Prop 8 / Same-Sex Marriage Discussion

[Anonymous]

Quote:

“if homosexuals saw these numbers, or if that 13 year old deacon in San Diego who recognized his own SSA, saw those numbers, what is the conclusion to be drawn?”

Objectively, that a whole lot of Mormons don’t believe in gay marriage. Anything more than that, based solely on the money issue, is subjective speculation – and VERY wrong, in many cases.

I don’t mean that to be flippant. I think it’s an important point. Let me throw out the reverse:

Quote:

If those who supported Prop 8 saw the money spent to oppose Prop 8 (which, btw, was higher than that spent to pass it), what is the conclusion to be drawn?

Objectively, that a whole lot of people believe in gay marriage. Anything more than that, based solely on the money issue, is subjective speculation – and VERY wrong, in many cases.

Quote:

If Mormons saw the demonstrations and signs outside the temples and meetinghouses after the vote, what is the conclusion to be drawn?

Objectively, that a whole lot of people are mad at Mormons and the LDS Church. Anything more than that, based solely on those actions, is subjective speculation – and VERY wrong, in many cases.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Objectively, that a whole lot of Mormons don’t believe in gay marriage. Anything more than that, based solely on the money issue, is subjective speculation – and VERY wrong, in many cases.

That’s absolutely true… if you’re a reporter. Sorry, but you know what I mean. We all make subjective judgment or use subjective speculation. That’s how humans navigate life, belief systems, integrity, ethics, etc. I doubt anyone can be 100% objective, 100% of the time. It’s kind of like that question in another thread: Is it always a sin to lie? That’s subjective, isn’t it?

I do understand the point, and it’s correct. It’s just people making unsound or unfounded judgments. But there is a message that can be inferred (as subjective speculation that is VERY wrong, in many cases): gay marriage is wrong therefore gay is wrong therefore gay feelings are wrong.

[Anonymous]

I agree completely, swimordie, that such conclusions can be reached – and this comment is not intended as a defense of spending on Prop 8. However, I think it’s important to point out that such subjective speculation and conclusion, when ignoring the other information available, is NOT the fault of the one being evaluated; rather, it is the fault of the one doing the evaluation.

For example, try to think objectively about your feelings and impressions as you read the following description:

There is a strikingly sharp couple in my stake. Both are well put together every time they are in public. The wife is gorgeous, and the husband is handsome. Both are extremely fit. They are in their mid-30’sm have been married for almost 8 years and have no children. She drives a Lexus; he drives a Mercedes.

“What conclusion is to be drawn from this?”

I’m not going to provide ANY more information about them, because that would undercut the point of the exercise. The fact is, there is very little one can gather objectively from the description above about these people themselves that is much import. There’s LOTS that is assumed about them all the time, based on appearances, but how much of it is accurate? What is accurate and what is inaccurate? How could you find out?

SSM is a highly emotional issue, and, like all highly emotional issues, it is easy to jump to conclusions and apply stereotypes. It is brutally hard for many people to really listen to those with whom they disagree concerning a topic like this without assuming beliefs and attitudes that often simply aren’t there. It’s much easier to see this issue as divided between two types of people with two views – rather than all kinds of people with all kinds of nuanced and differing views. The LDS Church, ironically, gets blasted by many on BOTH sides of this issue – from the supporters of SSM for its opposition, but also from many of the opponents of SSM for its statements that homosexuality in many cases is a biological, “natural” inclination and often extremely strong. It’s the same thing that happens with abortion – the Church getting blasted by those who want all abortions outlawed AND those who want to be told that there is nothing wrong with abortion in any situation.

Part of moving through Stage 4 to Stage 5 is accepting the idea that the number of people who agree with you completely is going to shrink drastically – that those still in Stage 3 on BOTH sides of any issue are going to have problems with your unwillingness to vilify those with whom you disagree. We live in a society where polarization and listen-less argument is being glorified more and more – where Stage 3 thinking is rewarded more often and openly than Stage 5 thinking is. SSM is just one example of this.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Part of moving through Stage 4 to Stage 5 is accepting the idea that the number of people who agree with you completely is going to shrink drastically – that those still in Stage 3 on BOTH sides of any issue are going to have problems with your unwillingness to vilify those with whom you disagree.

I’m going to give away my status again as lazy, arm-chair pseudo-intellecutal philosopher by asking for the references to the stages. You guys mention them and I’ve been able to infer that I’m a screaming Stage 3er and my sensai, Ray, is a stage 5. I’m new to this. Any help would be appreciated.

