- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Great post explaining a massive shift in support for marriage equality. http://religionnews.com/2017/06/27/mormons-are-changing-their-tune-on-same-sex-marriage/ Thanks, hawkgrrrl. I think it’s telling that 37% of LDS respondents say that they “support” SSM. That’s a significant critical-mass type of number. I believe that over the next 10 years, that number will continue to rise and I feel pretty certain that the Church will be forced to do more than make proclamations and expect conformity.
In my experience, this has become a follow-the-prophet test. I’ve heard it explained that way many times in Church. The prophet has spoken, so we must follow the prophet or else we aren’t being faithful, etc, etc. But unless the Church softens its stance, I think this will become a why-follow-the-prophet question.
When the Church says to stay out of debt, don’t do drugs, don’t get into porn, provide service to those in need, help fill responsibilities in the ward, read scriptures, seek to live by the spirit, I think that intuitively, spiritual people will recognize these as good life choices. But when the Church opposes SSM, I think it’s much harder to accept that that is a good mantra to follow for a disciple of Christ. We have been taught that the very purpose of our existence is to have joy, so as bearers of that message, it becomes more and more difficult to keep SSM opposition in line with the Gospel. We all are much more aware and introspective about homosexuality than we were just a few decades ago. It’s not such an academic topic when we have friends and family members who are affected by social angst through no fault of their own. I think LDS people and their history of opposition, ridicule and suspicion have a certain kinship with the LGBT community that no one wants to admit, but that is hard to ignore.
I am wondering at what point this becomes a real issue with membership vs leadership positions. I was a school kid when the temple and priesthood ban on blacks was listed and only in the last few years found out some of the pressures on the church (sports teams refusing to play BYU, alleged tax status of BYU being in question). The church is adaptable if anything. I just wonder how big of a hole there will be with the current digging of “family values” (cough cough “anti-gay”) that will have to be scaled. It may not be deeper than the issue with the temple and priesthood ban, but it seems that this is going to be harder for some to swallow – not the issue of being more gay-friendly, but handling the “wait – we are changing on this issue?” and the harder issue with doctrine and gender. How does this play out in the plan of salvation and sealing in the temple?
And I hope this doesn’t go off on another tangent, I have heard many times that the church is just as worried about “fundamentalists” as they are “progressives”. Growing up far away from Utah and no real contact with anybody from Utah until my mission and then marriage, I never got the “fundamentalists” pressures, such as the polygamy groups and even things like those following Denver Snuffer. It is starting to make much more sense when you look at the Q15 being split on many issues.
I had the same question — what happens when the majority of church membership disagrees with official policy and doctrine? Has that ever happened in our history, and how was that resolved? I do know at one time leaders were asking members in TR interviews, or interviews in general if they, as married couples, engaged in oral sex. The question “do you mouth you wife?” was used.
I don’t know if it was an official TR question, or what, but I read about it and heard someone talk about it — to the point I think it was happening on a large scale, at least regionally….There was apparently grassroots backlash from that in the interviews and the questions stopped.
Quote:
I attended Ricks College back in 94 to 96. My marriage and Family teacher told our class that the whole oral sex thing came about in the early 80’s (if you have Oral Sex you cannot attend the Temple.) then disapeared 9 months after the announcement. (Temple attendance dropped through the floor.)We know the church will do an about-face when their assets, tax status, or other operational assets are threatened (like everyone boycotts the temple on a widespread, unorganized scale due to inability to live onerous principles). And the church can act pretty quickly when that happens. So, I am sure we will see some kind of change on a large scale in the church should the laws make it illegal for churches to preach against gay marriage.
If we use the example of Canada — in Canada the laws protecting the LGBT community have been getting stronger and stronger and stronger. Here is one that fines or puts people in jail for two years if they use what is called “hate speech”…
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2016/05/24/anti-transgender-speech-will-get-two-years-canada/ I heard the law passed by a massive majority recently and is no longer a planned bill.
Put laws with teeth like that in place that threaten the church directly (its organization, funds, existence, tax-status) and you’ll see an about face. It could be that the church has to simply strike any anti-gay comments from our publications and talks, stop pulling people off the stand if they go pro LGBT in sacrament meeting, and limit the temple to baptisms and endowments. New people getting married have to go to countries where the laws don’t make refusal to marry gay people illegal.
