110 thoughts on “Church again endorses Marriage Protection Amendment”

1. I love how simple Russell M. Nelson’s title is in comparison with the rest of the religious leaders. There’s no pomp or circumstance about it. He’s simply, “Elder Russel M. Nelson.” It’s the next line that’s the kicker: Quorum of Twelve Apostles. Nobody else has an apostolic charge implicit in their organization’s title 🙂

2. Okay, I know that it’s a huge social policy thing and all that, but can I just say how shocked I am that an LDS representative was let on the same list as these people? I’m thinking of these ones in particular:

   Director, Center for Theological Research
   Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

   President, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

   Senior Pastor, Greater Exodus Baptist Church
   President & CEO, People For People, Inc

   President, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Baptist Convention

   Aren’t we an evil cult? Or is it official now that sometimes we get to be on the same side as the “real” Christians?

   (also… is it unusual for a member of the 12 to sign his name, and his alone, to this sort of organization? I don’t honestly know; it just struck me as odd.)

3. A Nonny and Sarah, I agree with both your comments. I would hope this is a sign that we will be working more and more with like-minded religious groups on specific projects where we can build coalitions. There are obviously areas of disagreement, but there are other areas of agreement, and it seems to me we should emphasize those.

4. What’s the difference between a Reverend, a Right Reverend, and a Most Reverened?

5. A difference of degrees no doubt.

   I too was suprised that the Southern Babtists would “stoop so low” as to have us with them on this issue, epc. when I have heard many S. Babtists say they would rather vote for Hilliary Clinton than Mitt Romney. Perhaps they understand that in the culture wars you take the allies you can get (finally).

6. What I found most remarkable about the statement was this:

   Institutional affiliations are provided for purposes of identification only.

   What does it mean for M. Russell Nelson, as an individual and not as a representative of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to sign such a letter, while the LDS Church does not?

7. Greenfrog, I’m pretty sure Elder Nelson signed as a representative of the Church, especially given the Church statement of support (which I linked). I’m not sure why only he signed and not President Hinckley, for example.

8. I am sure Elder Nelson was the representative and those who attended this conference signed it. No doubt that a request was made to President Hinckley for a delegate from the church to attend this meeting. I’m sure that President Hinckley gave the assignment to President Packer who I am sure made the assignment to Elder Nelson. As a representative, he was the participant on hand and signed it as such. That is how the church works. Since when did the President do all the work of the church?

9. The previously stated position of the Church was that it supported a constitutional amendment “preserving marriage as the lawful union of a man and a woman”, without endorsing any specific amendment proposal:

   July 7, 2004- “The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued the following statement today. This is a statement of principle in anticipation of the expected debate over same-gender marriage. It is not an endorsement of any specific amendment.

   “‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints favors a constitutional amendment preserving marriage as the lawful union of a man and a woman.'”

   One approach to the issue is to federalize/nationalize the definition of marriage. Another is to make clear that the Constitution does not require same sex marriage or recognition by the states of same sex marriage (essentially leaving marriage regulation to the states). I understood the language of the July 2004 statement to mean the Church did not state a preference between the two approaches.

   The statement signed by Elder Nelson supports the former approach: federalizing/nationalizing the definition of marriage.

   Does this mean that, as between the two approaches, the Church now officially supports the former (federalizing/nationalizing the definition) and not the latter (leaving the matter to the states)?

   I do not think so. The operative language of the contemporaneous press release by the Church does not specifically endorse that approach or the letter signed by Elder Nelson, nor does it state that he was signing on behalf of the First Presidency and/or Quorum of the 12:

   “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints agrees with many other religious bodies and leaders that an amendment to the Constitution of the United States is necessary to protect and preserve the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.”

   This language is essentially identical to the language of the 2004 statement (although it neither (1) contains the proviso that the Church has not endorsed a particular version, nor (2) state that the Church has endorsed a particular approach).

10. If these religious leaders are calling for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a man and a woman (thereby excluding same-sex couples), are they also going to have penalties for those couples that treat disrespect the institution through adultery, divorce, or abuse? How do you penalize the selfishness and the vanity that leads to trophy wives, sugar daddies (or mommas), and trivializing of marriage? How do you require those that enter into this rite to honor it and respect it as the highest union of a civilized society?

    I found it interesting that they stated that marriage is “intended for personal love, support and fulfillment, and the bearing and rearing of children.” Would not same-sex couples be entitled to personal love, support and fulfillment? From a reason standpoint, I would think they would want to limit the purpose of marriage to the bearing and rearing of children since same-sex couples cannot naturally do this (i.e. they must use resources outside the marriage to accomplish this). This would make the case more logical. We still have a disconnect here between the purpose of marriage and the exclusion of same-sex couples.

