Prop 8 got me thinking….

[Anonymous]

I hope im not repeating an old discussion, but with the recent prop 8 ruling i got to thinking. It doesn’t seem to me that homosexuality is really a violation of traditional Mormon doctrine about salvation. Just for the record, I’ll state that i am very happy to hear prop 8 was overturned and I was very upset in 2008 to hear about the church’s involvement with getting it passed by the voters.

On to the doctrinal discussion! when i look at the traditional Mormon requirements for salvation, i cant imagine why (practicing) homosexuality (within marriage) should be a disqualifier, as church officials suggest. I teach the 9 year olds in my ward, and the lesson manuals break it down into four simplified steps to be saved, and repeats these four steps over and over through out the lessons:

1. Baptism

2. Gift of the holy ghost

3. Endowment

4. Temple marriage

(of course you have to live righteously after you do these things, but thats not the point of this discussion)

The LDS plan of salvation says we’re here on earth to get a body, make good choices (ie, follow the above steps) and return to God. DH said “well, you’re supposed to have children, and homosexuality doesnt allow for that” but that’s not what traditional Mormon doctrine teaches. Having children is not a requirement for salvation, otherwise a lot of single people or childless hetero couples would be in trouble.

Im not personally sold on the necessity of those four ordinances to gain salvation, but im trying to stick with “orthodox” Mormon doctrine for this post. it really seems like a no brainer to me, that the church could reverse its stance on homosexuality and not have to change a single part if its doctrine about saving ordinances. I dont think it would even require a “revelation” just a change in policy. So what do you think, is homosexuality compatible with traditional mormon doctrine, or am i missing something? (i could certainly be wrong, im no scholar or theologian!)

[Anonymous]

I think you have a point, that what it is most against is Mormon tradition. As I recall there are some biblical scriptures against homosexuality, but there are also some racist scriptures – we understand these things as ancient people living according to their culture and understanding. Personally I think the debate comes down to a whether there is a choice or not. The old ideas were that same sex attraction is something that can be overcome, that nobody is innately gay, that God would not make them that way. Obviously, more current views make this assumption look wrong and outdated. So to me the question becomes do we deny people meaningful committed relationships because we don’t agree with the make-up. It does begin to sound a lot like how interracial marriages were viewed 200 years ago, but I’m afraid it may take another 200 years for society to become as comfortable with gay marriage. Personally, I have a hard time getting on the bandwagon. I’m not sure why that is. Sometimes it does look cruel to say “no sex outside of marriage” and then “no, you cannot get married.” I’ve herd it explained as a difficult trial in this life, like being disabled, like being born in a country where your life is simply going to be a hardship.

You do have a point about the basic doctrines of salvation, although the associated ideas in Mormon theology do center on traditional family relationships. It’s tough!

[Anonymous]

It is wrong in the church mostly because some leader says it is wrong. Is that not why we do or do not do most things in the church. Maybe Joseph or some latter prophet made some comment that lead us to a specific doctrinal practice and it becomes standard operating procedure, and so culturally ingrained it is difficult to change. It is as of now accepted practice to exclude gays so I doubt you will be able to convince anyone from a doctrinal standpoint they are in error. Maybe using coming sense and logic you could make a better argument for gays, but logic and reason is not the strong suit of many TBM’s

[Anonymous]

cakelady wrote:

I hope im not repeating an old discussion

Thanks for brining up this topic cakelady. I am new to this board and didnt post on this topic. It hard on the net if people are just digesting the information in their brains trying to figure things out or if they are “a sheep in wolves clothing.” I really wanted to hear how what this board had to say on the topic but didnt want to start it. The abscence of the topic was a little unsettling for me, because I am in California with my mixed LDS family. I cant really explain why I was bothered by the absence of the post except it was as if the board was ignoring the 800 pound elephant in the room. but I am new and perhaps the dead horse and been beaten in my absence.

I also appreciated the other responses, Kudos!

[Anonymous]

Up here in Canada, Same-sex marriage has been legal through out the nation for quite a few years. Here is a little blurb about it:

“On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world and the first country in the Americas to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide with the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act. Court decisions, starting in 2003, each already legalized same-sex marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories, whose residents comprised about 90% of Canada’s population. Before passage of the Act, more than 3,000 same-sex couples had already married in these areas.[1] Most legal benefits commonly associated with marriage had been extended to cohabiting same-sex couples since 1999.” (Wikipedia)

I’ve been very interested in what has been going on in California because I have very mixed feelings when it comes to this issue. Having been raised in a small mostly LDS community I hadn’t had much experience with gays or lesbians. Of course there were rumors and quiet conversations but it didn’t hit home to me until one of my husband’s good friends who was a faithful LDS with a strong testimony, served an honorable mission as assistant to the president etc, came out and I began to research the topic. It didn’t make sense to me that this man would choose to be gay when doing so would estrange him from his family and community. About the same time we learned that 2 of my husbands first cousins were gay and I had a chance to ask them questions. I also believe strongly that equal rights are very important. My biggest concern with Prop 8 was that churches would be forced to marry gays/lesbians when it was against their beliefs to do so. From the message Elder Bednar gave concerning this, that was the church’s concern as well.

