The story of David and Jonathan is one of the most inspiring examples of true friendship anywhere.  Our LDS SS manual firmly places this lesson within the mainstream view of Biblical exegesis, presenting the two as strong personal and platonic friends.  As I studied the covenant made between these young men in 1 Samuel 18, I was touched by the loyalty shown by the young Jonathan, because he “loved [David] as his own soul.”  Because of this love, Jonathan relinquishes his hopes for his father’s throne in deference to God’s choice.  In a symbolic and ceremonial gesture, Jonathan strips off his robe, which represents the authority he holds to succeed his father, King Saul, and gives it to David.  He also gives David his sword and his bow, representing his military prerogative; and his girdle, which symbolizes spiritual truths and the kingdom of God.

But other writers, beginning with Homer and continuing to the present day, have noted the strong elements of intimacy and eroticism within the relationship.  David’s love for Jonathan is described as “wonderful, passing the love of women.”  Saul also reprimands Jonathan at the dinner table, accusing him that “thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness.”  Martti Nissinen concludes that this “choosing (bahar) may indicate a permanent choice and firm relationship, and the mention of “nakedness” (erwa) could be interpreted to convey a negative sexual nuance, giving the impression that Saul saw something indecent in Jonathan’s and David’s relationship.  Some also interpret this as Saul’s caution that choosing David as a lover meant that Jonathan could not produce an heir to the throne. There is also an exchange pointing to 1 Samuel 18:21. Here Saul tells David that when he marries Michal he will become his son-in-law for the second time.  There is reason to suppose the union of Jonathan and David represents the first.

What does it mean that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David?

In trying to interpret the story of these two Biblical figures, I am greatly influenced by my reading of Michael Quinn’s Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans.  In this book, Quinn describes a nineteenth-century Mormon culture far more hospitable to and tolerant of same-sex relationships than that of modern Mormonism, which he regards as “homophobic.”  He gives several examples of long-term relationships among Mormon couples he believes were homosexual.  But in doing so, he also admits of a world and an era where emotional intimacy and physical closeness of same-sex friends did NOT involve homoeroticism.  He gives examples of letters written in the nineteenth century between platonic friends which contained emotional intensity and passionate references.  Same-sex friends held hands, kissed each other on the lips, and sometimes slept in the same bed for years at a time. These things are more aptly described as “homosociality.”   Reading about this phenomenon gave me an insight into the world view of previous ages that I had not understood before reading the book.

At times when I read the story of David and Jonathan through my twenty-first-century lens, I have wondered if these men were not physically intimate.  The words and images used to describe their relationship are passionate, ardent, concupiscent.  But reading about some of the homosocial behaviors Quinn describes has convinced me that David and Jonathan were not gay.  I agree with Quinn that too many Americans find homosociality frightening. Some of my returned-missionary friends have spoken with embarrassment of the strong male bonding they experienced on their missions.  They recall vivid episodes involving platonic intimacy — walking arm-in-arm, embracing, and other emotional and physical affection.  We are suspicious and uncomfortable with these things in our modern paradigm.  But homosociality can be an enlightening concept to consider.  I’m glad this relationship is included among all of the other unusual associations described in the Old Testament!

BONUS: The woodcut of Jonathan and David pictured below may be astonishingly evocative, both to LDS members endowed before 1990 and to those familiar with Masonic ritual.

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2010/06/17/homosociality-and-the-friendship-between-david-and-jonathan/feed/ 22 http://mormonmatters.org/2010/04/28/what-the-golden-rule-does-not-say-or-jesus-wouldnt-recognize-that-rationalization/ http://mormonmatters.org/2010/04/28/what-the-golden-rule-does-not-say-or-jesus-wouldnt-recognize-that-rationalization/#comments Thu, 29 Apr 2010 00:35:28 +0000 Ray http://mormonmatters.org/?p=10839 One of my monthly New Year’s Resolutions last year was taken from Matthew 7:9-12, a slight change in my original plan. (See here.) These verses state:

Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

The wording of my resolution was:

“Treat others how I want to be treated.”

I want to make one point here about something I have heard over the years. It is something that has bothered me over time, and I want to state up front what I believe this verse does NOT say – what I believe is a classic case of “wresting” scriptures and creating meaning that never was intended.

I have heard it said of old (*grin*) that we should treat others in whatever way will help them best. After all, this reasoning goes, deep down they really want whatever is best – so if we know what is best for someone, we should do all we can to help them see, recognize, understand and accept that which is best for them. This argument asserts that it’s better to treat someone how they “really” want to be treated (often subconsciously) than to treat them how they “think” they want to be treated – that I, as an enlightened individual, know what is best for them and, therefore, I, as an enlightened individual, should treat them as if they were in my shoes.

To try to say it differently, this approach to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is based on you placing yourself in their situation and transferring your own hopes and dreams and expectations on them. While this might sound reasonable and even praiseworthy at first glance, there are at least three problems with this approach that I can see immediately:

1) It is used often as a justification for aggressive action, pressure and even compulsion. At the most extreme, it allowed those in charge of the Inquisition to torture people into confessing non-existent sins – since those doing the torturing were convinced they only were doing what was best for the person being tortured by “cleansing” them of sin and freeing them for a more benevolent judgment in the afterlife. At a more common level, it is used to justify constant and inconsiderate preaching and attempts to convert others – unfortunately, even among our own membership. Again, the reasoning is, “If I didn’t have the Gospel in my life, I would want someone to preach it to me even if I didn’t want to hear it.”

2) It totally ignores and discounts the actual desires of the other person – and illustrates an arrogance that is couched in terms of love but, literally, is judgmental and condescending. In essence, it says, “I know better than you what you need, and I’m never going to quit trying to make you see that, no matter what you want.”

3) It simply isn’t what is commanded in these verses – to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I want to finish with that last point, and I want to do so by placing each reader in the shoes of an active member of the LDS Church – and focusing on the reaction of nearly every LDS member who has a friend, family member, acquaintance or stranger who disagrees with Mormonism, has left the LDS Church, believes Mormons are not Christian and/or is saddened at the thought of Mormons ending up in Hell. If that person really is sincere in his concern, and if she really thought that constant badgering might convince you of the error of your ways, would you appreciate her preaching at you every time you were together? Would you appreciate her non-attendance at your wedding reception, since she believes your sealing in the temple is a sham and not recognized by God? Would you appreciate her constant, subtle (or blatant) warnings about your eternal condemnation? Deep down, on a very practical level, what would you really, truly want from her – how would you want her to “do unto you”?

I submit that all of us, at the most basic level, want little more than acceptance and respect and love for who we actually are – recognition that we are capable of making our own decisions – friendship that is genuine and not tied to certain conditions – etc. In other words, we want to be treated as equals – as important – as valuable – as legitimate deciders of our own fate, and we want that for who we ARE, not for who others want us to be.

So, the next time you start to say something to someone else, ask yourself, “How would I respond if someone said that, in that way, to me?” The next time you start to write a blog comment, ask yourself, “How would I respond if someone wrote that, in that way, to me?”. The next time you start to react to someone in any way, ask yourself, “How would I respond if someone reacted that way to me?” In summary, ask yourself:

How would I feel if someone “did that unto me”?

If you would thank God for that person’s words or actions, in the actual circumstances of your real life, “do so unto others”. If you would not thank God (or if you would need to pray for forgiveness) for your reaction to that person’s words or actions, don’t “do so unto others”. Finally, if you really would understand this principle, take one entire day and analyze everything according to this standard:

How would I feel if someone “did that unto me”?

If we really focused on that question, I have no doubt we would stop doing and saying much of what we do and say – and start doing and saying many things we currently do not say and do.

That was my resulotion that month – to treat others more as I actually want them to treat me.

Thoughts?  What am I missing that would support or weaken this interpretation of the Golden Rule?

“Delegation Takes No Action on Human Sexuality Issues: Church Will Continue Dialogue.”

Headline  by John Hamer on BCC on Thursday, April 15, 2010:

“Gay Rights Revelation Added to The Community of Christ D&C”

———-

The two headlines above generally cover the spectrum of opinion about what happened at the Community of Christ World Conference as it completed the process of canonization of a new Section 164 for its D&C. The spectrum of opinions about whether what happened was a good thing or bad thing, of course, runs even more broadly. Indeed, I’m not at all certain that we’ll even be able to see how intense the various “colors” of that spectrum will prove until information about the conference filters down to the bulk of the North American church that maintains no real connection to the World Church in the “Blogitorium”. As in many churches on the Christian left in North America, that membership tends to be somewhat more traditionalist than its leadership.

Nevertheless, I’ll give my view as someone from one part of the peanut gallery, focusing on what was in each portion of Section 164 and the effects of associated legislation passed to begin implementation. A future post will provide a similar analysis on legislation considered by the Conference not specifically addressed by Section 164 and suggest something about the overall direction of the Community of Christ in the future.

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPHS 1-4

President Veazey describes the experiences of meditation, particularly on portions of Galatians 3:27-29, that led him to offer the Section. After commending the church for similarly seeking to discern the Spirit in a structured process that has been going on for well over a year, he makes explicit an understanding of the church and its sacraments which has been implicit in CofChrist theology for a number of years.

“…Instruction given previously about baptism was proper to ensure the rise and cohesiveness of the church during its early development and in following years. However, as a growing number have come to understand, the redemptive action of God in Christ—while uniquely and authoritatively expressed through the church—is not confined solely to the church. God’s grace, revealed in Jesus Christ, freely moves throughout creation, often beyond human perception, to achieve divine purposes in people’s lives.”

The Community of Christ is to see itself as “one true church”, not as the “one and only true church”. How serious is this theological intent was earlier signaled by something I haven’t seen commentators note elsewhere. The first sessions of Conference always feature certain speeches of welcome. One is usually a non-CofChrist speaker. This speaker is often a local Congressman or a Missouri Senator. The speech is strictly non-political even then, but the identity is interesting because trends over time seem to show the direction of the church leadership’s interest.

This year that slot went to the Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches. Kinnamon unabashedly spoke of the Community of Christ having unique gifts that should be seen as adding to bodies such as the NCC, rather than as a body going its own way. Ironically, contacts between the RLDS and the NCC were among the suspicions cited by fundamentalist opponents of the church circa 1970 as evidence of apostasy. Thus, such a speech 40 years ago might itself have been too controversial to occur.