11. Nathan, #8, good point. That’s probably what happened. Thanks.

12. Is it possible this was released at this time because we in the bloggernacle hadn’t had a SSM discussion in almost a week?

13. *sigh*

    It’s a good thing the Church doesn’t have any doctrine analogous to papal infallibility.

14. I really wish the Church would give up this rather pointless and often hate-inducing venture, and instead going after what is really damaging the family – the economy.

15. #13, or any doctrine that prophets are prophets.

    #14, How would the amendment to outlaw the economy read? I’m curious.

16. You should know the answer to that second one, Adam:

    “Thou shalt not covet . . . ”

17. I found it interesting that Craig Cardon was sustained to the Second Quorum of the Seventy at the recent April General Conference. He has been Chairman of United Families International (UFI).

    Bro. Cardon has been a fellow at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. UFI has some very revealing research on same-sex partnerships:

    Simply put, the Lord’s standard of fidelity is 100 percent fidelity between a man and a woman in marriage. The UFI research demonstrates that fidelity in same-sex “committed partnerships” (based on European research) is in the range of 0 to 5 percent. Thus the same-sex lifestyle is the antithesis of the Lord’s plan for his children.

18. #15 It’s a pretty silly idea to think that the Church seeking economic reform would require some sort of amendment. However, Brigham Young and pals’ “Proclamation on the Economy” would be a good model for the church to follow in actually trying to help out the family.

    #17 I don’t deny the data, but it’d be interesting to see what role the lack of having a state-sponsored relationship (what marriage has largely become today) plays in this fidelity issue.

19. #13 While it may not exist in print, it’s pretty strong in the culture and practice of the Church. It’s acceptable to say that the prophet is fallible, but not as acceptable to say “The prophet was wrong about X.”

20. Frank Rich asked “What’s the Matter with Kansas” because people cared about morals more than money. Yet he never really gave a good reason why people should care about money more than morals – he just assumed it as a given.

    Since the Gospel seems to teach that money is one of the least important things in this life, I’m not sure why the church should make any statement on the economy.

21. Since the Gospel seems to teach that money is one of the least important things in this life, I’m not sure why the church should make any statement on the economy.

    It seemed to be a pretty big deal to Brigham Young among many other prophets. What’s more damaging to the family? two men getting married, or parents working a combined 80-100 hours a week in order to provide for their families?

    There is far more discussion of the damaging effects of a capitalist society than sexual ethics in the Book of Mormon, but that distinction is drastically overturned in our church discussions today. If the Church is going to take the Book of Mormon (and the rest of the scriptures for that matter) seriously, it needs to start articulating the damaging effects that our economic system has on our families.

22. # 18 Loyd:
    The Netherlands has had “state sponsored” single-sex partnerships since 1998, with “marriages” since 2001. They still have a 0 to 5 percent fidelity rate.

23. #22, perhaps my ventures into cultural studies provoke me into reading into things too much, but it seems to me that years of delegitimizing homosexual relationships creates a system such that fidelity will also be delegitimized. My point was rather that the years of state deevaluation of such relationships most likely effect the value of those relationships by those involved. In other words, if homosexual relationships had had the same acceptibility as heterosexual relationships over the last long while, would this difference in fidelity still exist?

24. Let me add, and this is nothing new to the discussion, I can’t help but feel like this reeks of hypocrisy when we compare it to the fight that the church was making in support of polygamy a century ago.

25. Let me just point out that I vehemently disagree with just about everything Loyd has said. I want it to be clear that, while we both have our problems with this turn of events, I don’t think we have much else in common.

26. Roy, I’m glad that we got that out of the way.

27. Loyd, I visited your web site. While I don’t agree with your take on this issue, I would like to offer a hand of friendship and say that I personally feel that there is room for all kinds of viewpoints in the Church. I know there are many people in the Bloggernacle with unconventional viewpoints such as yourself, and many of them feel isolated and overwhelmed at Church (I am not saying this is how you feel, because I don’t know it is). But the most important thing is that we agree that Jesus is the Christ and we are trying in our own ways to be like Him and do the Father’s will. In my opinion, that is what going to Church is about.

28. Not to rehash this debate, but I still don’t see how this:

    a constitutional amendment to establish a uniform national definition of marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman

    solves (or has anything to do with) this:

    when marriage is entered into and gotten out of lightly, when it is no longer the boundary of sexual activity,

    or this:

    rates of divorce, out-of-wedlock births, and absentee fathers,

    It strikes me that these are the real problems facing marriage but I have no idea why this is relevant to any of these.

29. Seems like graffiti on the Federal Constitution. Hope it doesn’t make it. Why box in future generations?

30. A long time ago, I don’t know how long, the church entered a Friends of the court brief in support of the Unification Church (Reverend Moon). I was simply appalled and wrote to one of the apostles, I can’t even remember which one, maybe Boyd K. Packer.

