Storm over the Mormons - for Non-Mormons

[Magic Man]

Apex started a thread a while back about this article in Time about Mormons and Prop 8.

I wanted to make a comment on it, so I started a thread here where I can do so.

Says Stewart: "I hear they threw bags of urine at a temple. If we had lost, it never would have occurred to me to react that way."

This is a quote from an LDS who voted for Prop 8. I just think it epitomizes the naivete of those who supported Prop 8. Of course she wouldn't have thought of reacting that way. Nothing was being done to her personally. She had no real stake in the fight. If she had lost, her life would have remained exactly the same. She ignores completely how much this proposition did to negatively affect gay people in California.

The rest of the paragraph goes on to say:

Three months after the election, she says, "I don't feel quite the same way about our community." She felt frozen out of conversations among other parents. "You think, This will go away. But it doesn't seem to. I think about my kids in school," she says. "I want them to be accepted, to feel it's O.K. to be different." Of course, this is precisely the sentiment motivating the gay-marriage movement.

I really hope this is true, and that most Mormons in California feel this way. I hope they feel frozen out of conversations and don't think this will go away. Maybe at some point this kind of thing will start to help get it through their heads what this debate is actually about.

 

[gnomon]

"As civilization keeps moving from standards we think God wants people to hold, it's inevitable that we expect persecution." Back in Alameda, Stewart's husband Brad says about Prop 8, "I hope I never have to do it again," but adds grimly, "I expect that I will."

As he says they think God wants people to hold.

Not know.

But think.

And based upon that thinking it is enough to conclude that they should continue to oppose same sex marriage and more once one gains more understanding of all the issues involved.

That's a bit frightening to know someone thinks that way.

edit: But this thread cannot be nearly as good as the one you got this from. It's a good one to watch.

 

[Sunstone]

I wonder how well you can understand someone else's point of view if you think your point of view comes from God?

At any rate, gay marriage is coming to this country -- and to the State of California -- regardless of what the Mormon Church, or any other church, thinks of it. But it's interesting that the opposition to gay marriage is almost always religious.

 

[Smoke]

Three months after the election, she says, "I don't feel quite the same way about our community." She felt frozen out of conversations among other parents. "You think, This will go away. But it doesn't seem to. I think about my kids in school," she says. "I want them to be accepted, to feel it's O.K. to be different."

I thought that was the most significant quote in the entire article. It shows that this woman understands the necessity of pluralism in a free society. It shows that she understands diversity and compassion. And it shows that she is completely unable to relate those values to gay people, or to see her gay neighbor as her equal -- or even as her neighbor.

She hates that she feels her community has distanced her socially for "being different," yet she has no trouble demonizing others and crusading to deprive them of equal protection under the law, precisely for being too different. She actually believes it's her duty to do so. Her hypocrisy is both galling and fascinating.

I wish I could say I feel sorry for this woman, but I don't. I can only regard her with contempt.

 

[Duck]

Frubals.

 

[Autodidact]

I wonder how well you can understand someone else's point of view if you think your point of view comes from God?

At any rate, gay marriage is coming to this country -- and to the State of California -- regardless of what the Mormon Church, or any other church, thinks of it. But it's interesting that the opposition to gay marriage is almost always religious.

What I think is interesting is that when you consider the inevitability of national acceptance of same-sex marriage, and what will follow from that, which will be basically that states and entities seeking government money will have to recognize same-sex couples and treat them equally. Then add the Mormon history of getting a revelation that can change anything, literally anything in their doctrine, even something as fundamental as polygamy, it looks like eventually, we will see a Mormon revelation accepting same-sex marriage. Not soon, not in my lifetime, but I do think that's the way it will go. Now that's interesting.

btw, none of the Mormons here think so, but that fits the pattern as well. As long as it's doctrine, it's followed, believed, revered and will never change. Then you get the new revelation and bingo, it never was doctrine, it was just the mistaken, human interpretation of previous leaders.

To me, this whole approach is one of the most fascinating and successful aspects of The Mormon Church.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

edit: But this thread cannot be nearly as good as the one you got this from. It's a good one to watch.

I found this comment interesting:

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/jensen.html

“Marlin Jensen is an LDS church historian and member of the First Quorum of the Seventy. This is part of a transcript of an interview conducted on March 7, 2006”

Q. What are some of the doctrines a person might be excommunicated for opposing?
A. If you advocated, for instance, that gay people should be allowed to marry, and you were openly vocal about that, and in the process malign the leadership in the church for not adopting that position, that's something that would be severe enough, I think, to warrant disciplinary action.

The underlining and bolding was added by idea and wasn't part of the original transcript or (obviously) part of the spoken interview. Notice what happens to the meaning when the emphasis is changed:

Q. What are some of the doctrines a person might be excommunicated for opposing?
A. If you advocated, for instance, that gay people should be allowed to marry, and you were openly vocal about that, and in the process malign the leadership in the church for not adopting that position, that's something that would be severe enough, I think, to warrant disciplinary action.