Section 164 then lays out specific instruction (that will be followed quickly by formal administrative policy guidance to become effective by September 1, 2011). These policies will result in acceptance into membership into the Community of Christ upon confirmation by CofChrist priesthood – without requiring rebaptism if the original baptism: a) involved water;  b) was performed by an ordained Christian minister;  and c) as a personal expression of faith in Christ. In particular, we will not require someone to present proof of their baptism or the baptizing minister’s credentials, since that would be impossible in many places throughout the world. This clearly expands the notion of true priesthood authority beyond the boundaries of those called through the priesthood line passed to Joseph Smith.

The phrase “using water” also allows for baptisms done by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling, while upholding the church’s own standard practice of baptism by immersion at the age of accountability. There is also some additional specific guidance regarding the substance of the prayer of confirmation (Baptism of the Spirit) that is now the means by which one moves from being part of the Body of Christ into membership within the denomination. And preparation for confirmation will now be a formal requirement for the ordinance to occur.

Paragraph 3 contains a call for all members to serious consider and live the meaning of their baptismal covenants (water and Spirit). Paragraph 4 ties this call to consideration of the role the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper should play in renewing, witnessing, and amplifying our covenant. (Portions of the preamble specifically warn us to NOT make the meaning of the covenants atrophy even as we broaden the procedures, because of the concern that in some places this has happened with open communion).

This portion of the Section makes the Community of Christ look very Protestant – if you can call becoming more Protestant through modern revelation a Protestant concept in the first place.

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPHS 5-7

These are the paragraphs whose approval generated the widely divergent headlines above. Their actual content is to call attention to “serious questions about moral behavior and relationships” – but to prioritize those questions not simply as they are listed within the dominant culture of the denomination.

“These issues are complex and difficult to understand outside their particular settings because of strikingly different cultural histories, customs, and understandings of scripture. For example, the issues include female submission, female genital mutilation, child brides, forced marriages, and sexual permissiveness. They include cleansing and exploitation of widows, harsh conflicts over same-gender attraction and relationships, and varying legal, religious, and social definitions of marriage, to name just a few.”

More importantly, the Section calls us to see the solutions for these moral dilemmas as arising from an understanding of Christianity as a community that transcends definitions by economic status, social class, sex, gender, or ethnicity. They simply are no longer primary. Relationships are to be rooted in the principles of Christ-like love, mutual respect, responsibility, justice, covenant, and faithfulness, against which there is no law.

Section 164 then extrapolates that these principles require that the church move the resolution of moral issues to the church in the cultures most affected by them rather than let the dominant North American church decide for the rest of the world. Field Apostles, under the guidance of the Presidency, are authorized to call and set the agenda for field, national, or (non-geographical) cultural groups to deal with issues such as those listed above as they feel directed.

Uncertainty about the nature and timing of these conferences is generating the widely divergent headlines about gay rights. First, everyone in the Community of Christ seems to understand that the leadership feels that it must not expose our leaders and members in cultures where discussion of gay issues is taboo. If so, they can hardly move toward expanded gay rights in the United States unless they can find a way to maintain what the government would call “plausible deniability”.

Second, there is a large body of conservative members in the US church (and non-members in society) whose reaction must be anticipated and allowed for. The LDS experience with Prop 8 shows what happens when the church in the US takes any position on controversial issues in the political arena. Many feel the church has moved too hesitantly and will continue to do so; others are likely to feel the church is moving in the wrong direction entirely.

Finally, there are logistical questions. It seems unlikely that the US church has the resources to assemble a national conference on gay rights issues before the spring of 2012 at the earliest. It will take until September, 2011, simply to implement the new conditions for membership.

The greatest sign of movement toward gay rights comes from something in administrative minutia. It is normal for the church to realign Apostolic Fields following a World Conference (our Apostles retire, so there are usually changes in the Twelve). This time a gerrymandered field has been carved out for Apostle Susan Skoor that stretches from Southern Australia to Eastern Canada – and just happens to cover all of the non-US jurisdictions that proposed World Conference legislation expanding full priesthood and sacramental rites for gays. The extension of rights in that Field or in nations within that Field might be granted while maintaining sufficient distance from the World Church (and prying media) to protect the church in cultures hostile to gay rights.

Expansion to the US is much more difficult to do while maintaining any credibility to foreign governments and religious bodies that “this is just local jurisdictions acting on their own.”

Perhaps more significantly in the long run than the particular moral issues – at least from the perspective of this Washington spectator – is the change these paragraphs make in the legislative rights of mission centers to set the agenda for the church. The Presidency immediately ruled 21 legislative proposals that had been painstakingly brought to the conference as out of order because they reflect National or Regional concerns. These rulings were entirely appropriate under Section 164 guidance.

However, the Conference later passed implementing legislation for the field and national conferences that make them “special conferences”. Such conferences operate under different parliamentary rules than World Conference. In particular,  Mission Centers lack the right to place items on the agenda of special conferences; that agenda is set only by the Apostle who calls the conference with the approval of the Presidency. In short, this revelation makes the Community of Christ less democratic and more theocratic than it was a year ago.

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPH 8

Paragraph 8, by contrast, shows the flexibility and speed with which the Community of Christ can move on organizational issues when it wishes to do so. The Twelve and the Presidents of the Seven Quorums of Seventy have been meeting for several years in response to the immediately previous revelation (Section 163) to consider organizational changes to increase evangelistic effectiveness. Paragraph 8 is taken as authorization to make these changes.

Within 24 hours of Section 164 approval, the number of Quorums of Seventy was increased from seven to ten, the additional Quorum Presidents were named, and they were approved by the Conference and set apart to that calling. Jack Bauer couldn’t have moved faster. Clearly, the outcome of these discussions among the leading quorums was well prepared in advance, while they are still feeling their way around the notion of how and when national conferences will function.

Reorganization of the Twelve, while not fundamental, essentially separates the world into 10 Fields for the moment, each led by an Apostle, with the remaining two Apostles focusing on Headquarters-oriented tasks. For the first time, a single Quorum of Seventy will be aligned with the geographic or other missionary focus of a Field Apostle.

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPH 9

The final paragraph of the document is a benediction of sorts, and a challenge that the rise of Zion is no farther away than the willingness of all of us – all the “beloved children of the Restoration” – to overcome our insecurities and embrace a Christ-like life.

“The mission of Jesus Christ is what matters most to the journet ahead.”

CofChrist Prophet: Baptism in Christ Transcends Culture

“5 It is imperative to understand that when you are truly baptized into Christ you become part of a new creation. By taking on the life and mind of Christ, you increasingly view yourselves and others from a changed perspective. Former ways of defining people by economic status, social class, sex, gender, or ethnicity no longer are primary. Through the gospel of Christ a new community of tolerance, reconciliation, unity in diversity, and love is being born as a visible sign of the coming reign of God.”

With these words, the Prophet/President of the Community of Christ delivered to the church for its consideration as divine counsel on January 17 a document that changes the relationship between its sacraments and its people. Copies of the documents are already posted at http://www.CofChrist.org.

Most stunning to readers on the bloggernacle, the document places resolution of pressing issues of marriage, sexual identity and roles, among others, into the hands of field or national jurisdictions to resolve within the context of their own cultures and secular laws. This appears to mean that the Community of Christ will no longer have a world-wide policy toward these cultural institutions, although what local policies will come into place is left undefined. Thus, jurisdictions in which gay marriage is permitted by the culture may be able to move forward with this practice as a sacrament of the church as well, and the church may continue to forbid discussion of the issue in nations where such discussion is taboo.

In addition, persons baptized by water within other denominations who are led by the Spirit to the Community of Christ are now to be accepted without rebaptism into membership upon confirmation following a period of study.

The headlines will probably not be the most important part of the document in the long run. Take a look at it and see what you think.

As some of you may know, the Community of Christ (formerly known as RLDS), canonizes revelations in their edition of the Doctrine and Covenants much more frequently than the LDS church does.  There is an upcoming World Conference (similar to General Conference) coming up in April, where they will discuss canonizing a new revelation.  I asked FireTag to write a series of guest posts discussing this process, and he has graciously agreed to do so.  Without further ado, here is his tourist guide to canonizing modern revelation:

Living prophets who add to the canon of scripture are a distinctive marker of the Mormon movement. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the most recent such formal canonization was Official Declaration 2, added in 1978. The Proclamation on the Family could conceivably be submitted “for common consent” at some future date, the last step in its addition to the Doctrine and Covenants.

The next largest Restoration Movement body, Community of Christ, has added to its version of the Doctrine and Covenants far more frequently. Eleven new D&C Sections (153-163 in CofChrist numbering) have been added since 1978 under three prophet/presidents, and a proposed Section 164 is expected to be announced to the church by webcast on January 17, 2010 for consideration at the CofChrist’s April 2010 World Conference. Since World Conferences during the period have been held only seventeen times (counting 2010), adoption of new scripture is almost a “normal” World Conference activity.

The document is expected to deal primarily with two topics: (1) conditions of membership, as applied to converts from other Christian faiths; and, (2) with the rights to participate in and administer sacraments and ordinances of the church, including ordination and marriage, for those in non-heterosexual monogamous relationships where civil law allows.

Because the latter issues involved in the 2010 document will be very recognizable points of discussion in the bloggernacle, this post is offered as background for those Mormons who want to watch the process unfold. A later post nearer the time of the conference will focus more on events during the conference itself.

The CofChrist holds week-long Conferences that are far more legislation-oriented than are LDS conferences. Most of The Apostles or First Presidency are given no time to address the conference, for example, since only Sunday mornings and evenings are set aside for worship. Mornings and afternoons are devoted to consideration of legislation, whether in full conference, or in various quorums, committees, or delegate caucuses. Consideration of a revelation takes priority over all other matters.

In recent years, our Prophets have become increasingly uncomfortable with “springing” revelations on the people at the beginning of Conference for, literally, overnight consideration and adoption as had been the practice in earlier decades. It now seems to be standard practice for the Presidency to initiate a formal “discernment process” shortly after a Conference to call the church to participate in prayerfully considering the issues which will be the subject of action (and prospective revelation) at the following Conference 3 years later. Often, these are the very same issues which were referred back to the First Presidency for further study or direction (often through a standing or special committee that the Presidency creates) by the previous Conference. Of course, the Apostles, the Presiding Bishopric (chief financial officers, not pastors, in the CofChrist), the Presidencies of the various quorums, and others are closely involved in these considerations behind the scenes.

As a result of these practices, the general membership of the church has acquired some expanded opportunities to influence the theological and policy issues that the leading quorums of the church will seek to address during the periods between conferences. This power is not as explicit as in earlier times when the Prophet was directed to “inquire of the Lord”, and the Prophet has his own impresses regardless of what the Conference says, but there is definitely a notion that “common consent” is involved both in framing which questions the Prophet asks and in accepting the answers the Prophet receives as inspired.