Now, having had this law in place for 5 years in Canada I can tell you that I have never heard of any church being forced to marry a couple against their beliefs. I’m sure that would have been big news, but that doesn’t mean I couldn’t have missed it. I don’t know of any schools that are forcing children to learn about alternative lifestyles etc. And all the hype and propaganda of “what this will do to the family” etc seems unwarranted. How can two people loving each other enough to make a committment hurt the institution of marriage or family. I’m sure many will disagree with me but only time will tell I suppose.

I don’t see it being against mormon doctrine, but I do see it being very tough for the majority of members to wrap their minds around the idea. I wish it would happen soon, but it will take a lot of study, communication and probably more scientific understanding before that change will happen. I do wonder what the church will do now that the ban has been lifted until the courts make a final decision. Do members in California have the energy to continue the fight? I’d be interested in knowing what is happening in the LDS community now.

[Anonymous]

I think that the doctrinal hang-up is not the saving ordinances, per se. I think it has everything to do with the idea of pre-mortal gender and post-mortal gender. I know that Ray argues that we actually have no idea what the post-mortal life will look like and argues for a very gender-less communal “family”. But doctrinally, the idea that we were all assigned genders in the pre-existence supposes that creation and/or procreation can only happen between two members of the opposite sex. Hence, the idea that this concept is divine and universal.

The most obvious problem with this “universe view” is simply biology. Intersex/hermaphroditism, transgender and gender identity confusion are unaccounted for in that “universe view”. And, of course, there are a multitude of other biological factors that come into play beyond simply opposite sex intercourse. (Incestual pregnancy, cloning, age, etc.)

There is some movement in the church away from this universe view. Although some see it as a negative, the church’s de-emphasis on Heavenly Mother is a step away from the “universe view” of opposite sex creation/procreation.

There is a long religious tradition of “rejecting” the imperfect in deference to the “perfect” as believed by the group. Iow, the theology of “as it is on earth, so it is in heaven”. Therefore, whatever imperfections are found “on earth” are discarded as evil or anti-God. It’s the total rejection of the “other”. And, of course, this has led to most of the greatest tragedies of human-on-human violence.

[Anonymous]

Just as a humorous aside:

It’s funny how almost impossible it is to use the correct terminology in discussions of the post-mortal life and “sexuality”. I really do believe in a foundational “gender-less” existence outside of mortality – but not necessarily in a “sex-less” existence (when “sex-less” means no distinction between male and female). I can’t say in an open, public forum, however, that I believe “sex” might continue in the hereafter – since almost everyone reading it would assume I mean “sexual activity” or “sexual intercourse”. I don’t mean that; I mean only biological sex – male and female. Therefore, in order to avoid that misperception, I have to say something like “gender-less” (meaning lacking cultural roles / expectations, not biological sex) – and it all gets really confusing, really quickly, especially since it’s all speculation based on the possibility that it “might” be. I usually end up wanting to scream whenever the general topic is discussed, since it’s SO hard to be comprehensive and yet avoid misunderstanding.

My quick take is that we have come so far recently in our ability to nurture life that we can envision producing children outside a biological womb without it being some crazy, sci-fi, whacko idea – and that, if we can see that possibility in our own mortal future, why in the world would we think a Heavenly Mother has to waddle around pregant to create spirit children? That idea is laughable to me – **even as I LOVE the concept of a Heavenly Mother** as one the greatest aspects of pure Mormonism. Literal or metaphorical, it’s an AWESOME concept – as long as it doesn’t serve as a bludgeon for those who can’t or won’t be biological parents in this life (regardless of sexual orientation). All it posits to me is that women have the exact same divine protential and worth as men do – that whatever men can become, women can be right there with them in the exact same state of godliness. It’s incredibly frustrating to me to hear members (espeically leaders) who don’t get that – but it’s getting better and better as time passes and the older generation dies.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

There is some movement in the church away from this universe view. Although some see it as a negative, the church’s de-emphasis on Heavenly Mother is a step away from the “universe view” of opposite sex creation/procreation.