[
side note not meant to derail the discussion] But I will say this, I really detest it when groups label people who oppose their beliefs as “phobic”. A phobia is a mental, anxiety DISORDER. People who oppose gay marriage do so for many reasons, but a lot feel they are simply following their religion. Some are just plain bigoted, but to to label everyone as “phobic” or possessing a mental disorder because they disagree with you is wrong, in my view. Imagine if we called everyone who disagreed with Mormons “Mormophobic”. Everyone who disagrees with convervative political values “conservophobic”. Everyone who disagrees with libereal values as “sociophobic”. People who don’t like bananas “bananaphobic”. Or someone who just doesn’t like jazz “Jazzaphobic”. [ /sidenote] SilentDawning wrote:
What happens when the majority of church membership disagrees with official policy and doctrine? Has that ever happened in our history, and how was that resolved?
I think back to early days of the church. I’m guessing that if you polled the early members in Nauvoo, the majority would have been opposed to polygamy. How was this handled? Quietly and secretly roll it out until it’s gained enough traction to be officially announced. A major difference is that in those days, it was common for the prophet Joseph to introduce radically new doctrines and revelations. That is not the culture now. I think the general church membership would agree the council we get is good and will improve out spiritual lives, but anything radically different would likely be questioned by many because that is simply not culture today.
I also think of the word of wisdom. The majority if the church didn’t abide by that when it came out (granted it was counsel and not commandment) and it took quite a while before that was generally accepted.
These days, major social changes in the church seem to occur more as a result of outside social pressures rather than internal (i.e., polygamy, priesthood ban) and the church seems to respond very briskly when they are threatened legally. It seems now they are more concerned with public image than in the past and respond to threats to that as well, but in the past there was more of a certain pride in being unique. Now the PR campaign seems to be saying “look we’re not that different than you!”
However, I can think of at least one major change that occurred because of pressure within. When temple attendance was down in the 90’s, the church conducted surveys and found what people were uncomfortable with. The result of those surveys was major temple changes to make the session more comfortable overall.
This has been kind of a ramble, but I think the church has a precedent in the past of not paying attention to public perception or general membership opinion (the introduction of polygamy and WoW). “When the prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done.” However, I think we can see this trend shifting over time to being much more concerned with maintaining a positive public image as well as a happy temple attending (tithe paying) membership.
Thus, I think both forces (external and internal) have potential to cause change. And that begs the question, what’s the role of a prophet if these forces are what cause meaningful changes these days?
When the majority of members oppose a policy, and when there are clear, negative, widespread impacts, the policy usually changes. The Priesthood ban might be the best example.
I think women being seen as holding the Priesthood is another change that will happen, perhaps with Relief Society “offices” being implemented – if not full integration.
Quote:I think it’s telling that 37% of LDS respondents say that they “support” SSM. That’s a significant critical-mass type of number. I believe that over the next 10 years, that number will continue to rise and I feel pretty certain that the Church will be forced to do more than make proclamations and expect conformity.
Even more telling that young people support it at 47% and older at only 28%. That’s a 19 point spread. There is a HUGE generation gap there. In surveying, those are big differences.
Quote:I think back to early days of the church. I’m guessing that if you polled the early members in Nauvoo, the majority would have been opposed to polygamy. How was this handled? Quietly and secretly roll it out until it’s gained enough traction to be officially announced.
Well, yes and no. The other way it was handled was through the succession crisis. Brigham Young most certainly did not have full support, and there were competing claims to lead the church that resulted in a schism at that time. We never talk about that in Sunday School, but there are many reasons to dispute BY as the rightful successor: 1) those who objected to polygamy, 2) he didn’t claim to be a ‘prophet’ (unlike competitor Strang who founded the Strangites in Vorhees, WI), 3) Rigdon was a much more popular and experience preacher, and 4) many (including Emma) felt church leadership should pass from father to son. I read at one point that fewer than half went with BY, but I don’t have the source on that right now, so maybe that’s off.
hawkgrrrl wrote:
I read at one point that fewer than half went with BY, but I don’t have the source on that right now, so maybe that’s off.
I’d be very interested to get more info on that if anybody knows or has sources. That was a fascinating time in our history.
Before gay marriage was legal in my state I was opposed to it. Mind you, I live in a liberal northeastern state where it became legal several years ago. I was opposed to it for financial reasons. It seemed to me at the time it was all about money – health insurance, filing joint tax returns, etc. But alas, the sun came up the next day, my taxes didn’t go up any more than they normally would have (some went down, but for other reasons), no big changes is health insurance premium increases and so forth. At this same time I also began to recognize that people I had known in long term gay relationships were very committed to each other and really do love each other and it wasn’t necessarily about money. The argument that gay marriage destroys families became nonsense – the gay people who I know who married were living together “in sin” already and nothing changed except they could say they are married. And then there are the gay kids who grew up in our ward and are now out adults. They didn’t change, they’re still the same people I cared abut as YMP and in the bishopric.