Both of the major expected topics of proposed Section 164 are the result of pressures by significant portions of the membership to address issues of personal importance to them. The CofChrist draws a much smaller proportion of its active membership from North America and Europe than does the LDS church. In fact, conventional wisdom in the CofChrist holds that North American membership will soon be a minority in the church, if it is not already. As a result, views of the membership in places like Africa, India, and Haiti have major and growing influence on the church’s agenda.

These nations are less individualistic than Americans. They often have experienced great tension between teachings of Christianity and other great world religions accepted by their families and friends, and they are less likely to see differences among Christian denominations that loom large in American discussions as important. They often participate in the CofChrist while knowing or caring little about such things as the Book of Mormon or the early history of the Restoration movement. As a result, many of them deeply question the need for rebaptism, which seems to imply a rejection of the sacrifices they made to become Christian in the first place, as well as of the Christian families and communities around them.

The second largest demographic bloc in the church consists of relatively aged, relatively conservative members still very committed to the uniqueness of the Restoration and uncomfortable with any suggestion that their sacrifices would have been just as meaningful in another denomination.

Consequently, following the 2007 Conference, the First Presidency was left with an “action item” to address the issue of the “conditions of membership”, and has been directing a formal discernment process intended to lead to the January 17 guidance to the church. This issue is considered sufficiently divisive that the leading quorums had clearly indicated a desire not to deal with other divisive matters until the church has proven it can work through the issue. The schism that resulted in the church in the 1980’s over extension of priesthood to women has clearly instilled caution in the church leadership.

However, there is another divisive issue, the roles which gays living in monogamous relationships are to have in the church, which a third important demographic bloc, progressives in the Western nations, has forced onto the agenda despite the wishes of the leadership to defer consideration. Field jurisdictions which are roughly equivalent to LDS stakes (though they sometimes extend over several countries) have rights to pass legislation at their own conferences which then come to the floor of the World Conference for action. Ten such “mission centers” in the United States, Canada, and Australia passed overlapping resolutions which ask the church to change policies in various ways toward allowing gays to marry where civil authority permits, allowing our priesthood to perform such marriages as sacraments of the church, and/or to remove such relationships as barriers to holding priesthood. In response, four mission centers, in the southern US, Central America, and Africa passed proposed legislation that would reaffirm (either permanently or until further study) current policy. All proposed legislation is available for  reading here.

The significance of bringing these resolutions up at all should be understood. Their existence eclipses the Leading Quorums’ agenda for 2010 in a way that has not happened in perhaps 80 years, when the quorums were divided among themselves on the direction of the church.

The Presidency has been publicly studying these gay-rights issues without resolution since 1992. While Americans tend to view the issue through the lens of domestic politics, there is a major international church component in the CofChrist consideration. It took special deliberations among the 12 and Presidency to even publicly announce that the specific legislative proposals for 2010 existed, because of fears that members in some third world nations would be subject to physical persecution because discussion of homosexuality was culturally taboo.

It is these potentially divisive issues which form the background for proposed Section 164. The proposed revelatory document should be published on the Community of Christ website within 24 hours of President Veazey’s address to the church on January 17, and a link will be added to the comments of this post as soon as the document appears.

Do you have any comments or questions?

Now the FBI says this could be the result of better reporting, and not really an increase.

Brian Levin, director for the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University-San Bernardino, warned that the national numbers may be misleading because some states — like California, New Jersey, and Ohio — are good at reporting hate crimes while others — Georgia, Hawaii, Mississippi and Pennsylvania — are not.”The quality of the data is so variable and in some instances so bad that it makes trend analysis extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible,” said Levin. “Generally, states that have effective data collection also have effective training and procedures to address these crimes.”

For the sake of argument, let’s assume these numbers are true.  Are the gays and the religious attacking each other?  How do you explain this?

General Conference must be coming this weekend.

Twice a year, I can’t help formulating hopes and expectations, or making predictions about what we might hear in the next General Conference. There are a few things that are givens. We can expect to hear spiritual messages that transcend the issues discussed most often on LDS blogs. We can expect to hear speakers relate sincere, heart-felt experiences that bring comfort to those who are struggling with loneliness, loss, sickness, guilt, or feelings of inadequacy. Those are messages I know I can expect to hear every conference.  But the anticipation that slowly builds in my mind over the couple weeks before Conference is whether we will hear anything about the issues typically discussed in the Bloggernacle by those for whom the Church is more than a religion or a lifestyle, and who make a hobby out of studying Mormonism from an academic standpoint.

Major changes in the Church have been announced at General Conferences in the past, and when the Ninth Article of Faith tells us that God “will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God,” I can’t help wondering whether any of those “great and important things” will come out this Conference.

I invite you to express your own hopes, expectations, and predictions for this coming General Conference in the comment section below. But before doing so, I’d like to share with you a few of mine.

1. Consensus and Clarity About the Nature of Revelation

I have come to believe we are a bit schizophrenic in the Church when it comes to defining and explaining what “revelation” is, particularly as it applies to revelations received by the Prophets and Apostles.  Some Church leaders and members seem to view revelation as a process whereby God transmits his exact thoughts and words directly to the Prophet, who then passes them on to us without any human interference or input, such that revelations handed down by the Prophets are completely free from any human considerations (e.g. economic, political) in their origin, and completely free from any human error in the Prophet’s perception and interpretation of what he believes God told him.  Some LDS apologists have referred to this version of revelation as reflecting a “fundamentalist” mindset, so for the sake of ease I’ll refer to this as the “Fundamentalist Version” of revelation.  The Fundamentalist Version of revelation is usually presented when Church leaders are trying to create unity and motivate members to rally around a particular program or policy and carry it out without question or challenge. The Fundamentalist Version creates compliance and squashes dissent because if we view revelation as a pure transmission of God’s will devoid of any human imperfections, then members will feel no room to question or refuse to comply, and Church leaders will feel divinely justified in reprimanding and punishing those who do.  A few examples of scriptures or quotes used to support the Fundamentalist Version of revelation are: “whether it be from my mouth or the mouth of my servants, it is the same” or “the Prophet will never lead us astray.”  And when something the Prophet says or does seems not to make sense, the scripture “[God's] ways are higher than [man's] ways” is often invoked, the implication being that if what the Prophet says or does doesn’t make sense, it must be because it is one of those “higher” divine truths, rather than because the Prophet has made a human error.  The Fundamentalist Version of revelation seems simple, clear, and provides a feeling of comfort and safety to people looking for a reliable guide to help them navigate through the perils and uncertainties of the world.  But this Fundamentalist Version of revelation also has a significant downside: it creates an image of Prophets as being men who do not err in their revelations, so when people encounter evidence that seems to overwhelmingly demonstrate that Prophets past and present have erred, this Fundamentalist Version of revelation provides no framework to reconcile those obvious human errors with the belief that so-and-so was a genuine Prophet of God.  In other words, the Fundamentalist Version of revelation creates the expectation that Prophets and their revelations are infallible, because despite the occasional acknowledgements of prophetic fallibility in theory, telling people that whatever the Prophet says is what God says creates an illusion of prophetic infallibility in practice.  As a result, when Church members who embrace the Fundamentalist Version of revelation encounter convincing proof of human error in the statements or actions of Prophets (and if the Internet provides us an accurate glimpse, there are many such people) they become disillusioned and stop believing in the concept of revelation altogether.

However, there is another version of revelation within the Church, one which has long existed alongside this Fundamentalist Version in our scripture and in Church leaders’ statements.  And because it has become so popular with LDS Apologists, we could call it the Apologist Version of revelation.  In the Apologist Version, revelation is understood to be a collaborative process between a perfect, omniscient God and imperfect men with limited understanding who “see through a glass, darkly.” In the Apologist Version, we understand that revelation is a transmission of divine knowledge oftentimes received as somewhat vague “impressions” that can be misperceived and misinterpreted by fallible men who have cultural biases, human passions, political and economic considerations, and pride.  As a result, we hope and expect that revelations will usually reflect God’s will on at least a general level, but we recognize that sometimes those revelations will err in their specifics, or (hopefully rarely) be wrong altogether.  This version of revelation is usually presented in the context of apologetics when responding to uncomfortable evidence that seems to conclusively demonstrate that the statements or policies of past or present Prophets and Apostles have been in error.  Thus, the Apologist Version of revelation is often used to persuade someone that he should not lose his testimony of Joseph Smith as a Prophet because it allows someone like Joseph Smith to inadvertently mix human errors into his revelations and still be a Prophet. In support of this version of revelation, apologists cite the acknowledgments in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants that God’s servants “err” in ways that are eventually “made known” but that their revelations should be heeded nonetheless.  Or we find the Apologist Version of revelation in Joseph Smith’s famous quotes that “some revelations are from God, some are from man, and some are from the devil” or that “a prophet is only a prophet when he speaks as a prophet.” The overall idea presented in this version of revelation is that it sometimes contains human errors, and therefore we ought to expect to find such errors without losing our testimony of Church leaders’ prophetic callings when we do.  Of course, the drawback of the Apologist Version of revelation from the perspective a Church leader is that it causes some Church members to feel free to doubt, question, challenge, or refuse to comply with the Prophet’s purported revelations on the grounds that they reflect the will of man rather than the will of God.  And such doubting and dissent is a hindrance to administrative effectiveness in any organization.

Because I see these two different versions of revelation existing within the Church, anytime the subject of revelation comes up in a talk, either directly or indirectly, my ears always perk up and I listen closely to which version is being presented: the Fundamentalist Version or the Apologist Version.  Overall, it’s my feeling that the Fundamentalist Version of revelation is most often presented in sermons and lessons by both Church leaders and members, with a sprinkling of the Apologist Version from time to time, such as when uncomfortable situations arise where it become necessary to acknowledge prophetic error in attempt to save someone from losing his testimony altogether.  However, I think anyone who has been paying attention to FARMS, FAIR, and the Church’s media and public affairs departments have good cause to believe that the Apologist Version of revelation is becoming more popular and is being invoked more frequently, perhaps in an effort to stem the flow of folks losing their testimonies over troublesome episodes in Church history that seem to reflect human error in Church leadership.  So with the Church’s media and public affairs folks quoting apologists with seemingly increasing frequency, I am constantly curious to see whether and when the Apologist Version of revelation will become the dominant version of revelation presented by Church leaders at General Conference.