Interesting. By de-emphasizing HM, the church makes itself more vulnerable to the pre-maritally chaste, legal SSM is acceptable to God argument.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think that discussion of HM has been de emphasized since it’s never discussed in general church forums at all. The only time I can recall anything said about it was when GBH said not to discuss it. The only time it’s really discussed is in the bloggernacle and in institute classes or in gospel doctrine when the teacher loses control of the discussion. I think we have to realize how little is written in mormon theology about HM. As near as I can tell there’s just the line in “Oh My Father”. I don’t remember where I was reading it but one writer stated that there’s nothing about a heavenly mother in Eliza R. Snow’s journal’s during the years she was with or married to Joseph Smith. The rest seems to be conventional wisdom that’s risen from people trying to figure out what the CK will like and what the whole eternal increase business means. To whit Ray’s comment about eternal sex and pregnancy and what does it all really mean and or matter.

A last quick point. In the Proclamation on the Family it states that gender is eternal but that’s taken to mean not male and female but sexual preference. Gay men want to be men, lesbians want to be women. Transgendered are unfortunately out in the cold either way. So the focus of the proclamation really does seem to be anti gay with all that has become to entail. An acquaintance with some inside information has told me that it’s not likely that the church will step into a prop 8 like campaign again since they didn’t realize what a hornet’s nest they’d kick over.

[Anonymous]

humanist wrote:

cakelady wrote:

I hope im not repeating an old discussion

Thanks for brining up this topic cakelady. I am new to this board and didnt post on this topic. It hard on the net if people are just digesting the information in their brains trying to figure things out or if they are “a sheep in wolves clothing.” I really wanted to hear how what this board had to say on the topic but didnt want to start it. The abscence of the topic was a little unsettling for me, because I am in California with my mixed LDS family. I cant really explain why I was bothered by the absence of the post except it was as if the board was ignoring the 800 pound elephant in the room. but I am new and perhaps the dead horse and been beaten in my absence.

I also appreciated the other responses, Kudos!

I believe this issue is discussed quite a bit on the board. It hasn’t been a main thread for at least 6 months, but it does come up in discussion. Here is a post I made just last week dealing with libertarians and gay marriage.

Quote:

Perhaps I’m just paranoid, but I don’t want to go back to the days where groups like the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope ran the world. Those WERE NOT good days! i don’t want to go back to a time when laws of Islam dictates what and how a senator can say and act. I don’t think it is healthy for religious organization that claim to have the keys to exaltation and salvation controlling government, freedom and individual rights. Power and and authority are a terrible thing in the hands of the wrong men — and when you add “authority from god” to the mix. Ouch.

Interesting – you said you voted for Bob Barr. Bob Barr is “the man!” I suppose if I had to claim a party, it would certainly be the Libertarians. with the system in place right now, there is NO CHANCE that I guy like Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Perot would ever get elected. Won’t happen – that is why I disdain the two party system. One has to conform to the party platform in order to get elected — and the party platform stinks.

I don’t have any problem with any religion speaking and proclaiming their belief. No problem — but it does cross the line, IMO, when they start “encouraging” members to donate and vote a certain way. I think members have a right to express their opinion. I’m not sure CHURCH LEADERS from SLC have a right to tell you what your opinion is though. Why not just say, “we believe that marriage is between a man and woman, and is ordained of god… and you members need to vote your conscience on the issues?…Teach men correct principles and let them govern themselves…use your god given free agency to do what you feel is right…” I don’t think that is unreasonable?

mormonheretic wrote:”Your points about stage 3 republicans and democrats are right on the money, IMO.”

Thank you.

“The church is a special interest group just like MoveOn.org, ACORN, the Tea Party, and the Minutemen.”

I don’t see it that way. I don’t see any group that claims to have authority from GODand have the only keys to your and my salvation as a “special interest group.” If it is, and SLC thinks it is, and the general membership believe it is — than I’m going to have some serious faith issues on my hands.

FWIW – I don’t think the state should have ANY say in marriage. I would be okay if we did away with the term altogether – and just had civil union. If people want to continue marriage in a religious form and ceremony, and if different churches want to define what marriage means and who can and can’t – fine. But why should the government be able to tell ANYONE who can and can’t get married. It is a religious issue for me, and should be a religious issue – not a political one — IMO.

A 150 years ago, the mormon church leaders said just about exactly what I just said. They were on the other side of the coin. Now they have done a complete 180 on the whole marriage issue. Times sure have changed.

[Anonymous]

Hi Everyone,

I have been busy and gone alot of the summer,so I have not had alot of time to read or post. But, it is enjoyable to come back and read the new posts and replies. The prop 8 thing has gotten alot of us thinking… and the main thing it has made me think about is what is the most loving thing to do in these situations. Jesus told us what the greatest commandment was when asked and said upon this hang all the laws and the prophets. So many in the church with a same-sex attraction, like my youngest son, have suffered with feelings that they were going to hell if they could not change their feelings. It has even caused a number of suicides that should not have happened. So, this is a big issue! It is a Christian issue and salvation comes through Jesus Christ and His atonement. I know the lds church teaches that we should want more than salvation; meaning exhaultation where we are exhaulted to godhood.

