- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
What it feels like is an attempt to try and say, “we may have differences with the LGBT community, but we don’t hate them.” I think they are realizing with prop 8 backlash that many people’s response to “what comes to mind when you hear Mormon?” isn’t “polygamy” anymore, it is “hate gays”. I remember hearing about the Montgomery’s (LDS, but had an early teen son come out as gay) talk about them going to a local gay support group and really having to explain things and after a while winning that group over that Mormon’s really don’t HATE gays, but they are being asked by leaders to do many things perceived as anti-gay. I am sure there are some gay haters in the ranks of LDS, but that is true of society in general. I think you’re right, LH. Couple this with DHO’s conference address (which was also a political reaction, IMO) and I think the top leadership is trying to get a message through that we don’t hate gays as a church and that individual church members should love them in the same way we are supposed to love everyone else. And to be clear, I don’t think that the upper church leaders hate gays. Just as with blacks and the priesthood I don’t think there was so much hatred towards blacks, but I can’t say there wasn’t quite a bit of condescending views of other races. I think they hate society making “changes” that they feel are more in the religious realm. Nobody likes to be TOLD to do something. And if you are slow off the mark to make a change and get behind and not leading – the pressure will start for you to be TOLD you need to change. I also think Elder Oaks specifically has hung his reputation a bit on this topic and would have a hard time backing out of the corner he has painted himself into. Maybe a “revelation” like on blacks and the priesthood is the only way a major change on this topic could happen. It would give Elder Oaks a way out and save face. One thing I have heard over and over from people is once they have someone close come out as gay, it has a profound change on their perspective. And I think it is Elder Christofferson that has a gay brother. I think that is bringing a new view on the topic in the highest meetings. I do think they are having vigorous discussions. I see evidence in the essays, mormonsandgays web site for starters, but those are “from lds”, but not from the 1st pres & Q12. That group is VERY tight about not disclosing until they are unified. I can respect that to a point. But one negative from this is that some in the church assume that the first pres and Q12 are all on the same page and all members therefore must be. I wish the church would be a bit more proactive and mention items such as the tumble and tussle that went on before the blacks were allowed to have the priesthood. For the church to hear that Pres (at that time Elder) Kimball having a vote and everyone in attendance agreed it was time to move forward with extending the priesthood to the blacks. But President Lee was not there that day and once he got back in town he firmly squashed that. Also to hear that Elder Benson was called in front of the Q12 to account for his comments on, “the fundamentals of following the prophet.” I can tell you that in the mission field (at least in the past), NONE of that info got to the average member AT ALL.
That is specifically why I think Elder Oaks gave the talk in GC and why he was part of the press conference yesterday. I think he may have had some change of heart on the subject and I think it’s important the membership see that he does not dislike or wish to persecute gays. I don’t think any of them are at the point of disavowing the law of chastity for gays (or anyone else), but I’m really not sure they’re united on SSM or civil unions. My own perspective on the issue has changed over the past couple years, and I don’t think I’m unusual in having a perspective change. (Or maybe I’m not willing to admit I’m weird! 😯 )There is a youtube video somewhere of an apostle (Eyring?) talking about how the Q12 do have some very vigorous discussions and don’t always agree. I don’t have time to look for it right now. Other GAs have made passing reference to that idea as well. I also think it would benefit the general membership to realize that these guys do have different backgrounds and that deep discussion including opposing points of view is something that regularly happens in those highest church councils.
DarkJedi wrote:…and I think the top leadership is trying to get a message through that we don’t hate gays as a church and that individual church members should love them in the same way we are supposed to love everyone else.
I agree and see that it’s a bit of the ‘old guy’ mentality of how we grew up with certain prejudices from family towards others, those that are ‘not part of our team’ be it orientation, race, or those darn non-members. I had some of this mentality growing up and even after joining the church, slowly these have shed away.
LookingHard wrote:But one negative from this is that some in the church assume that the first pres and Q12 are all on the same page and all members therefore must be.
They have always shown the United front. They have really had to they felt, to show a unity under the prophet. Who wanted a repeat of the years after JS where the church was splintered and even the prophets wife went with a different leader.