Very briefly, four more issues I’m always wondering whether will be addressed:

2. A clearly-worded, official repudiation of the statements made by past Church leaders to support the pre-1978 priesthood ban for African Americans. The policy changed in 1978, but there was never an accompanying clear, official renunciation of the many statements that past Church leaders had made to support it.  Many of those statements are still sitting on Church members’ bookshelves at home.  And when people ask the understandable question of why the ban was ever instituted in the first place, those old statements, some of which are extremely hurtful, are sometimes trotted out by misguided members.  We know a committee was formed to draft such a statement several years ago, and there were high hopes such a statement would be presented at the 20-year and 30-year anniversaries of the rescission of that ban, but it didn’t come. Will it come this Conference?

3. Will we receive messages aimed at preparing Church members to continue to generously donate their time and money to support legislation to prevent Same-Sex Marriage? Or will the negative backlash from some quarters regarding the Church’s heavy involvement in Prop. 8 result in a more moderate approach that simply “encourages” members to do so, but this time without creating a mechanism of administrative enforcement for that “encouragement”? I have heard anecdotal stories about General Authorities saying that Prop. 8 was nothing compared to what the Church will be doing in the future, so we shall see what comes out about that topic in Conference.

4. Clarification about what the “central” components of the Restored Gospel are. Recently, a notable LDS apologist who specializes in Egyptology and the Book of Abraham, Dr. John Gee, gave a talk in which he provided a list of what was “central” to the Restored Gospel.  His list included the Book of Mormon, but excluded the book of scripture that he has researched and defended for so long: the Book of Abraham.  Dr. Gee’s speech prompted discussion about the criteria for determining what the “central” components of the Restored Gospel are, and also fueled speculation about whether Dr. Gee’s exclusion of the Book of Abraham reflected a lack of scholarly confidence in Joseph Smith’s claims about that book of scripture in attempt to establish a “fall back position” where the Church can argue that academic challenges to the Book of Abraham should not undermine anyone’s testimony of Joseph Smith’s status as a Prophet on the theory that the book is “not central to the Restored Gospel.”  Was Dr. Gee’s statement a prelude to a change in the way the Church views, teaches, and uses the Book of Abraham? My guess is probably not; the Church seldom seems to move that quickly. But the Church’s relatively recent revision of the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, which was preceded by an emerging consensus among LDS scholars that the Book of Mormon action took place within a limited geography rather than upon the entire American Continent, demonstrates that these types of issues are receiving the attention of the General Authorities, and that the General Authorities are willing to adjust the Church’s claims about its books of scripture.  So perhaps something is in the works on this issue.

5.  Warnings, admonishments, and clarifications about what the General Authorities view as being appropriate and inappropriate online discussion of LDS doctrine and history. Elder Ballard’s recent encouragement to become involved in online discussions about the Church seems to have enlarged the pool of Mormons participating in the Bloggernacle and other online discussion fora.  However, it seems only a matter of time that Church leaders will recognize that Church members’ increased involvement in online discussions about Church history and doctrine will only increase the likelihood that they will come into contact with uncomfortable information that they otherwise would not have encountered.  Around 20 years ago, Elder Oaks delivered an address in which he warned Church members about participating in symposia and becoming involved with “alternate voices.”  But Elder Ballard’s encouragement to become involved in the world of online discussions seems to have departed from that approach, or to have at least created ambiguity about the degree to which faithful Church members should be involving themselves in online discussions and debates, even with the intent to defend the Church.  Will the General Authorities issue any warnings or admonishments about the “proper” way to discuss Church topics online, or the “proper” online fora to visit?  If so, it seems Elder Ballard would be the most likely Apostle to deliver that message.

Overall, I should say my expectations are not high that issue #2 will receive any mention in Conference.  While I do believe it is possible, it seems the Church prefers to make such statements more quietly in between Conferences, rather than making any sort of dramatic public announcement that will attract attention to an uncomfortable topic.  But I do think it’s very possible we will hear messages addressing issues #3 , #4, and #5.

So, what are your hopes, expectations, or predictions for this coming General Conference?

Posing the Questions on a Personal Level

Since these two bloggers did such a nice job, I will not attempt to address his remarks directly. Rather, I am interested in discussing the address from a personal standpoint. Particularly, I’m interested in how I, jmb275, can understand and deal with his remarks since I clearly do not agree with him.

Let me be very clear here, I do not agree with Elder Hafen’s remarks, and I recognize the poor research, logical fallacies, and dogmatic approach to this issue. I understand that it seems to be a step backwards for the church, and I recognize it is not in harmony with some other messages being sent from the church on this issue (see here, here, or here). I also recognize that Elder Hafen was very bold, possibly to the point of establishing new doctrine (resurrection is, definitively, a mechanism which removes homosexual feelings?). However, none of this is what I want to deal with. What is done, is done, and his remarks have been analyzed. I’m interested in answering the following questions:

1. Is this the last straw? Should I simply leave the church?
2. If not, do I have to agree with Elder Hafen to be a member in good standing?
3. How can I categorize, or otherwise deal with Elder Hafen’s remarks?
4. What is my relationship with the church, and does my membership imply my consent for, or agreement with what has been said?

Answering the Questions For ME

• Answering #1. I am not in the business of trying to convince people to stay in the church, or to leave the church. I see great arguments on both sides. However, I have made my choice to stay, and find spiritual nourishment in my choice. There’s simply enough good, to me, in the church, and I am sufficiently attached to it psychologically, and physically (through family) to convince me to remain. If your choice is to leave, then we’re done here and you can move along. Since I choose to remain we will move on to answering the other questions (and since it wouldn’t be a very interesting blog post if I didn’t).
• Answering #2. I think there will be many who would answer “yes” to this question. I believe this is a product of our Mormon culture. Indeed, from my reading of Joseph Smith’s life, I think the very idea would strike against what Joseph said and did! The good news is that despite what many might think, there is nothing in any doctrine of which I am aware that says disagreement with one of the Brethren puts my membership in jeopardy. Certainly I can “sustain” the Brethren, and recognize their authority in the church without agreeing with everything they say!
• Answering #3. It would seem like there are some relatively straightforward answers to this question.
  • Elder Hafen is a man, so we could conclude that his remarks are “the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.” After all, I have chalked up lots of things said by prophets to this idea. There certainly is truth in this analysis since each of us “see[s] through a glass, darkly”(1 Cor 13:12).
  • Elder Hafen is not the prophet, nor does he speak for the prophet (at least he didn’t indicate that we was). Hence, we can conclude that this does not represent the position of the church collectively, and may not be God’s will.
  • Elder Hafen is using apologetics, coupled with suspect research, all as a dogmatist to draw invalid conclusions. Indeed, rather than examining the evidence and drawing conclusions (the scientific method), the dogmatist already knows the “truth” (has drawn the conclusions) and must interpret the evidence accordingly.

  These are all valid points, and possible answers. But notice that they focus on characterizing Elder Hafen himself, or his remarks. I am interested in something more. How can I understand his remarks, disagree with them, but still respect him and his position?

  For this, I feel I must turn to an attempt to understand Elder Hafen in a Christlike way. Are his intentions good? Does he believe that what he’s doing is right? Does he really seek to hurt people, or does he seek to help them overcome what he believes is a temptation to be conquered? In other words, rather than dismissing his words and analyzing their negative effect on people, I am seeking understanding as to what leads him to make such remarks in the first place. After all, most of us do what we think is best, not intentionally trying to hurt each other, although that effort may be misguided!

  What does this approach buy me? Empathy, and understanding! Not agreement, and not consent, but understanding. It seeks nuance when the tendency is to be dismissive (black), or accepting (white). It gives me the tools I need to avoid letting anger dictate my actions. And, ultimately, at the end of the day, I personally believe that this kind of understanding helps me to transcend my natural inclinations, and use a higher model of human interaction.

• Answering #4. Answering #4 is an important key, for me, in understanding my relationship with any of the organizations to which I belong – church, work, country, school, etc. For me, it is a balancing act. I must sufficiently care for the organization (since I receive benefit from it) to desire to stay a part of it, and desire that it remain intact. But in contrast, I must be sufficiently divorced from the organization in order to avoid the personal pitfalls that come with being a part of it (groupthink, mind control, defending the indefensible, etc.).How do I directly apply this balancing act to the church? I have separated my spiritual growth from the organization! Currently, I find the church a useful mechanism for me to serve, pray, introspect, and otherwise grow spiritually. Arguably, some of this may be attached to being raised LDS. That’s irrelevant to me, as the important point is that I grow spiritually in this particular environment. It also means I can look at Elder Hafen’s remarks and not feel inclined to defend that with which I do not agree. In contrast to the response to #3, this balancing act does allow me the ability to dismiss his remarks (should I feel so inclined).

  Certainly this can be taken to the extreme, and if the church started sanctioning secret assassinations I would be the first one out the door. But I don’t see this type of evil in the LDS church (contrary to what some critics may infer). I love this church, and want it to succeed. But I maintain sufficient distance that I need not accept every piece of doctrine or opinion.

I appreciate what has been said regarding Elder Hafen’s speech by others in the bloggernacle. I make no excuse for the backward step his words seem to imply. However, I do wish to transcend his remarks and take them in stride. These words from Denise Turner in the Ensign a few years back seem particularly appropriate:

Regrettably, there are times when others’ motives are not entirely innocent. This may particularly cause pain and confusion when the offender’s actions seem to contradict the religion he or she espouses; yet even in these difficult situations we are not justified in nursing our anger or turning away from the Church. President Stephen L Richards, First Counselor to President David O. McKay, said, “Does one offense wipe out another? Does weakness in one, even one who has been given a testimony of the truth, justify transgression of the law or failure to listen to its precepts?” (“Encouragement for Repenters,” Improvement Era, June 1956, 398). Our testimonies must be based on Jesus Christ, not on imperfect and fallible individuals. (Denise Turner, “If Any Man Offend Not”, Ensign, August 1998)

Whether your testimony is literal, metaphorical, or you are TBM, non-Mormon, or a middle-way advocate, I think we can learn to understand our fellows better, and while not agreeing with them, can still respect and honor them.

So how do you plan to deal with Elder Hafen’s remarks?

There is no such thing as being normal

If Kaimi were in dire straits, he would prefer to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s

Apparently, marriage is hard work

Gayby Boomers? Silly name, interesting phenomenon

An explanation for Utah bankruptcies

I don’t think PETA would approve of this

Aren’t you glad we have calculaors?

Even Orson Scott Card realizes that Mormonism is a culture

Another reason to have more kids – Placenta Helper

The Bible & Book of Mormon don’t teach of THIS Holy Ghost

New Dehli: New gay rights in a deeply conservative country

[poll id="10"]

[poll id="6"]

Please refrain from turning this into an argument about the nature or morality of homosexual activity or gay marriage.  This is a poll about a legal decision, and comments should be about the decision.