Thank you, Ray, for the post, it is well-thought out. I guess my question is: couldn’t the church be better served, maybe even internally more than externally, by staying out of the whole debate, in the same way they do with abortion? I guess what’s so hard for me to be post stage 3 on this is that real damage is being done to the thousands, maybe tens of thousands of LDS youth who are blessed with SSA. (I”m sincere in my hope that people can refer to SSA as the potential good that it can do in the world, only God knows why it exists but it must be for a wise purpose)

Old-Timer wrote:

There is a strikingly sharp couple in my stake. Both are well put together every time they are in public. The wife is gorgeous, and the husband is handsome. Both are extremely fit. They are in their mid-30’sm have been married for almost 8 years and have no children. She drives a Lexus; he drives a Mercedes.

I would laugh and wonder why they say they’ve only been married for 8 years (mid-30’s, LDS, you do the math)

[Anonymous]

Quote:

“I guess my question is: couldn’t the church be better served, maybe even internally more than externally, by staying out of the whole debate, in the same way they do with abortion?”

Perhaps it could. I certainly think there is a good argument for it to stay out of active political participation concerning SSM. Of course, I also am far more open to changing policies as long as core doctrines aren’t changed sans revelation than many members.

There is at least one thread here about Fowler’s Stages of Faith. The link is:

http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=153

[Anonymous]

Thanks Ray. Now I know I’m a screaming Stage 6-er 😯 😆

jk

Is SSM a doctrinal issue?

[Anonymous]

ray wrote:

We live in a society where polarization and listen-less argument is being glorified more and more

Yes, I totally agree. I can’t listen to Limbaugh any more than I can listen to Obermen (sp?). Both are just spewing exagerrated superlatives at the other side to make a point, but not really interested in listening and coming to agreements. I feel it is the same with most environmental and religious issues. I remember being on my mission and our zone went out to eat after a conference at a mexican restaurant here in the states. When we all got seated, some guy from another table came storming to our table basing us about how mormons were devil worshippers. We did nothing but the guy wouldn’t give up until the restaurant owner had to come out and tell him to sit down or leave. The owner said, “There is one rule here, no talk of religion, politics, or sex. You can’t ever have a calm discussion about any of those.”

Interestingly, this topic seems to be about all three! No wonder its emotionally charged!!

swimordie wrote:

Is SSM a doctrinal issue?

I think because the brethren recently published the Family Proclamation, it is a doctrinal issue.

[Anonymous]

I can’t listen to Limbaugh or Olbermann either. They both drive me nuts! (I do like Olbermann when he talks about sports, however–it’s too bad he and Dan Patrick split up. I’ve always though Limbaugh was a windbag, though he can be funny sometimes. Lately, he’s just a jerk.)

[Anonymous]

This is always such a hot topic. I just got a chance to look at it, and I am already 4 pages behind…

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I agree completely, swimordie, that such conclusions can be reached – and this comment is not intended as a defense of spending on Prop 8. However, I think it’s important to point out that such subjective speculation and conclusion, when ignoring the other information available, is NOT the fault of the one being evaluated; rather, it is the fault of the one doing the evaluation.

For example, try to think objectively about your feelings and impressions as you read the following description:

There is a strikingly sharp couple in my stake. Both are well put together every time they are in public. The wife is gorgeous, and the husband is handsome. Both are extremely fit. They are in their mid-30’sm have been married for almost 8 years and have no children. She drives a Lexus; he drives a Mercedes.

“What conclusion is to be drawn from this?”

I’m not going to provide ANY more information about them, because that would undercut the point of the exercise. The fact is, there is very little one can gather objectively from the description above about these people themselves that is much import. There’s LOTS that is assumed about them all the time, based on appearances, but how much of it is accurate? What is accurate and what is inaccurate? How could you find out?

SSM is a highly emotional issue, and, like all highly emotional issues, it is easy to jump to conclusions and apply stereotypes. It is brutally hard for many people to really listen to those with whom they disagree concerning a topic like this without assuming beliefs and attitudes that often simply aren’t there. It’s much easier to see this issue as divided between two types of people with two views – rather than all kinds of people with all kinds of nuanced and differing views. The LDS Church, ironically, gets blasted by many on BOTH sides of this issue – from the supporters of SSM for its opposition, but also from many of the opponents of SSM for its statements that homosexuality in many cases is a biological, “natural” inclination and often extremely strong. It’s the same thing that happens with abortion – the Church getting blasted by those who want all abortions outlawed AND those who want to be told that there is nothing wrong with abortion in any situation.