I’ve heard the stories from some close that they have their individual personalities and disagree with each other. That’s better than the image I had when I first joined.
They disagree about a lot of things, sometimes somewhat heatedly. These aren’t shrinking violets. They are highly intelligent, successful professionals. This topic takes me back to a day at work in the mid 1990’s. Two co-workers were arguing about whether gays choose to be gay. A religious man from the south was certain it had to be a choice, a secular “city slicker” was adamant that science had long proven they don’t choose it. That is the first time I ever remember considering the question. I came to a personal realization at that time that our public policies should hinge on the answer to that question. If someone has physical traits that they cannot control and do not choose (race, handicap, etc.) they should not be discriminated against because of it.
For many years afterward I remained without certainty regarding that question: could science honestly prove that gays have no choice regarding their attraction? But since 2008 much has come to light on the topic for me. The church’s statement basically put a second nail in the coffin for me: “individuals do not choose to have such attractions.”
So now I wonder what legs do we have to stand on to ask broader society to withhold rights from people, for a condition they do not choose. For me it sounds just like having religious objections to interracial marriage, and fighting to hold the public historical legal ban. I understand the religious freedom position and I don’t think churches should be made to perform marriages that go against their beliefs. But in the spirit of letting all men worship as they may, how do we justify imposing our position onto the whole of society?
Yes, there is the argument of degradation. We believe many things contribute to the degradation of society, but we are not actively out fighting them legally: alcohol, “pot”, unwed families, adultery. Why are we not making legal stands on these subjects?
I believe in the spirit of failed prohibition faithful Mormons can take the position of: “even though I believe same-sex marriage is against God’s will, in the spirit of agency holding a founding position in the divine plan, I believe the best public policy is to allow all men and women the legal right to marry the person of their choosing – as long as religious institutions cannot be made to perform weddings against their individual beliefs.”
Orson – you just proved you are not in the LDS PR organization. I wish the church could have just said what you did. Makes perfect sense to me and my experience parallels I have had in my reversal in my position. I did used to feel there was some fierce pressure for everyone to accept gays (and there is a bit of that “if you don’t agree with me, you are a hater” – which is not always the case), but I have done a 180. Listening to the experiences on many podcasts has given me a perspective how much some people tried and tried until they were suicidal to “fix” their homosexuality. It breaks my heart to hear of how much they went through. Given that I have a son that I have some feeling that there is a chance he is gay, this isn’t just a theoretical issue to me.
I’m told this is absolutely worth a listen: http://www.sltrib.com/news/2112602-155/tomorrow-at-115-pm-lds-apostles hawkgrrrl wrote:I’m told this is absolutely worth a listen:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/2112602-155/tomorrow-at-115-pm-lds-apostles
It is, it starts to get good about 8 minutes in.I lovethe questions. She doesn’t pull punches. I also appreciate the Elders willingness to take on the questions. Some of the focus goes back to ensuring religious freedoms. Someone help me out, what religious freedoms are currently under attack? The church doesn’t want to be forced to perform same sex marriages, but is that truly in the pipeline?
It sounds like one aspect to the religious freedom argument could be described as a desire to be exempt from the consequences of holding certain opinions. Whenever the subject of SSM comes up with some of my more orthodox friends they often complain bitterly that other people label them as bigots while society bends over backwards to be accepting of homosexuals. I feel the complaint lacks perspective; as if the goal were to reestablish oneself as the persecuted group. Human nature I guess. In some ways it reminds me of the church movie The Prodigal Son, the “good” son gets all bent out of shape at the end because he’s always been the good son and he isn’t getting the kudos he feels that he deserves.
Much of this religious freedoms push feels like an appeal to ask people to stop labeling church members as bigots. People shouldn’t go around calling each other bigots but that’s really outside our ability to control. All we can do is adjust our behavior, treat others the way we’d like to be treated, and be patient with people.
So again the question. Which religious freedoms do they feel are under attack? They obviously feel very strongly about that but I didn’t hear the details as to which freedoms they are concerned with losing. I’m not trying to put them on the spot, I’m trying to fill a gap in the narrative.