I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one whose personal attitude changed. I have, as it were, repented.
Most teenagers I know show surprising independence of thought when it comes to religion and blind obedience. I’m no bastion of liberal thought (and my wife is downright conservative) but every one of my kids supports LGBT causes. I’m surprised the percentage of young LDS people in support of gay marriage isn’t not higher than the number reported here. I estimate it is in the 60%+ range for teenagers in my ward (a fairly conservative ward). As far as the question about what will the church do if the masses don’t support a policy? I think the church will have to change to reflect the opinions of its members. One difference between now and even 20 years ago (let alone 150 years ago) is technology. We can connect with huge numbers of people through social media and we now understand other points of view because we see them firsthand. The church will change or it will become irrelevant.
One anecdote. My daughter is a senior in high school and she has a bisexual female friend. This friend said she was looking for a place to attend Easter worship services so my daughter invited her to our LDS ward. This friend said only Mormons don’t know that Mormons hate gays. My daughter was embarrassed and it was enlightening for my whole family. My family all changed our attitudes a little that day.
I also think that social media plays another part. I think people are a bit more inclined to “like” a post by someone that is pro-LGBT and signal they are not fully on board with the church’s stance than to speak up in church and say, “I think the brethren have it wrong on gays.” It allows others to realize there are many others that feel the same way even if they keep their mouth closed in Gospel Doctrine class. We are seeing that in time, people who have false fears that it is the end of the world and all is going to hell in a handbasket are left behind to the group who can see the future is progressing with changes that make sense. Like DJ put it…the sun comes up the next day and we realize it is fine…and we go on. It will quietly change and then become normal to believe in the church that some people are born homosexual, with no choice of their own…just is part of who they are and there isn’t anything wrong with that, and we want all people to be happy, and marriage is good for all.
Then in twenty years from now people will be looking back wondering why prophets didn’t know ahead of time about these things, and why the church wasn’t at the fore-front of LGBT rights, and will wonder if that proves the church is false or in apostasy, and groups will debate what that all means.
The church will change. People won’t be happy with the timing and pace of it, and some will resist it. As HG pointed out, the generation gap is a factor. Eventually everyone will have to choose whether they have faith in the church or not. The apostles will be tasked with how to make the change and how to incorporate them without capsizing the boat. It becomes a choice, choice on how leaders handle it, and choice on how members react.
It is a living church, and more revelation and light and knowledge continues to flow. Which means we don’t currently know or believe in things that later we will.
In the mean time…God looks at our hearts and how we handle things to obey the 2 great commandments. All other laws and policies hang on those.
Also…I liked the link to the other article at the bottom of the page:
News flash! Americans like Mormons better when we’re not oppressing gaysHeber13 wrote:
Also…I liked the link to the other article at the bottom of the page:News flash! Americans like Mormons better when we’re not oppressing gays
Great quote from the article:
Quote:
Sometimes the opinions of others can show us when we are or are not acting like our best selves. We would do well to listen.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mormon-church-maternity-leave-dress-code_us_59554cbae4b0da2c732227cd ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mormon-church-maternity-leave-dress-code_us_59554cbae4b0da2c732227cd Quote:Church employees will now receive paid maternity and parental leave. Women employed by the Utah-based Christian church, who were previously required to wear skirts and dresses, are now permitted to wear “professional pantsuits or dress slacks,” according to a church memo. Mormon men who work for the church, known for their white shirt and tie uniforms, may now also wear light-colored dress shirts.
These really are exciting times that we live in.
:wtf: To solidify any thoughts on the matter I bring you Brother Kirby.
http://www.sltrib.com/home/5464897-155/kirby-at-last-the-mormon-uniform ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.sltrib.com/home/5464897-155/kirby-at-last-the-mormon-uniform Quote:Go ahead. Cast a furtive look over your shoulder for the Second Coming. The truth is that it’s not that big of a change, and it’s about right on time.
Women at Brigham Young University won or were blessed with the option of wearing pants to school about 40 years ago.
Forty years is the average time it takes for the church to institute a change to something the rest of the world already considers old-fashioned. It happened with missionaries wearing fedoras, women wearing pioneer dresses, and facial hair on both.
Happy Sabbath
mom3 wrote:
Quote:Forty years is the average time it takes for the church to institute a change to something the rest of the world already considers old-fashioned. It happened with missionaries wearing fedoras, women wearing pioneer dresses, and facial hair on both.
Happy Sabbath
40 years is a long time to wait for change. What do we do while waiting while we only have 1 mortal experience to live?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.