Part of moving through Stage 4 to Stage 5 is accepting the idea that the number of people who agree with you completely is going to shrink drastically – that those still in Stage 3 on BOTH sides of any issue are going to have problems with your unwillingness to vilify those with whom you disagree. We live in a society where polarization and listen-less argument is being glorified more and more – where Stage 3 thinking is rewarded more often and openly than Stage 5 thinking is. SSM is just one example of this.

Excellent post Ray. This is exactly why I consider the whole issue to be political and not a moral one. For me, a libertarian (applying a label, and I hate that), the option I wanted wasn’t on the ballot. The issue, for me, isn’t about whether or not SSM is morally right or wrong, it doesn’t matter. The point is, gov’t should not be dictating personal relationships, and neither should the majority of people.

[Anonymous]

swimordie wrote:

Thank you, Ray, for the post, it is well-thought out. I guess my question is: couldn’t the church be better served, maybe even internally more than externally, by staying out of the whole debate, in the same way they do with abortion? I guess what’s so hard for me to be post stage 3 on this is that real damage is being done to the thousands, maybe tens of thousands of LDS youth who are blessed with SSA. (I”m sincere in my hope that people can refer to SSA as the potential good that it can do in the world, only God knows why it exists but it must be for a wise purpose)

Well, I don’t think Ray is saying that the church should or should not be in the debate. His point is about inductive reasoning at it’s base. That is, the conclusions drawn are not supported by the premises. Inductive reasoning is extremely unreliable, and leads to passing unfair judgment, and that’s his point (hope I’m not putting words in your mouth Ray).

I agree with you. From an objective standpoint, my feeling is that the church would do well to stay neutral on such debates and focus on preaching pure doctrine. Unfortunately, doctrine sometimes clashes with politics and real life. In that event, I still think the church should just continue to preach doctrine and not get involved. But this is because I identify with libertarian ideals. The church is run largely by conservatives so I don’t really expect anything different. The stage 3 symptoms you exhibit are not based on your opinions, but rather on your certainty and “black and white” disposition toward the issue. It is fine to not agree with the church, Mormons, or other religious folk. But once we cross the line into certitude we begin passing judgment, have closed our mind to others’ point of view, and are no better than those with whom we clash. It is this attitude that rubs me the wrong way when I encounter TBM Mormons, or gay rights activists.

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

The stage 3 symptoms you exhibit are not based on your opinions, but rather on your certainty and “black and white” disposition toward the issue. It is fine to not agree with the church, Mormons, or other religious folk. But once we cross the line into certitude we begin passing judgment, have closed our mind to others’ point of view, and are no better than those with whom we clash

Thank you jmb for nailing me on the head. I guess a question is: “When does a “knowledge” of something become an “activist” urge? And what to do with it?

John Dehlin mentions the moral obligation of staying a member of the church to influence positively the destructive nature of some of the culture, history, etc. towards people’s faith.

Is it possible? The church didn’t change it’s stance on polygamy and priesthood for all men until there was massive external pressure. These were not changed from the inside (from my perspective).

Is it appropriate? Should the brethren tweak doctrine, practices due to internal pressure? Has it happened? Maybe the non-questioning of oral s3x in temple recommend interviews.

Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

swimordie wrote:

Thank you jmb for nailing me on the head. I guess a question is: “When does a “knowledge” of something become an “activist” urge? And what to do with it?

Excellent question. I highly recommend reading about Gandhi and his passive activist ideas. I am opposed to coercion in virtually all forms (sometimes necessary in parent/child relationships), and am against violence. Although, even having said that, I am thankful for the revolutionaries and their insistence on becoming “activists.” I am also grateful for activists. They help promote change.

swimordie wrote:

Is it possible? The church didn’t change it’s stance on polygamy and priesthood for all men until there was massive external pressure. These were not changed from the inside (from my perspective).

Is it appropriate? Should the brethren tweak doctrine, practices due to internal pressure? Has it happened? Maybe the non-questioning of oral s3x in temple recommend interviews.