This post isn’t about marriage. It isn’t about sex.

It’s about love:  something that we all desire, crave, yearn, seek, and strive for. I have, and so have you.

Love comes in different forms: the kind that we have for a friend, a brother or sister, our parents, or for a fellow human being — which can develop into the very pinnacle of love; namely romantic love.

Romantic love is not sex. Neither does it necessarily involve or lead to marriage or sex. It’s that feeling of being captivated by another human being and caring for them, as well as expressing our emotions for them verbally or physically, often in a non-sexual manner such as holding hands, embracing, caressing, and innocent kissing: behaviour that is appropriate, according to LDS tradition, even between a couple that is not yet married. In other words, it’s not like loving your mom.

It’s not unheard of for people to live their entire lives and, if they never enter into marriage, never go beyond the non-sexual displays of affection that I just mentioned. Contrary to what some may think, most human beings are capable of living and functioning without sex, without suffering any “damage.” I’m not sure, however, that the same would be true for all who desire and yearn for romantic love, but are denied that opportunity. Can you imagine life without love? If you are not currently in a romantic relationship, you probably have it as a hope or are always on the lookout for an opportunity, even subconsciously. Right?

I’ve tried to think of an example of love that would be considered evil or immoral, unless it’s incestuous or between an adult and minor. When it comes to two consenting adults, I can’t really think of any examples of “immoral love” that aren’t somehow based on sex or deceit (such as an extramarital affair). A sexual relationship between two unmarried adults is immoral. Sex is, in this case, sinful. But is their love also a sin?

Look at the picture above. If the two people were of the same sex, how would you feel about it? Would you feel differently about it? Would you see their behaviour as immoral and something to be avoided? Why or why not?

This “compromise,” if you want to call it that, will not satisfy all. It will not satisfy those who demand no less than equal marriage status within the Church, heterosexual or homosexual, as well as Church-sanctioned homosexual relations; neither will it satisfy those who believe that two members of the same sex who even sit together like that couple in the picture are treading down a wicked path. The term “compromise” is, actually, misleading in my opinion, because the way I see it, the Church would not be compromising anything in regards to the doctrines or policies related to marriage, families, or the Law of Chastity. The only thing that would change would be that heterosexual and homosexual members of the Church would truly be held to the same standards of chastity and morality outside of marriage. That would mean that a couple, such as depicted in the photo, sitting on a bench on BYU campus or outside the Tabernacle, would face no disciplinary action for their innocent display of romantic affection — whether heterosexual or homosexual.

We know that we have a problem in the Church with homosexuals feeling alone, ostracized, without real purpose, and some even resorting to suicide.

Would acceptance of non-sexual same-sex relationships within the Church help to ease the burden of those who struggle and help them to remain in the Church?

What if gay members of the Church were truly held to the same standards of the Law of Chastity when it comes to expression of love and dating relationships?

What, if anything, would the Church be sacrificing or compromising on in order for gay members to be able to date openly in the same way as heterosexual couples without facing discipline?

Why is/isn’t this a good idea?

1) “We would have headed down this path. The pregnancy just accelerated things,” she said of the couple’s cohabitation, the birth of Sadie and their 2005 wedding. “It was the way it was meant to be.”

(Is this a statement of religious belief, or simply a description of fate?)

2) “Nearly 40 percent of babies born in the United States in 2007 were delivered by unwed mothers.”

(Did anyone realize it was this high?)

3) “While 28 percent of white women gave birth out of wedlock in 2007, nearly 72 percent of black women and more than 51 percent of Latinas did . . . With the publicity of our first family, marriage might slowly become more of a norm for all.

(That last sentence might be the most ironic statement in the entire article – that a liberal, Democrat who is a married President might encourage marriage as a “norm”.)

4) “There are 9.8 million single mothers versus 1.8 million single fathers.”

(So, is this really about women choosing, or is it about men not choosing?)

5) “When California Cryobank, which claims to be the world’s largest sperm bank, opened its doors in the late 1970s, 99 percent of its business catered to couples grappling with male infertility, spokesman Scott Brown said. Now, that market in the sperm donor world accounts for less than 14 percent, according to projections by Charles Sims, the organization’s co-founder and medical director.”

(The article mentions lesbians explicitly as one demographic that has contributed to the declining percentage, but it also takes most of its examples from professional, career women who never marry or are divorced with no children.)

6) “Many of these mothers choose to tap known or anonymous sperm donors as the biological clock begins to pound. Perhaps they are like Morrissette, who divorced in her early 30s, wasn’t in a hurry to jump into another relationship and decided to have kids on her own.”

(Iow, the woman really is fine without the man?)

I found this article fascinating, particularly in light of the statements by LDS apostles and prophets about the destruction of the traditional family.  I wonder how everyone here reacts as they read the article and the quotes I’ve excerpted.

So, what are your thoughts about the rising number of out-of-wedlock births – and the pending death of “illegitimacy” when it comes to marriage and childbirth?  Which quote above struck you as the most interesting – and did any of them concern you more than the others?

I suppose alliances are a necessary evil if you want to get anything done.  Companies do it.  Countries do it.  Even individual people do it.  What are the dangers of these “strange bedfellows”?

• Association.  Having our views misunderstood or misconstrued by outsiders or even by our own members.  For example, do some members begin to think that we have a different or stronger stance on issues because our associates do?  Also, when an “ally” does something really stupid (many have), does that taint us by association?
• Motivation.  While our alliances might coincide, often our motives are quite different below the surface from those of our allies.  When those motives differ, our actions are likely to differ as well as our desired outcomes.  Isn’t it also likely that we might be used to achieve ends with which we disagree?
• Conflict of Interest.  Once an alliance is formed, it’s much harder to separate our interests where they naturally diverge.  There may be pressure by virtue of the relationship to allow our allies greater latitude for things we might otherwise have taken a stance against.

Clearly, there are some groups we have been leery to court as allies because the risk was too high:  the FLDS, staunch pro-life groups, the ERA (not sure that was really under consideration, but just wanted to see if you were paying attention), and the religious right.  But consider for a moment some of the alliances church members have formed.  Some of these are alliances the organization has sought out, and others are more “grass roots” alliances that members have formed, thinking their interests coincide:

• Prop 8 Allies. Many of these are the same guys who:
  • think we are a cult
  • want to “pray the gay away”
  • make some very hateful and inaccurate remarks about homosexuals
  • supported Huckabee to knock Romney out of the race for POTUS because Romney believed Satan and Jesus were brothers and apparently in each others’ fave five.  (Hey, I guess by that logic we also think Huck and Satan are brothers!)
• Focus on the Family.  This is James Dobson’s ministry to protect families.  But they ALSO support school sponsored prayer, corporal punishment, abortion intervention, and intelligent design.  Additionally, they are far more politically involved in their causes than we are, and many of their causes are ones on which we have no clear stance or don’t go as far as they do (see the aforementioned items:  we don’t have a stance on school sponsored prayer, we caution against actions like corporal punishment at least within the family, our abortion stance is softer than theirs, and we teach evolution at BYU).
• Feature Films for Family.  Enterprises like this take a nice idea (clean entertainment that is family friendly) as a starting point.  Often they lack the talent and resources to make it high quality or a good value.
• Clean Flicks.  This UT-based company that catered to the LDS crowd by removing objectionable movie content was more of a benevolently-viewed off-shoot, but they were certainly viewed as associated with Mormons.  Hollywood didn’t like being edited by do-gooders and sued them over it (frankly these people don’t like to be edited by anyone!  have you ever seen a Director’s Cut?); Clean Flicks discontinued.  Then the owner was implicated in an unsavory pornography scam in Utah County.  In our lovely deseret.
• Rush Limbaugh. Obviously, this alliance only applies to those Mormons who are also politically conservative Americans, but since that seems to be a very vocal majority, this association is relevant.  Limbaugh emcompasses basic political characteristics:  fat, loud hypocrisy.  Frankly, he’s not doing Republicans any favors either.  Maybe if the NRA cuts him from their Christmas card list, he’ll finally know he’s gone too far.
• Stockpiling WingNuts. There’s clearly a distinction between the reasonable counsel to be prepared for emergencies and layoffs by keeping a supply of food and money on hand and the wingnuts who are building a bunker in the backyard with a stockpile of weapons in case they have to kill and eat their neighbors.  There are some supposedly “like-minded” individuals out there wearing tin foil hats and selling 72 hour emergency kits to church members.
• “Obamanation” Armageddon Theorists. This is an unpleasant blend of political conservativism (fine in its own right) and Rapture-mongering (the idea that we can bring the second coming on despite the statements that say “no man knows the hour.”)  Can’t we disagree politically without resorting to religious fear-mongering?

So, what other strange bedfellows are out there?  How do we avoid “the appearance of evil” by associating with those who share a passing interest, but in reality have aims that are far different from our own?  Is this an inevitable problem, or are there ways to more clearly distance ourselves from allies whose agendas differ or even contradict ours on many points?

Discuss.

Interestingly enough, Tom Hanks was briefly identified as a Mormon (although he was not baptized) when his stepmother Winifred joined the church.  However, his father Amos was not interested in the Mormon church, and according to an unauthorized biography, Tom saw this as one reason they split up.  Tom stated later that he was no longer a Mormon, and he also believed his ex-stepmother had left Mormonism.  Tom made his way through several different religions over time as you can see here.

Speaking of his involvement in the show Big Love, Hanks said (with my parenthetical comments inserted):

The truth is this takes place in Utah (the truth is that it’s a fictional show), the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church (the truth is these are fictional characters based loosely on some bizarre offshoots; but KUDOS for the “bizarre offshoot” remark), and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen (why do I picture someone making air quotes when they say “happen”?).  There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American and I am one of them.  I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here’s what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed and people can see who’s responsible (is he now talking about the Prop 8 maps that identified donors, essentially putting targets on their backs for gay activists?) and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting constitution and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards (I’m not even sure this sentence went forward instead of backwards). So lets have faith in not only the American (not Mormons who are UNAmerican for voting for Prop 8), but Californian constitutional process (so, have faith in Americans, but if they vote wrong, have faith in the constitutional process to correct that).

Then, Tom did a fairly nice reversal of his statement:

Last week, I labeled members of the Mormon church who supported California’s Proposition 8 as “un-American.” I believe Proposition 8 is counter to the promise of our Constitution; it is codified discrimination.  But everyone has a right to vote their conscience – nothing could be more American. To say members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who contributed to Proposition 8 are “un-American” creates more division when the time calls for respectful disagreement.  No one should use “un- American” lightly or in haste.  I did.  I should not have. (I really like the terseness and directness of the last few statements.  Apologizers, watch and learn).