I think this emphasis is truer to Mr. Jensen's intent. If you read the question and answer that immediately precedes this one, I think you'll see that Mr. Jensen's focus was on publicly opposing the church leadership, not an individual's private stance on this particular issue:

Many people have been excommunicated, even faithful Mormons. In intellectual areas, what is the line crossed in which excommunication is the answer?

First I'd like to observe that, in distinction to what happens in most religions, we have had some studies come out of the Brigham Young University which indicate that the more educated a Latter-day Saint becomes, the deeper he believes, which is an interesting ratio, so that we're not afraid of intellectuals or of learning or of knowledge, that we have Scriptures that say we can be saved no faster than we gain knowledge and that the glory of God is intelligence. So the intellectual has a wonderful place within the church.

Where an intellectual, I think, can get into difficulty is when that intellectual person takes a position and begins either to attack the general leader or the local leaders of the church or begins to attack the basic doctrine of the church and does that publicly. ... That's, at least in my humble view of it, probably the definition of apostasy. At that point a person in that situation would be counseled and lovingly invited to become at least quiet -- (laughs) -- if not orthodox, and if they refuse and persist in their public opposition to leaders or to the doctrine of the church, at that point I think the church has no option but to take some disciplinary action toward them with the hope that they will humble themselves and change their hearts and become more contrite members of the church, which often happens, but not always.

 

[Zephyr]

Frubals.

Off-topic, but hey Heathen buddy.

 

[Father Heathen]

How could they have failed to understand that trampling upon the rights and freedom of other people would be met with resentment and hostility? And like Smoke said, of course the Mormons wouldn't have reacted in a similar fashion had they lost as their rights and freedom weren't at stake. That is another thing that should've been blatantly obvious to them. It's as if the "spirit of god" clouds the mind and makes one oblivious to the world around them.

 

[Magic Man]

And like Smoke said, of course the Mormons wouldn't have reacted in a similar fashion had they lost as their rights and freedom weren't at stake.

Actually, that was my whole point in posting the OP.

 

[Watchmen]

What I think is interesting is that when you consider the inevitability of national acceptance of same-sex marriage, and what will follow from that, which will be basically that states and entities seeking government money will have to recognize same-sex couples and treat them equally. Then add the Mormon history of getting a revelation that can change anything, literally anything in their doctrine, even something as fundamental as polygamy, it looks like eventually, we will see a Mormon revelation accepting same-sex marriage. Not soon, not in my lifetime, but I do think that's the way it will go. Now that's interesting.

btw, none of the Mormons here think so, but that fits the pattern as well. As long as it's doctrine, it's followed, believed, revered and will never change. Then you get the new revelation and bingo, it never was doctrine, it was just the mistaken, human interpretation of previous leaders.

To me, this whole approach is one of the most fascinating and successful aspects of The Mormon Church.

I don't plan on participating in this thread, but I do need to correct you. You use polygamy as an example of a fundamental doctrine that is changed by revelation. The fact is, the doctrine of polygamy never changed. The doctrine was in place before Joseph Smith began the practicing it. The doctrine was in place while the Saints were practicing it. And, the doctrine is still in place today. Plural marriage is an eternal doctrine of the LDS Church. It will always be there. What changes over time is whether God gives us permission to practice the doctrine or not. That permission was always required as described in the Book of Mormon - a writing that existed well before Joseph began practicing the doctrine. The revelation you claim changed polygamy didn't change it all. It was simply a revelation removing the permission to practice the doctrine.

Also, your claim that "bingo, it was never doctrine," is flawed as well. That which is doctrine is what is in our canon. There are many practices and procedures that are followed. There are many unofficial teachings that are agreed upon virtually by all the members. But if these things are not in our canon then they are not doctrine.

I believe gay marriage is an inevitability. However, it will come to pass by well-run campaigns focusing on educating the people about gay families - NOT gay adversaries. Thus, bashing Mormons is, ultimately, an ineffective way at moving towards gay marriage.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't plan on participating in this thread, but I do need to correct you. You use polygamy as an example of a fundamental doctrine that is changed by revelation. The fact is, the doctrine of polygamy never changed. The doctrine was in place before Joseph Smith began the practicing it. The doctrine was in place while the Saints were practicing it. And, the doctrine is still in place today. Plural marriage is an eternal doctrine of the LDS Church. It will always be there. What changes over time is whether God gives us permission to practice the doctrine or not. That permission was always required as described in the Book of Mormon - a writing that existed well before Joseph began practicing the doctrine. The revelation you claim changed polygamy didn't change it all. It was simply a revelation removing the permission to practice the doctrine.

Also, your claim that "bingo, it was never doctrine," is flawed as well. That which is doctrine is what is in our canon. There are many practices and procedures that are followed. There are many unofficial teachings that are agreed upon virtually by all the members. But if these things are not in our canon then they are not doctrine.

I believe gay marriage is an inevitability. However, it will come to pass by well-run campaigns focusing on educating the people about gay families - NOT gay adversaries. Thus, bashing Mormons is, ultimately, an ineffective way at moving towards gay marriage.