Christofferson made a comment about one side saying that they aren’t going far enough, the other side saying they are going too far, and how that makes their point for them. Props for recognizing that a balance can be struck in the middle, but both sides complaining isn’t always a sign that you are getting things correct. If one side represents an extreme and they say someone else is going too far (or not far enough) then the criticism can ring hollow. That’s how people on the extremes see things. It’s a hot button issue, perhaps the solution is to slowly shift the middle ground compromise to a more gospel centered middle ground and that takes time. Time to move from precept to precept.
DHO didn’t give the best analogies but I have to give him a pass. Mine are terrible too.
:angel: There may not be official disciplinary measures for people that hold particular political views but we could all do better to not culturally shun people for the political views they hold. That’s more of a human nature thing as opposed to something that’s unique to the church.
I’m not a big fan of DHO’s clarification of his comments about apologies. To paraphrase, the word apologize isn’t in the scriptures. That feels like a technicality; letter of the law vs. spirit of the law. This may just be a case where DHO and his critics are talking past each other. DHO didn’t really clarify his position very well. He’s right though, an apology has connotations but some people may need an apology to start the healing process.
I love DHO’s statement on not rejecting children based on their sexual preferences. He was very clear on that point, he called a parent to repentance for kicking a child out. That message needs to be put up on the candlestick for all to see.
They’re likely concerned that the acceptance of SSM by both society and the government may lead the saints to believe that it is not a sin. They are also likely worried that the church may be forced into practices that go against its doctrines. Understanding that helps.
Orson wrote:I believe in the spirit of failed prohibition faithful Mormons can take the position of: “even though I believe same-sex marriage is against God’s will, in the spirit of agency holding a founding position in the divine plan, I believe the best public policy is to allow all men and women the legal right to marry the person of their choosing – as long as religious institutions cannot be made to perform weddings against their individual beliefs.”
Amen. Great statement of how I might eventually feel about the issue.
Another takeaway. Don’t have sex, no big whoop. All the kids are doing it these days. Now take this buffalo nickel and go buy yourself some penny whistles and moon pies.
:silent: It’s easier for an 80 year old to think of a celibate life as sustainable. Please consult your bishop for a celibate life lasting less than 4 decades.
:angel: Quote:big·ot ˈbiɡət/ noun a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
Seems to me that people who don’t want to be called a bigot should be tolerant toward those holding different opinions. Problem solved. Obviously, not all Mormons are bigots. But let’s not pretend some of them haven’t earned the epithet.
I think going through the specific examples on the TribTalk is helpful, if those members who have ostracized their gay children are listening. Or those who’ve suggested they marry straight partners. Or those who’ve suggested that being gay is a choice or that you can pray the gay away. Or that it’s OK to refuse to serve or accommodate gay customers on the basis of their sexual orientation. What motivates that? That’s bigotry.
Quote:Please consult your bishop for a celibate life lasting less than 4 decades.
:angel: Consult your doctor! Consult a therapist!
I am very glad that they stepped up and addressed the question. In our church there is a belief that communication will come right down from God, to the President, to the Q12, the 70’s, area presidents, Stake Pres, Bishop, quorum president, (and for some) for their husband to tell their wife and children. There is VERY little structure in place for almost any upward communication. My training as a manager tells us over and over to communicate often, but don’t just talk down – make it a Q and A session. That is what calms people down.
There were a few statements that were good and I am excited that they were made. They did admit that it will be messy and I would agree that 100%. But I still wish they had not tied the 2 topics together. They could have made it much more powerful to say what they support and then as the communications go on add it a bit of “and we hope that as we try and better respect others and their opinions that they do the same.”
I do feel they dodged the question about leader roulette. In fact I think they came close to admitting it, but said it wasn’t their job. But it IS their job to clearly articulate the rules and general principles and when there is confusion – clarify. Clarify to the leadership down to the bishops and clarify to the members in conference or some other way.
Overall I would say it was much more positive that they had this follow up discussion. I just wish there were more Q & A (like) sessions with church leaders like this. There is a slippery slope of the members and others expecting these often and as a way to push things up the chain. But this is one of the first times in my lifetime for them to even come out of the house and see the slope over in the distance. They have a lot farther to go before it gets slippery or the slope gets problematic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.