Obviously, the reversal of his statements (which was doubtless prompted by those who have a financial stake in his popularity) doesn’t necessarily mean he’s ready for a group hug.  So, what are Tom Hanks’ true feelings about Mormons?  Here’s a guess:

• He’s an activist for gay rights.  Like most of Hollywood, he’s an SSM activist and considers those not ready for SSM to be discriminatory.  It’s hard to blame him for his sheltered Hollywood existence, though.  When you spend most of your time around like-minded people, you develop group-think.  I’m sure we can all relate on some level.  In summary:  his feelings are pro-SSM, not anti-Mormon.
• He’s spiritual, not religious.  He saw his ex-stepmother as flaky (looking at his own religious history I say “physician, heal thyself”) and therefore attracted to Mormonism as a phase; he probably doesn’t take it very seriously as a religion (see:  Hollywood).
• He’s an artist.  We see Hollywood as a money machine; they see themselves as creative artists, holding a mirror up to the human experience.  Tom Hanks strives to make characters (even the polygamous Hendricksons) understandable, human, accurate, and relatable.  Showing the Mormon temple ceremony is not being done as payback (although he does resent Prop 8); it’s being done for accuracy and to render Barb Hendrickson more human.  And he is just an EP, not a writer for the show (that would be Dustin Lance Black, the gay ex-Mormon who gave the impassioned speech at the Oscars).

So, that’s my view.  I’m inclined to cut Hanks some slack.  Plus, I somewhat think there’s no such thing as bad press (even all that bad press out there).  Not many Mormons watch Big Love, but many do watch Tom Hanks.  I think his apology was adequate, and I don’t consider his work mean-spirited (although I hated the mullet he sported in DaVinci Code).  It’s a low bar, but high enough for me.  Discuss.

IN politics, as in marriage, moments come along when sensitive compromise can avert a major conflict down the road. The two of us believe that the issue of same-sex marriage has reached such a point now. 

We take very different positions on gay marriage. We have had heated debates on the subject. Nonetheless, we agree that the time is ripe for a deal that could give each side what it most needs in the short run, while moving the debate onto a healthier, calmer track in the years ahead.

It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.

Please take the time to read the entire article, since it provides their justification for this proposal – and because I think it is very well written, regardless of agreement or disagreement with particular points in it.

My question is very simple:

Would this compromise work – for both “sides” of the issue?  Could you personally accept it?  Do you think those with whom you disagree would be able to accept it?  Why or why not?  Which group would have a harder time accepting it – and why?

If you think this would not work, is there a different compromise that you think would work?

The church has had a lot to say about sex and sexuality. It’s been on a winding path, but over time it has developed a rather comprehensive universe-view to back its positions. I like to think, even if some people vehemently disagree with the church position, or think that the church has become bland on certain doctrinal points in relationship to its past, LDS doctrines concerning the family have been consistently unique, fresh, and vitalic (even though that’s not a word, no other word sounds right to me…so hush up!)

Even when we see the church seeming to move with other groups on matters of sex and sexuality (for example, that most controversial proposition 8 issue), what becomes clear in one way or another is that many of the church reasons will be rather unique. It’s not as if most (if any) other groups who supported prop 8 had a proclamation on the family, theology on the eternal nature of true gender or of the unique role that marriage and the family play in the eternities. Some of the prop 8 allies might not even acknowledge that gender or marriage even exist in the hereafter. Oh well; politics makes strange bedfellows (and that sells nearly as well as sex, if the post-proposition fallout has been any indication).

Prop 8 obviously was a controversial issue, so this is not where this post lies. But I think it shows, to an extent, that sex and sexuality are particularly serious business for the LDS church. I’ve had some non-member friends call the church a “sex cult,” and although I’d disagree with them strongly on many accounts concerning those words (cult? sex? sex cult?! no matter how you spin those words it just doesn’t sound like the well-meaning, wholesome [or at least wholesome-seeking] group *I* grew up in), I can at least rephrase these misunderstanding and negative words to suggest that the church, which understandably has vested interests in the family, cares about what can strengthen or weaken the family and its umbrella’d functions (which includes, yes, procreation and sex).

It seems that, whether doctrinal or cultural, in this viewpoint, we’ve gotten the idea that some people “should” be celibate in this life. We (used generally) might say, “Well, it is unfortunate that people with same-sex attraction [for example] are that way, and we don’t necessarily know why it is, because science is still out on that, and we don’t necessarily condone them just getting married to a woman to “fix” it, and it might be that they don’t “fix” it in this life…but for now, we’ll just have to ask them to hold on for this short, short life without engaging in those attractions.”

And some people object: “Isn’t that horrible?!”

But we’ve got answers. “Well, it’s unfortunate, but there are those of other circumstances who will face a burden of celibacy in this life too. That’s just the way things are.” or “Well, everyone has their thorn to deal with. Some people are predisposed to alcohol, but they have to abstain too.” And we’ve got complex issues (although I suppose these aren’t set in stone) for why this is one issue that cannot change and that cannot be abided.

And so on. No need to “judge,” but I really just wanted to pose a few questions:

• Do you think lifelong celibacy is what some people (not just any groups I may have alluded to; think broadly) “should” do to keep with the gospel?
• What do you think the role of sex in a relationship is? Is it “essential” for a “good” relationship?
• What would you think of a committed, unwed opposite-sex couple who were celibate (by mutual choice) for life?
• What would you think of a committed, unwed same-sex couple who were celibate (by mutual choice) for life?
• What would you think of a committed, married couple who were celibate (by mutual choice) for life?
• (Touchy question from a silly immature no-life-having blogger; don’t need to answer publicly): If somehow, you were pressured to be celibate for an extensive period of time by outside forces (ex: your significant other wasn’t attuned to your desires; society or the church frowned upon your sexual activity, etc.,), would you “give up” the prospect of sex?

I hope this isn’t too risque for MM. If it is, I’ll just have to get a disguise and go to FMH or something.

The guests on Oprah were young transgenders, who underwent hormone therapy and/or a sex change operation because they felt they had been born into the wrong body. One had been born a boy, but was living as a woman. The other had been born a girl and was now living as a man.

The more that I witness the personal stories of such people, the harder it is for me (or anyone, in my opinion) to deny that what they feel is extremely real and often devastating, depending on the support — or lack of it — that they receive from their loved ones.

I found the story of the young girl-to-man especially compelling. It was interesting to see old pictures of when he was a little girl. You could see the unhappiness and, more than anything, the awkwardness. I don’t mean to be mean, but she was a very homely girl. Why? Because she looked like a boy in a wig and dress. Now that “she” has become a “he,” he looks normal.  I never would have guessed that he had been born female.

His mother described the living hell that their family went through when this young girl was suicidal because of her mental and emotional agony. As soon as she began with hormone therapy and started on the road to becoming a man, he became a happy person, and the depression and suicidal feelings disappeared. Being Mormon, I tried to imagine being in the position of that mother, who wasn’t Mormon. If she had followed Church policy on gender — which, from what I understand includes excommunication for those who undergo transgender operations — and pushed for her daughter to continue living as a girl, the daughter very likely would have taken her life or at least remained terribly depressed her entire life. Talk about feeling torn.

I’m not a mother.  For those of you who are a parent, think about it.  If your teenage child was suicidal and you knew that the “remedy” (i.e. a sex change operation) is grounds for excommunication, what would you do?  Yes, you could go through the rounds of fasting, prayer, and hope.  But what if that wasn’t enough?  What if your child was still suicidal or at least extremely miserable?  Would you feel torn between your (or your child’s) membership in the Church vs. his or her happiness and well-being?

I find especially perplexing the question of those people who are born intersex.

“Intersexuality is the state of a living thing of a gonochoristic species whose sex chromosomes, genitalia, and/or secondary sex characteristics are determined to be neither exclusively male nor female. An intersex organism may have biological characteristics of both the male and female sexes. Intersexuality is the term adopted by medicine during the 20th century applied to human beings who cannot be classified as either male or female.” (Wikepedia)

If the parents of an intersex child feel forced to decide which gender the child should become through surgery, in order to allow for a future opportunity to serve a mission or marry in the temple, is that any different than transgender operations by those who feel that they’re trapped in the wrong body?  The parents and doctors might be wrong, and the child could grow up to feel trapped in the wrong body.  To me, I think that would be worse than being intersex.

In “The Family: A Proclamation To The World,” the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles stated:

“All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”

Where does this leave intersex people? They’re neither one nor the other. Do they have to choose? Is their gender determined by how they feel, or is it determined purely by biology, which is sometimes still ambiguous?  Would someone who is intersex be able to serve a mission?  Marry in the temple?  What would life be like in a church where gender is virtually everything to someone’s identity, when s/he is neither one nor the other, or perhaps feels that his/her mind does not match his/her body?

I’ve tried to imagine what it would be like if someone said to me, “FD, you are a man, so you just need to accept it. You need to start thinking, acting, walking, talking, and dressing like a man. And therefore you should be attracted to women.”

Can you imagine what it would be like if you had to convince yourself that you were actually the opposite sex that you think and feel you are?

I agree with the the “Proclamation On The Family” that “(G)ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” I believe that our gender is eternal and that Heavenly Father didn’t just leave it up randomly to our DNA to decide whether we would be one gender or the other.

But…

I’m thinking more and more that gender really is a state of mind and spirit: one that is as much a part of us as all the other aspects of our spirit and intelligence. I am female because I feel and act female. If I were sitting in a male body at this very moment but with the same mind that I have now, would I consider myself to not be female?

Heavenly Father can and does allow some of us to be born into bodies that are defective or imperfect, for reasons that are often a mystery to us. The physical state of such individuals does not change their spirit. Could it not also be the same case with physical gender? Could he not have allowed certain individuals to be born into the “wrong” physical body, which then causes a conflict with their spirit, which is of a different gender?

We are taught in Mormonism that our physical bodies are imperfect, subject to disease and defect, and that our spirits and intelligences are eternal. Why, then, should our gender be defined solely by our physical bodies? Should not the mind and spirit take precedence over the body?

A commenter, Chedner, from the discussion on my blog said:

“Say, for example, a young man came to his father or his Bishop or any of his Priesthood leaders and said, “I feel like I am innately a girl.”  Would it not be easy to take a day or two of fasting, scripture study, meditation, and end with a sincere Priesthood blessing to discern the true, eternal gender of that child?  One may be surprised to find that this child’s mother was supposed to have a little girl, but something went awry within the womb and a male body was formed instead.  How is that not possible?  It doesn’t threaten any LDS doctrines. Nothing in our canon has to be further revealed, nothing has to be altered or made more perfect.  We simply need to fully embrace what we do have: gender existed in the pre-existence; our bodies are imperfect and prone to birth defects.”