Since so many of us do deal with this issue in our families, it can cause alot of dessention and pain. While I was in Texas the past two weeks with my daughter and her family, something interesting happened that helped me see how we can deal with gay/Christian issues. So, I would like to share what happened:

My daughter’s husband has a brother who is gay and about my son’s age (28). He came over for dinner and I was able to make a good connection with him. Like in many families, my son in law’s families (through divorces etc) never bring up the gay issue. This issue and the brother being gay is like the “pink elephant’ in the room that everyone ignores. The gay brother pretty much accepts this fact in his family and understands that they do not agree with his lifestyle and having a partner because of their Christian beliefs.

This gay brother is a wonderful young man that they all love dearly. He has a heart of gold and is so close to my teenage grand sons and their 2 year old. I connected with him by asking if he would like me to send him some pictures of the family activities. He said he would love them and gave me his email address. I told him that I post alot of these family photos on my facebook and asked if I could invite him as a friend. He was glad to do that. I noticed on his facebook were a number of photos of him and his partner besides his activities as a pro-gay democrat. Even his involvment in the gay pride weeks and parades were mentioned. The fact that he accepted my invitation to see his facebook page was huge because he knows we are strong Christians. After we connected on face book I wrote him a private message letting him know how great it was to meet him and that I understood how difficult it must be in families to not be able to discuss parts of his life with them. I asked him if he knew that his brothers wife (my daughter) had a gay brother his age. I told him I knew about last years incident where my daughter and his mom were at a family reunion and the whole family, including him, heard them discussing what the Bible says about homosexuality. It caused a huge fight as the whole family and siblings turned against my daughter and her mother in law. They are a very close Spanish family and this gay brother was so hurt by being outed this way. My daughter had since apologized profusely to her gay brother in law and they have tried to move past it. I wrote this gay brother that my daughter, who is a newly born again Evangelical Nelly, had gone overboard and also hurt her own gay brother’s feelings several times by telling him he was going to hell if he did not change. She has since become more balanced in her religious vigor and apologized to her brother. I told my son in laws gay brother that I had written a book about our families journey with my gay son and wondered if he would like to read it. I also asked my gay son if he and this gay brother would like to connect on facebook since they have so much in common being democrats, and pro-gay. They were very interested in connecting and in him wanting to read my book. I told him I wrote the book 10 years ago and that my thinking had changed alot since then so to read it with knowing I have been a work in progress as all families are in learning from this issue.

I got a wonderful reply back from him and he and his partner were thrilled that I was someone they could talk to in the family. I told him about the pro-gay youth I wrote my book with and that I have many gay friends who I have found common ground with. That families should be able to discuss difficult topics like politics, religion, or the gay issue without being disagreable, even if they strongly disagree on some issues. I told him that I believed he should be able to talk about his life, his partner, and what interests they have and be affirmed as children of God and human beings. That does not mean my daughter and her husband can’t have some boundaries about certain things if he brings his partner over, but that they should respect them to live and choose the life they believe in. If my daughter had married a Muslim and joined the Muslim religion, I would not be too thrilled but I would be respectful and treat them with love. Anyway, I am trying hard to follow the promptings of the spirit to bond families to each other in loving ways. I felt God’s hand in this and I realized how important each of us are in the lives of others.

So, to me it is more loving to allow gays to marry and have rights then to live celibate and struggle with worth. I know a number of lds SSA’d RM’s who have anquished over this to the point of killing themselves. Some have had the Spirit powerfully testify to them that it was alright to have a Same sex partner and even children by adoption. They said it was the very same spirit that told them the church and BofM was true. So, I believe in following what the spirit tells you to do in your particular case. Sunstone magizine had a great article after the prop 8 vote about those on both sides of this issue who claim God told them how to vote. Life is not black and white and as JS himself said, “What may be wrong under one circumstance is right under another.”

Bridget

[Anonymous]

Basically the church should not get involved in legislation of morality. Of course this is what I believe and many others have the right to differ. I don’t want my tithe to go to support a vote for or against any legislation. If an individual wants to participate on either side…that is their right, but my tithe is to go to the church’s mission. This was a huge mistake by the church…not the first and probably not the last. I see gender as continuing into the eternities but being male does not make anyone better that anyone. I do not know what will happen in relation to gender identity, but I know that people who love and are committed to each other should be able to be married and have the same rights. Maybe that love is eternal as well…who am I to say otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Thinker wrote:

…Maybe that love is eternal as well…who am I to say otherwise.

I’ve been wanting to say this at church for a long time, but have never worked up the guts to do so.

And even if I did, what possible good would come from it? It would just give the members another excuse to “black ball” me. They have plenty of excuses all ready – no need to help them out.

[Author]

Posts