Sure it’s possible, although not likely without external pressure on this matter. I would say that we have a better chance of helping dispel various folklore. But SSM is something that is going to take pressure from the gov’t or a revelation (perhaps coinciding). Yeah, with regard to questioning about oral sex in the temple rec interviews, that was possibly changed by internal pressure, and rightly so. I think that crosses the line for me a bit. This is similar to another thread on this forum about interviewing 12 year olds about masturbation. Probably not quite appropriate in my mind. I think the brethren should definitely tweak practices due to internal pressure, but doctrine, well I dunno. For me, if something is true it belongs in the church. If it’s false, it should be rooted out. But our method for determining truth (spiritual experiences, and revelation), IMHO, doesn’t have a real good track record in the history of the world. This, coupled with an abundance of conservativism results in a large resistance to change. The Lord can’t reveal a doctrinal change to an unprepared mind, and it might be that our brethren have unprepared minds on this issue. There’s also the matter of preserving the organization. In my view, many of the decisions, behavior, and doctrines of the church are designed to preserve the organization at all costs, even at the expense of the individual if necessary. September six, polygamy, SSM, blacks and priesthood immediately come to mind.

Here’s the way I look at it. We live in a large world, with many people, each one having a voice and effecting change in one way or the other. On an individual level we would do well to become stage 5ers (at least) as we become more like God. In the aggregate, however, we need voices who at polar opposite sides of the spectrum on any issue. We need moderate voices, and extreme voices. In the end, we hope that the group will make a good decision. And indeed, research shows that well balanced groups, on the whole, make excellent, even optimal decisions. I am satisfied that I am a small voice in the group, effecting change in a humble way, and in the aggregate providing a balance. Currently, I would say the church isn’t very well balanced. It suffers (especially in the hierarchy) from many of the ills of a “dumb group” when it comes to making decisions. Relying on common information, group think, lack of independence, social pressure, herding, information cascades are just some of the problems I think we suffer from in the church. The balance we need is difficult to get, I think, in part because everything is done by “revelation.” Imagine how it might be different if the church hierarchy hired an independent analyst to come evaluate church leadership and recommend the next apostle? Would we get someone to balance things out? Probably. Would we get someone whom the brethren liked, and felt the Lord liked? Probably not. When “revelation” trumps everything else, it is easy to be carried away into that line of thinking.

[Anonymous]

@swimordie:

Quote:

Thanks Ray. Now I know I’m a screaming Stage 6-er

Sorry, but after Stage 4 you’re too hoarse to scream any more. Stage 5 and 6 are relatively calm. Stage 6 is also a bit of a ghost town.

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

For me, if something is true it belongs in the church. If it’s false, it should be rooted out. But our method for determining truth (spiritual experiences, and revelation), IMHO, doesn’t have a real good track record in the history of the world. This, coupled with an abundance of conservativism results in a large resistance to change. The Lord can’t reveal a doctrinal change to an unprepared mind, and it might be that our brethren have unprepared minds on this issue. There’s also the matter of preserving the organization. In my view, many of the decisions, behavior, and doctrines of the church are designed to preserve the organization at all costs, even at the expense of the individual if necessary. September six, polygamy, SSM, blacks and priesthood immediately come to mind.

Is it possible that doctrine needs to be “updated” or clarified in changing times, as opposed to really changing it as the old truth was wrong? IOW, when the original revelations were given, certain questions didn’t apply, so there was no direction on it. Then as they came up, it came to current church leaders’ attention to make their interpretations on it, but the underlying doctrine didn’t change. In fact, some things like the priesthood for all men may have been doctrine all along and just not fully understood until the time was right to dig into the subject and get direct revelation about it.

For example, Word of Wisdom… we now have drugs that need to be included in the Word of Wisdom. What about energy drinks? My bishop doesn’t want any of our youth drinking them. Is he right? Do we need clarification? Is the Word of Wisdom “changing”? Maybe for some people they need to know the specific rules to run the church orderly, but the overall doctrine of taking care of your body hasn’t changed.

What about SSM? Prior definition of chastity defined marriage clearly as using those powers between man and woman to bring spirits to earth. Anything else (fornication, adultery, gay relationships) is sin. Could our doctrine still be the same, but we just need to clarify what marriage means in today’s society that didn’t apply back in the 1840s when it wasn’t an option because some people need that? But the doctrine hasn’t changed. Does it need to?

In other words, maybe it is the practice that doesn’t have a good track record, not the truth which is understood more and more as we progress as a church and individually.

[Author]

Posts