    He wrote back and said it wasn’t implying approval of Reverend Moon, it was a legal move joined in by many churches to support the idea of separation of church and state, or something close to that. I personally didn’t think one justified the other, but I guess the brethren did.

31. Hi all,

    I disagree that the economy is bad for families. We enjoy a high standard of living. Since almost all the moms in my ward are SAHM nobody is working 100hours to make ends meet.

    If Loyd ever gets called to the Q12 he can then decide what the BOM really means. I would suggest that we all be humble and take the churches stands on issues seriously and not think that we know more about the BOM or what is important regarding families than the Lords annointed.

32. Loyd –

    well, I I endorse Geoff’s comments above about the hand of fellowship (and you have a cool website).

    But you asked: What’s more damaging to the family? two men getting married, or parents working a combined 80-100 hours a week in order to provide for their families?

    I don’t like either, but I’m going to have to go with the “two men getting married” option as worse.

    Why? Well, because when the parents are working a lot, that’s just a bad marriage that needs some priorities straightened (because despite the claims of many left-wingers, the economy is not that bad. In the current US economy, only families with unreasonably high qualities of life need combined workloads of 80-100 hours – except those on the poorest end of the scale, and even then there are many other options. The US econmomy is actually doing rather well with historically low levels of unemployment and constant new job creation).

    But the two guys getting married – well, that renders marriage and family totally meaningless. Marriage just becomes another concept to be discarded completely. I think I’d rather have families that need improvement over the dissolution of any real concept of the family.

33. Neither Loyd nor anyone else needs to be called to the Q12 before he/she “can then decide what the BOM really means”. The ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy is IMHO one of the most annoying and often used among LDS trying to have a logical debate.

34. Amen Nate!

35. The problem with having a logical debate on spiritual things is that we simply mingle the philosophies of man with scripture. Of course, those peices of so called “logic” are simply one persons own views and not necessarily Gods. Yet, we have people time and time again who say that their logic champions anothers.

    Humility is not a part of the bloggernacle.

    Those appealing to authority are just trying to say “This is not my thinking, but that of Gods annointed” who we generally have more confidence in than the thoughts of John Doe here on the internet.

    When it comes down to it, spiritual things need to be understood spiritually. Sure, logic can be a component, but it is the Holy Ghost that teaches us truths or at least confirms truth to us. I wonder how often that happens here in the bloggernacle?

    And just so you know, I am right and you are wrong 🙂

36. Nate –

    I’m not sure the appeal to anarchism (“anyone can decide what the BoM means, even if it contradicts what the prophet says – so who needs authority at all?”) is any better.

    I guess we have to ask: Why do we have a prophet and apostles, if we can’t appeal to their authority at times?

37. Humility is not a part of the bloggernacle.

    Except for me. In fact, I am so humble, I never take my own advice.

    😉

38. This is why we have modern prophets. To decide what the scriptures really mean.

    It has to be this way and is supported scripturally in 2nd Peter

39. Can I propose a compromise on the debate between Nate, Loyd and BBell?

    Who sets the policy and doctrine of the Church? The First Presidency and the Q12. The Church doctrine and policy today is that the Church opposes same-gender marriage and supports changing the constitution to make sure the definition of marriage is not changed to include SSM.

    Who decides whether you as a Church member decide to support the Church’s policy? You do. God has given you that freedom. Loyd or anybody can read the scriptures and decide for himself that the First Presidency’s position is wrong. I think you could make a strong argument that many loyal church members were opposed to the Church’s priesthood ban for blacks before 1978, and that they were ahead of the times. If people in good conscience want to claim that the situation on SSM is the same, I think they are making an interesting point. Personally, I disagree with their position, and I see a huge difference between the two issues, but I respect members’ decisions to “study things out in their own minds” and come to their own conclusions.

    My personal decision is that I just follow Church policy as much as I can. In my experience, every time I have followed the prophet’s guidance I have been blessed and every time I’ve strayed I’ve suffered. So, call me orthodox or whatever you want, but I’m going to “follow the prophet.”

40. This is why we have modern prophets. To decide what the scriptures really mean.

    Here is a scenario:

    At *modern* time (T1), prophet (P1) interprets scripture (S) to *really mean* S1.
    At (T2), (P2) interprets (S) to *really mean* S2.
    At (T3), (P3) interprets (S) to *really mean* S3.
    ….
    At (Tn), (Pn) interprets (S) to *really mean Sn.

    S1 ~= (does not equal) S2 ~= S3 ~= …Sn.

    I could give dozens of examples where this is the case.

    Which *modern* prophet has the truth to what the scripture *really means*. Is P1 correct until P2 gives a different interpretation? If so, how valid is S1? Also, if Pn could potentially offer a new Sn, how can we assert that Pn-1 could certainly be correct?