A non-member commenter and trangender woman, Just Jennifer, had this to say:

“Simply put, our “gender” is inherent. It is something that is fixed at birth. And yes, it is anatomical, but not in the way that some think. A better term is “sexual differentiation of the brain.” And our genitals may be sexually differentiated at odds with our brains. It all has to do with hormone levels in utero. I was born a male physically. But my brain was female. I struggled for much of my life, not knowing what was wrong. Even when I figured it all out, it took some more years to reach the point where I understood what could be done to rectify the situation. I am now a happy and successful woman. And I am closer to God than I was as a very unhappy parody of a man. Those who wish to tell people like me that I should “just deal with it” are both ignorant and cruel.”

Zoe, a non-member transgender woman said:

“Your post shows not just compassion, but true understanding of a situation most people find incomprehensible. I can’t blame them either, it’s no easier for those of us in this situation. Many of us go through decades of denial, trying to be like others around us.”

Another commenter from my blog, Mina, a non-Mormon, had this to say:

“I just want to say thank you so very much for an amazingly compassionate position from all of you – as a trans-woman myself, I’m not used to such understanding from deeply religious people.  I’ll be honest in that this aspect of who I am caused me years of anguish. I had grown up in a very conservative Dutch Reformed community, and even though I knew I was different from a very early age – 4 or 5 if I remember correctly, I denied it into my mid 20′s. Then I came across a very interesting opinion piece by a young Catholic priest. Basically he took the position that we need to remember the Fall from Grace, and that one of God’s punishments was visitation of pests and plagues on Adam and his descendants. The world was MADE imperfect then and there, including how we develop from conception. We humans have added to this imperfection through chemical pollution and the like, and so intersex and transsex are to be expected.”

After reading her comment, I thought, “How sad, that a human being having been born into such difficult life circumstances could be met by anything BUT compassion from deeply religious people.  Can we Mormons do any better?”

What do you think?  Are we over-simplifying the teachings on eternal gender by Church leadership by interpreting them to mean that either male or female physical body parts are the only factors that determine spiritual gender?  Or are transgender and intersex people simply suffering from a mental and emotional trial which they need to bear through this mortal life?

neu-tral /ˈnutrəl, ˈnyu-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [noo-truhl] -adjective: not taking part or giving assistance in a dispute or war between others. (Random House Dictionary.)

* * * * *

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

-Jesus (Matt. 10:34-35.)

Although much, probably too much, has already been said about the Church’s endorsement of Proposition 8 in California, as well as similar ballot measures in other states, I can’t help making some observations about what an interesting case study it has presented on the issue of the Church’s political neutrality. I get the feeling that the Church’s overwhelming support for Proposition 8 signals either the beginning of a series of major political battles in which the Church will involve itself in the future with increasing frequency, or the Church’s last political stand of its kind. I’m just not sure which it is yet.

I’ll be honest: when I heard the announcement that the Church was officially throwing its hat into the ring in support of Proposition 8, I was deeply puzzled. With a few rare exceptions, the LDS Church has a longstanding policy and practice of not endorsing or opposing legislative proposals, even if important moral issues that affect the family are involved.

For example, even on the literally life-and-death issue of abortion, the Church’s official position statement states:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions. . . .

The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.

(Source.) In essence, the official position statement says that although the Church opposes elective abortion and counsels its members against it, the Church has been neutral on legislative proposals concerning that important moral issue. Or in other words, although the Church believes and teaches X, the Church doesn’t feel compelled to endorse or oppose legislation to ensure that X is made the law of the land.

In the few instances when the Church has made an official statement on a moral/political issue, oftentimes the official statement simply states that we don’t take a position on that issue. For example, the Church’s official position statement about capital punishment (another moral life-and-death issue) concludes: “We neither promote nor oppose capital punishment.” (Source.) Likewise, the Church’s official position statement about stem-cell research states: “The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not taken a position regarding the use of embryonic stem cells for research purposes.” (Source.) (See here to read the seven official position statements the Church has posted on its official website.)

The Church’s default position of political neutrality on moral issues sometimes frustrates members of other faiths who would like the Church to take a more active role in politics, as other churches do. I have a friend who used to work for the Church in Public Affairs. She often received angry phone calls from members of other faiths who were outraged that the Church wouldn’t get involved politically with abortion, capital punishment, stem-cell research, and other moral issues. The Church’s political neutrality on moral issues upset them and, in their minds, cast doubt on the Church’s claim to share the same concern for upholding traditional moral values as other Christian churches.

Because I was aware of the Church’s default position of political neutrality on these and other important moral issues, I was confused as to why–out of all the important moral issues being debated and legislated today–the Church came out so strongly and decisively against same-sex marriage. It seemed to be a departure from our longstanding policy and practice of saying, essentially, “although we believe X is morally wrong (e.g., elective abortion), the Church does not feel compelled to ensure that its moral views are enacted into legislation.”

During the Proposition 8 campaign amongst Church members, we often heard the refrain that Proposition 8 must be passed because the Proclamation on the Family states that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.” This oft-repeated argument intrigued me because, as we see in so many other examples, the fact that we believe “X” does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the Church must ensure that “X” is enacted into law. We certainly don’t take that position when it comes to our beliefs about the Word of Wisdom, abortion, adultery, etc.

The fact is that California law already departs from the Proclamation on the Family in numerous ways. For example, the Proclamation on the Family also states that “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” Yet existing California law directly contradicts Church doctrine by allowing any individual to essentially re-define his or her gender at will. I’m unaware of any plans to ensure the Proclamation on the Family’s doctrinal declarations about gender are enacted into California law. So the fact that the Proclamation on the Family says “X” does not automatically compel the conclusion that the Church must work to ensure that “X” is reflected in the law.

Why? Because as members of the Church, we have long been accustomed to the reality that there are two competing standards of morality, i.e., the standards of the Church, and the standards of the world/society/culture/government. I was raised to look to the former and not the latter for my personal definition of right and wrong. I was never raised to use the laws created in Washington, D.C. or Sacramento as my moral compass. To the contrary, I was taught to abstain from fornication, adultery, abortion, alcohol, tobacco, pornography, and a host of other things that my Church teaches are 100% immoral, and yet are 100% legal under the laws of the United States of America and the Republic of California.

There are, always have been, and always will be, significant ways in which my Church’s standards depart from the government’s standards. For example, the fact that government says two people are effectively “married” simply by virtue of their having shacked up and fornicated for several months is, to me, a terrible perversion of the sacred institution of marriage. And yet that legal concept of “common-law marriage” has existed for decades in numerous states. To my knowledge, however, the Church hasn’t fought against laws regarding common-law marriage, even though such laws deviate from the traditional religious definition of “marriage.”

This most recent election in California presented another interesting contrast between the Church’s positions on two moral issues that were both on the ballot. California’s Proposition 4 was a proposal to require parental notification before a minor could obtain an abortion. This was certainly an important moral issue concerning the family and, in particular, parental rights and responsibilities. However, the Church sat silent on Proposition 4 while it encouraged its members to donate thousands of dollars and man-hours to pass Proposition 8.

All of this seems to create the appearance that over the past 25 years, the Church’s de facto position on political neutrality is that the Church abstains from endorsing or opposing legislative proposals even when important life-and-death moral issues affecting the family are involved, except in cases where same-sex marriage is at issue. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think we have to go back to the ERA to find a political issue other than same-sex marriage in which the the Church was so heavily involved.

The purpose of this post is not to advocate any particular position, but simply to share my process of seeking to understand the reasoning behind when the Church decides to depart from its default position of political neutrality and enter the political fray. I can’t help wishing I could have been a fly on the wall to overhear the discussions that resulted in the Church’s decision to become embattled in an issue that has now thrown the Church into the national spotlight. I can’t help wondering: what was it about same-sex marriage that made it more intolerable to Church leaders than, say, partial-birth abortion?

If our friend Bruce Nielson is correct, only one thing is certain: We will never know.

So what do you think? Of all the moral issues affecting the family that are being debated today, why was same-sex marriage the one that caused Church leaders to break from the Church’s default position political neutrality? And does the Church’s overwhelming endorsement of Proposition 8 signify a shift in Church leaders’ attitudes towards political neutrality, foreshadowing increased involvement in major political battles to come? Or was it the the dying moans of an out-of-touch mindset that is going the way of the do-do bird, as some have suggested? Or neither?

I decided to bag the post I had planned because this issue or at least the reaction to the passing of Proposition 8 in California seems to have some longer range consequences. As a California native who lived the great majority of my life there (until I moved to Colorado 5 years ago), I am interested.

1. There has been a strong and sometimes violent reaction to the passing on Proposition 8 by the opponents similar to, but not on the same scale as those during the civil rights struggles. Not riots, but strong protests, mainly at religious institutions and mostly at Mormon Temple sites, Los Angeles, Oakland and San Diego. I have not heard nor seen any reports on widespread protests at LDS chapels on Sunday. ( CORRECTION: here’s one in Seattle) There was also a large protest at Saddleback Church (Pastor Rick Warren’s Church) in Lake Forest, Ca. Anti-8 folks are angry and frustrated that they did not get what they wanted and are now demonstrating it toward those they feel are responsible for their loss.

The fact is that while these folks certainly had no love for the Mormon Church prior to the vote, or were at least ambivalent toward it, they were probably like most people in their knowledge of the Church.  So their reaction to the well coordinated efforts by its members at the urging of its leaders is probably one of sheer frustration rather than any vendetta that they might personally hold against the Church itself. So, it was, up until now.

It has been pointed out that the Church was one of many involved in the campaign, but again, the most organized of the bunch, it appears.  Mormons only represent 2 percent of Californians, so, if all voted for Prop 8, could only be blamed for 2% of the 52% majority. Of course, as we know, not all agreed with the pro 8 position and many church members are too young to vote.

The irony here is that had prop 8 lost, you would not see the kind of protests from the frustrated pro 8 folks.

2.       There is also an irony involved as you watch the videos that Andrew referenced in his post as the protesters shout “Stop the Hate.”  There are hateful references to the Church, Christians in general and others who supported Prop 8 because of their belief in traditional marriage but not unkind feelings toward gay people.