You can say it any way you want to, but it's still the same thing. The point is that at one point it was OK to practice polygamy, and then all of a sudden it wasn't. Just like in the future, it'll all of a sudden be OK to practice or at least tolerate homosexuality. Whether it's still considering doctrine or not doesn't seem to matter. The fact that it's doctrine apparently doesn't make a difference as to whether or not it's acceptable.

 

[Watchmen]

You can say it any way you want to, but it's still the same thing. The point is that at one point it was OK to practice polygamy, and then all of a sudden it wasn't. Just like in the future, it'll all of a sudden be OK to practice or at least tolerate homosexuality. Whether it's still considering doctrine or not doesn't seem to matter. The fact that it's doctrine apparently doesn't make a difference as to whether or not it's acceptable.

It is acceptable - it's just not practiced.

Maybe you missed the part where I said the doctrine was the same - even before Joseph Smith started practicing it.

The doctrine has always been that permission was required. Throughout history, sometimes we've had permission. Sometimes we have not. Whether or not we have permission has nothing to do with the validity of plural marriage.

Gay marriage on the other hand has always been prohibited. It's not a situation where permission may be given or taken away.

Seriously. I know more about Mormon doctrine then you - so don't even try.

 

[Smoke]

As long as it's doctrine, it's followed, believed, revered and will never change. Then you get the new revelation and bingo, it never was doctrine, it was just the mistaken, human interpretation of previous leaders.

That applies more to the ban on black men receiving the priesthood than to polygamy. Polygamy is still accepted in theory if not in practice, and a widower can still be sealed to a living wife in the expectation that he will have both wives in the hereafter.

 

[Magic Man]

It is acceptable - it's just not practiced.

So, why is it not practiced then? If it's perfectly acceptable, why can't you practice it?

Gay marriage on the other hand has always been prohibited. It's not a situation where permission may be given or taken away.

Regardless, I'm sure that'll change once the rest of society has accepted it.

Seriously. I know more about Mormon doctrine then you - so don't even try.

When did you see me say I know a lot about Mormon doctrine? All I'm doing is pointing out the stupidity of it, and the ridiculousness of saying "Well, it's perfectly acceptable, but we're not allowed to do it right now". It's just a way of saying "Well, Joseph Smith and others weren't wrong for doing it, but we're not going to do it now".

 

[Watchmen]

Included in the doctrine has always been the element of permission. We might get permission to practice again in the future. That's why it's acceptable. That's why the doctrine has never changed. In fact, if a wife dies, then the man may be sealed to another spouse...and if she dies...then to another...and so on. Result: plural marriage in Heaven.

 

[Storm]

Respectful question: what makes someone who believes strongly in something and yet still respects other peoples' right to believe and do differently a "lukewarm" person? Can't someone hold deep, devout beliefs without the desire to force them upon people who don't share them?

Says the people who are trying to force gay marriage on a community who simply does not want it.

BS. We're not forcing anything on anyone. Nobody's trying to make you marry another man. Nobody's trying to ban straight marriage. We're not even trying to force churches to perform same sex ceremonies. All we're trying to do is get equal rights. It doesn't affect you in the slightest.

 

[Watchmen]

That applies more to the ban on black men receiving the priesthood than to polygamy.

It's a tougher argument for me to make, but black men not being eligible for the Priesthood was never doctrine. It was a practice - one not supported by the canon. In fact, black men did hold the priesthood in Joseph Smith's time. That ended with Brigham Young, unfortunately. The practice Young implemented continued for many years until the Church received revelation that the practice should be abololished. I know many of you will criticize my distinction between a practice and doctrine, but I believe it's there. It's like a company that failed to include a non-discrimination policy when it got off the ground and along comes a manager who implements a practice of discrimination. Years later, the big boss has to let the new manager know that a non-discrimination policy needs to be implemented to end the practice.

 

[Green Gaia]

Says the people who are trying to force gay marriage on a community who simply does not want it.

BS. We're not forcing anything on anyone. Nobody's trying to make you marry another man. Nobody's trying to ban straight marriage. We're not even trying to force churches to perform same sex ceremonies. All we're trying to do is get equal rights. It doesn't affect you in the slightest.

Exactly! I can't believe people still use the ignorant argument that they will somehow be forced into a gay marriage as an excuse to oppose equal rights . How preposterous and ill-informed!

 

[Watchmen]

BS. We're not forcing anything on anyone. Nobody's trying to make you marry another man. Nobody's trying to ban straight marriage. We're not even trying to force churches to perform same sex ceremonies. All we're trying to do is get equal rights. It doesn't affect you in the slightest.

I disagree with madhatter and I already told him in the other thread that he didn't answer FH's question, but...from his POV, the gay-rights movement is attempting to force acceptance on a community that has rejected gay marriage (i.e. the gay rights movement is trying to force California to accept gay marriage after it has already rejected it twice).

So, you're right: nobody's trying to make madhatter marry another man, or ban straight marriage, or force churches to perform same sex ceremonies. But, madhatter's right too: the gay activisits are trying to force gay marriage on communities who have rejected gay marriage.