The fact is the majority of the Christian world and a significant portion of the non-Christian world does not think that homosexual relations are right. So, naturally, they would oppose SSM on the same grounds.

All of those of you who do not feel the same way need to chill and respect that opinion even if you disagree with it. And the same goes for those who do. We can have a reasonable discourse without the attacks and bad feelings.

so what i’m calling for is in part about faith. but it’s also in part about hard work. i don’t think the point is ever to sit around and wait until the good thing happens to us; i think we’re meant to construct the good things. refusing to do so on the grounds that it will be hard and will pose difficulties is a real problem.

Iow, you are asking people to accept **on faith** that we will be different. I like it, but you have to admit it’s delicious irony.

and i really don’t think blanket generalizations about “actual events” in other countries are justification for trying to make people frightened that the church will lose its tax exempt status or that suddenly our society will discriminate against religious people. if those things have happened in other societies, the point is not to then be frightened into maintaining the discriminatory, intolerant status quo; it’s to change the status quo to make it less discriminatory and intolerant in the ways it currently is so while building in appropriate protections against potential new forms of discrimination and intolerance.

and

i also don’t understand the assertion that religious persons and groups will be the victims of intolerance and discrimination as a result of marriage equality

The fears are based on what has happened in other countries, from actual events. Volokh.com discusses things of this sort from time to time (it is a group of blogging law professors who are into free speech, among other things).

Thurston points out that he feels that the LDS Church ought not to worry or resist things that could result in persecution, and his arguments have an interesting point to them. Though it isn’t the level playing field but government interventions that worry people.

Are the worries well founded, well, that is a different question.

You mean as opposed to the current era of intolerance and discrimination? But hey, I’m fine with swapping one era of intolerance and discrimination for a new era of intolerance and discrimination. We can call the era “I&D 2: Electric Boogaloo”. Why should religious persons be the only persons who get to be intolerant? That’s just not fair. I say let the Gays have their run at intolerance and discrimination as well.

Yes, we certainly have a lot to look forward to: a level playing field, where anyone can marry; and anyone can be intolerant and discriminate. Woo hoo!!!

Yes, the end of civilization is nigh. And fearmongering is alive and well in the halls of Harvard and Meridian.

i certainly understand the assertion that legalizing same-sex marriage may create confusion about how existing institutions and businesses may have to adapt. and i’d be happy to see information about that presented in an even-handed, objective fashion. i just don’t think the meridian article meets that standard.

i also don’t understand the assertion that religious persons and groups will be the victims of intolerance and discrimination as a result of marriage equality. to my understanding, the state would not be able to compel a religious organization to perform a marriage ceremony. so i don’t think that there’s really a threat in that fashion. i can see that religious persons who publicly express their opinion that homosexuality/homosexual sex is a sin may be denounced as bigoted, but isn’t that simply the nature of public discourse? isn’t that the risk you run when you espouse a belief? and if there’s been a change in the general attitude towards something, we should expect that our less popular ideas will be spoken poorly of.

i just have a hard time seeing this as anything but a scare tactic unless i can see some objective, reasoned argument to go along with it that justifies maintaining a discriminatory status quo in an attempt to avoid a different version of discrimination that may be more harmful. i’m of the opinion that there is a middle ground to be found on any issue. our goal should not be preserving one extreme or establishing the other; it should be achieving a balance.

I totally agree with the above comment, taken from a good article in Meridian on this issue:
http://www.ldsmag.com/familyleadernetwork/080627marriage.html

(I know Meridian is a hiss and a byword among liberal Mormons and I too often read it only out of morbid curiosity, but once in a while they have good stuff I overall agree with.)

in my opinion, the only compelling reasons have to do with actual gospel principles–compassion, love, etc. and especially the principle of not compelling others to agree with and abide by our beliefs.

please note: i’m making a statement here about consistency; NOT about the church’s position on gay marriage (with which i disagree).

my position aside, i think the church is simply very pragmatic. which explains its treating the issue differently in different places.

were you in the longfellow park ward when i was there?

Problem is praising the current president and the Iraq war.

ie she wrote “….specifically when she moved from singing the praises of historical americans to praising the current leadership and the current war”.

So I guess you want to outlaw Catholic and Jewish marriages too. As I recall, 99.99% of all marriages worldwide are for “time only.” This is a moral issue if I’ve ever heard one. Let’s stamp out all non-temple marriages!

No, you say? Marriages of Catholics and Hindus have social worth, even if they are going to be dissolved in the hereafter? Fine. The same is true of gay couples, for the same reasons. Forcing gay people into the shadows is inhumane.

And I have issues with gay Mormons, current or ex-, thinking they can use Fast and Testimony meeting pulpits to air their grievances.

Well, most F&T meetings have the airing of all kinds of different grievances (like Festivus). I suppose that ought to be expected when you have “open mike day” at the chapel.

It’s fine for the Brethren to take any stance they feel is appropriate. Just as long as they don’t lie about the consequences (once again, I’m hearing “this will force SSM in the temples if it fails”) or cut corners on the rules. (Hopefully this time, there won’t be the pre-empting of meetings or “I’m not coming to you as your bishop.”)

And using a sacrament meeting pulpit to pledge allegiance to the worst president in US history is not a spiritually edifying practice. No way no how. Would you like to sit through a sacrament meeting devoted to forgiving Bill Clinton? You know, ’cause he said he was sorry and we’re supposed to forgive? Or how about a lesson devoted to praying for Osama bin Laden (pray for your enemies)? Would you want to sit around and listen to that?

Not to get off topic or anything…I just sense Conservative Member likes to be deliberately provocative (in an off-topic sort of way)…

Goodness! What’s wrong with americans, seems they don’t get it.

What state were you in?

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/meet-rameumptom-inc-schubertfl.php

And I aggree with you one the subject of the disagreement. To me marriage is between a man (who can be a jerk) and a woman (who can be a witch). BUT in the mean time I try to put myself in the shoes of someone else and I try to consider that aside from religious values there is nothing really that should/could/would prevent a gay couple from enjoying the same rights as the one I can have, thus preventing it becoming something terribly unfair, I have a hard time standing on one side or the other.

What I don’t understand though is why would the church bother about it? Would it save the world to prevent same sex marriage? NO! Do we need to save the world? NO!

If someone feels like answering to me I would gladly appreciate to have some kind of answer. And please keep the words simple. I am not stupid I am a foreigner and sometimes I have hard time catching on the subtle points you are all trying to make.

that’s not to say i don’t see the inconsistency in the approach. i just understand the approach. it&#