Certainly, there are those in religious organizations that “hate” gay people or their lifestyle, but certainly the prop. 8 campaign did not appear to be “hate-filled” but only addressed the issue itself.  There were no untoward ads that mocked gay people or spoke of extreme dire consequences of the defeat of prop 8 against a backdrop of sinister music and visuals.  I suppose some might argue that some references to the potential acceptance and teaching of the Gay lifestyle in schools and the influence on children might be construed that way, but from my point of view, it was handled respectfully. The anti 8 campaign seemed to be quite the opposite especially at the end. Granted, I don’t live in California any longer so I can’t say that I saw all the ads, but I did see a number of them on YouTube and on the California newspaper websites, which I look at every day.

So, who needs to “Stop the Hate?”

3.       The final irony for me is the fact that the polling data seems to indicate that African Americans and Hispanics were the deciding voters who pushed Prop 8 over the top to passage. So, apparently, they did not see this as a civil rights issue. According to the Sacramento Bee, 70% of those identifying their race as Black voted for the proposition while 53% Hispanic/Latino against 49% White and Asian. In spite of the talk to the contrary, it appears to be a morality/societal question, not a question of civil rights.

So, I hope we can all get passed this episode and come to some place where all sides can be satisfied. Perhaps that is not possible, I hope it is. The trend seems to indicate that in a few years, voters will be willing to allow gay marriage, if the demographics are correct as older, more conservative voters are eliminated from the voting rolls and younger, more accepting voters replace them.   Of course, it is harder to overturn a constitutional amendment than it is to pass one.  And, we don’t know what the courts will do.

So, stand by, this is not over.

Here’s the irony.  At its heart, Prop 8 wasn’t about gay marriage at all.  It was about how we understand the role of government in deciding how churches can deal with their members.  By passing Prop 8, the churches, who should value their independence from civil authority, have invited the “arm of flesh” into their chapels and said, “Yes, YOU, the government, can now decide who can marry and who can’t.”

How in the hell can Mormons, of all people, with their history of persecution and problems with the government, possibly support this intrusion of state into church affairs?  And the Baptists!  Don’t they have a tradition of independence and separation from government?  Something bad has happened along the way, and it’s time religionists wake up and see that their silly, knee-jerk reactions to issues like gay marriage are, on a macro level, threatening the very institutions they’re trying to preserve.

Alas, vox populi has become pox populi.  And, in the end, there may very well be a pox on all our houses.  As for me and my house, we will serve a rational approach to the issue.

Residents of California (Prop 8), Arizona (Prop 102), and Florida (Prop 2) will be voting on propositions which would amend their state constitutions to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, that is not news. You have probably been overwhelmed with rhetoric from all angles. My goal here is to summarize what I have observed as the large-scale effects of this issue.

The Last Battleground

It wasn’t that far back when the official LDS Church position on homosexuality was that it is a moral and behavioral issue, chosen by individuals who succumb to deviant temptations. As such, the majority of faithful Mormons and Evangelical Christians were opposed to even civil unions for gay couples. The “umbrella issue” was that if any form of acceptance or recognition is granted to homosexuals it would be interpreted by society, and most importantly – our children— as condoning that behavior.

Today, it seems that footholds have slipped on the muddy moral/civil rights battlefield and Religion is making one last stand. Fortunately, the LDS Church has conceded that homosexuality, in many cases, is not a choice and goes beyond mere social influence and personal will. Furthermore, Mormons and Christians, in the current campaigns, seem to have conceded civil unions almost completely, even using them as a counter-argument to suggestions that the propositions violate equal rights. These are positive changes. And yet, in spite of these concessions, the “umbrella issue” remains the same –homosexuality, while understandable, even pitiable, is not acceptable, nor equal. Equality is the last battleground in the war for gay rights.

Special Treatment

The umbrella issue is often presented as being about giving special rights and special treatment to gay couples. This is troublesome, because really what gays are trying to achieve is only an equal level of treatment. Sometimes it might appear that gay rights get an inordinate amount of public attention, but there are two reasons for that. One reason is that gay rights are currently not recognized in consensus, so they have to “talk louder” than normal volume just to be heard. The other reason is that traditional marriage is so common and taken for granted that we just don’t notice how much attention and treatment it gets. There is far more time given to the subject of traditional marriage in media, entertainment, education, and public life than all other kinds of relationships combined. It is so common that it has blended seamlessly into the canvas and anything of a different color jumps right out.

The Real Cause

Arguments like these are only deflections from the more uncomfortable reality. It is a remnant of the belief that homosexuality is a behavior that can be disciplined out of society. The goal of these propositions is not to protect society from special treatment for non-traditional lifestyles, it is to protect society from equal treatment of them. The reasoning is that a lifestyle afforded equal treatment is essentially considered morally equal by society. In a world where homosexuals are considered moral human beings with equal potential to contribute to the moral health of the society as anyone else, there is a fear that children will more commonly consider “choosing” the gay lifestyle, thus producing more and more gay people.

The reality is that such a world would produce no more or less gay people than in a discriminating society. It would only produce more happy and healthy people among them. It would save some lives, too. That same blanket of shame and disapproval that exists in our current society about homosexuality, that which the current movements are trying to preserve for the good of the children, is the weight which suffocates thousands of human beings – children of God – and drives them to suicide. If being gay was a choice that could be intimidated out of a person by restricting privileges, how did we get to this point now with so many gay people fighting for their right to be gay? Being gay has been anything but comfortable or convenient up until now and yet it is not keeping people from being gay. Of course, that is because they can’t choose it. If they could, the beatings – physical and emotional – they have received for so long would have accomplished their goal.

Sanctifying Our Own Paths

Aside from sympathizing with the plight of homosexuals, there is another problem with the social engineering approach. It is the idea that what is sacred to me is defined by what someone else is allowed to make sacred to them. Most Mormons have known people who drink alcohol, smoke, have tattoos, use profanity, do not observe the Sabbath, do not pray, think the temple is weird, think garments are weird, etc. etc. Yet, somehow we are able to continue to sanctify the human body, the temple, our garments, the Sabbath, and other aspects of our lives without taking away the right for those other people to live the way they do.

Sacred is the life we live, not the life we keep others from living. The sanctity of your family is nothing more than the sanctity of *your family*. If society celebrates the straight couple across the street it does not make your marriage more sanctified. If society denigrates the gay couple next door it does not make your marriage more sanctified. You can only sanctify your family by the way you live and love within your own home.

A Failed Experiment

Social engineering doesn’t work in either direction. It has not worked to keep people from being gay. Whether they are in-and-miserable or out-and-happy, they are still gay. It has not worked to elevate traditional marriage. More than half of one-man/one-woman marriages end in divorce. Less people are getting married in general. Even in the Gold Standard of LDS temple marriages, LDS Church leaders receive a constant flow of letters about the epidemic of pornography, spousal and child abuse, and unrighteous dominion.

Quite surprising too is willingness for Mormons to use the law to impose social engineering, considering our heritage of being on the victim end of that stick. Haun’s Mill. Far West. Nauvoo. The Reed Smoot Hearings. Have we fully considered the implications of creating a precedent for the constitution being used to impose an unequal morality on its citizens? Are we so sure that there is nothing about our lifestyle that might be at odds with a large enough segment of society that could seek to impose laws against us next?

The Sun Will Rise Again On November 5th

Regardless of the results of the ballots, the sun will rise again the next day. The congregations which employed the rhetoric of war and valiance will take attendance again the next Sunday. The home teachers of the gay members will have to stare at the phone number on the assignment sheet with a phone in hand. Family members will have to sit at the Thanksgiving dinner table across from their relatives who stood on the other side. Gay people will still be gay and traditional families will be no more sanctified than the day before.

We will need to forgive. We will need to love. Each day more than the last. I hope we can. I hope I can.

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms, just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Open Letter to California Mormons

Jeffrey S. Nielsen

I am a member of the Mormon Church, a married heterosexual, and a supporter of marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. I am asking you to pause and give sincere thought to the letter from our religious leaders you have heard read, or will soon hear read, over our church pulpits asking you to get involved and oppose marriage equality in California. Please think deeply about this, not only as a member of a particular church, but also as a citizen of a democracy.

To press for an amendment to a civil constitution that would legalize discrimination against an entire class of people is no small matter, but of the greatest significance. When the argument, no matter how well intentioned, is based solely upon a religious proclamation; then, I believe, it is a serious contradiction of the wisdom of our founding fathers. It also does tremendous damage to the great progress in civil rights we’ve made in our country respecting the equal dignity of each person and towards a more certain legal equality for all citizens.

You should also know, not all faithful Mormons agree with our religious leaders’ encroachment into political matters. In fact, a growing number of active Mormons, who have gay friends and family members, are coming to the conclusion that our current leaders are as mistaken in promoting discrimination against gays and lesbians as was the Mormon hierarchy in the 60’s when they opposed equal rights for people of color, and our Mormon leaders in the 70’s when they opposed full legal equality for women.

Of course, religious authorities of any denomination possess the right, and may claim the legitimacy, to set the theology and policy for their religious community. When they; however, attempt to interject religious doctrine into the public spaces of a diverse democracy without reasonable justification, then members, especially faithful members, of that religious organization have the civic responsibility to express public disapproval of such dangerous and undemocratic behavior.

No one is asking that you condone a behavior that might violate your religious faith, but we need to allow everyone the freedom to live their life as they see fit, so long as it does not physically harm another person. After all, religious values must be something an individual freely chooses, not something forced upon him or her by the state. We should never allow our constitutions, whether state or federal, to become weapons in a crusade to impose a particular religious value system upon a pluralistic democracy. Today it might be a particular religious value that we affirm, but tomorrow it might be a religious system, which would seek to legislate against our own sincere beliefs. So now is the time to take a stand and keep separate civil and religious authority.

I do not believe that people choose their sexual orientation any more than they choose their skin color or gender. So to discriminate and deny them equal protection and equal opportunity under civil law because of these natural traits; especially in this case, sexual orientation, is grossly unfair and should be rejected outright in a compassionate and just democracy. If anyone could give me a single reasonable argument against marriage equality in our civil society, which doesn’t make fallacious appeals to tradition, misplaced appeals to religious authority, or make some ridiculous claim about nonhuman animals, then I would like to hear it. So far, no one has been able to present me with even a single justifiable reason.

You should know that like you, family and marriage are very important to me. As I have become acquainted with gay and lesbian couples, I have been touched by their goodness, sincerity, and commitment. I am persuaded that allowing marriage equality would, in fact, strengthen the institutions of family and marriage in our country. Perhaps it might even make all of us a little more considerate and responsible as both marriage partners and parents. I can only hope that the citizens of California, and my fellow Mormons, will possess the wisdom and moral decency to reject the call to discriminate against our gay and lesbian coworkers, friends, neighbors, church members, and family.