41. 35: A person’s views or god’s views have nothing to do with logic. Logic is to arguments like equations are to math. 2+3=5 can’t “champion” 9-3=6. They are either true or they are not true. And they can be proven (mathematically) to be true or false.

    36: Anyone can decide what the BOM means. We are all entitled to personal revelation. How are words read on a page any different from the words spoken from a prophet’s mouth at general conference? WORDS MEAN NOTHING UNTIL THEY ARE INTERNALIZED AND INTERPRETED (hopefully with the help of the spirit). Spiritual things will always come back to personal revelation and what is true for you. Anarchism would only occur if the enforcement of my interpretation limits the rights of those who are beyond the bounds of my authority.

    38: The purpose of modern prophets is to decide what the scriptures really mean? I disagree wholeheartedly. Why would I need a translator or interpreter to read the Book of Mormon or the Bible? The last time I read the scriptures, I was able to understand it and make decisions for my life based on what I read– all by myself. In fact, President Hinckley was most likely thousands of miles away from me when I did it. The purpose and role of modern prophets is much greater than to hold our hands and walk us through controverial scripture passages.

    39: I don’t debate church policy. I debate the interpretations of church policy.

    -Nate

42. Ivan, thanks for the nice comments on my site. I’m not sure where you live or what your situation is, but two parents having to work those hours to secure their necessities is a reality when job availability (and other extenuating circumstances such as education, health, etc) leaves them working minimum wage.

    I do not also understand why two men (or women) lovingly raising a child somehow destroys the concept of a family. If a family is necessarily a father, mother, and children, are you willing to say that a single (divorced, widowed, or never-married) parent raising his/her child is not a family?

43. Loyd,

    Take it up with the prophets and apostles if you do not understand. Since you are discounting prophetic statements then there is nothing that a mere YM’s leader in TX can say that will help you understand.

    As for your family question. The answer is that those circumstances are not ideal. Prophets and apostles teach the ideal and let individuals deal with things that deviate from the ideal as directed by the spirit.

44. Loyd, re: your #40, Joseph Smith said something along the lines of (I’d appreciate the exact quotation if somebody can find it):

    “God gives commandments for different times. At one time, He said to Joshua destroy all the canaanites, and at another time He said, ‘thou shalt not kill.’ How are we to know which commandment to follow? We must rely on the current prophet to tell us doctrine for our day.”

    Again, sorry I can’t find the exact quotation, but this is the intent and paraphrase of the prophet’s comments.

    Also, you may want to visit Jeff Lindsay’s page here.

45. As for Economics and the BOM.

    Ezra T Benson (see a prophet) addressed this quite well in the 1980’s. He repeatably taught that that pride over material things in the BOM was one of the main causes of the destruction of that Civ.

    It was not that capitalism or any other economic system had destroyed the people. It was just old fashioned pride that manifested itself in material goods which led people to discount Godly principles.

    And yes that IS relevant for today. Very very relevant. Pride does come before the fall

    Both Jacob and Alma addressed Sexual sin at length as well.

46. Take it up with the prophets and apostles if you do not understand.

    Whatever happened to take it up with God? When did institutional authority replace personal revelation?

47. “God gives commandments for different times. At one time, He said to Joshua destroy all the canaanites, and at another time He said, ‘thou shalt not kill.’ How are we to know which commandment to follow? We must rely on the current prophet to tell us doctrine for our day.”

    That is completely different from the problem of appealing to prophets to determine what a scripture *really means*.

48. Loyd:
    At *modern* time (T1), prophet (P1) interprets scripture (S) to *really mean* S1.
    At (T2), (P2) interprets (S) to *really mean* S2.
    At (T3), (P3) interprets (S) to *really mean* S3.
    ….
    At (Tn), (Pn) interprets (S) to *really mean Sn.

    S1 ~= (does not equal) S2 ~= S3 ~= …Sn.

    Here’s another appeal to authority to you… The Harold B. Lee principle:

    What’s right at time T1 is not necessarily what’s right at time Tn.

49. there is nothing that a mere YM’s leader in TX can say that will help you understand.

    There is EVERYTHING that a mre YM leader in TX can see. God has spoken through the mouths of children. That is the beauty of the gospel of the restoration. You are just as entitled to insight, inspiration, and revelation as the prophet. Joseph Smith encouraged others to seek revelation in all matters. He despised (and pridefully loved) people constantly appealing and seeking him out for direction.

    God blessed you with rationality. God blessed you with the spirit. God blessed you with your own revelation. He also blessed you with human (see what Moroni had to say about that) leaders who can help us along the way. Don’t ever say that you have nothing to offer.

50. Or another appeal to authority for you. Pick your favorite preposition and insert it there. I know I did.

51. Ezra T Benson (see a prophet) addressed this quite well in the 1980’s. He repeatably taught that that pride over material things in the BOM was one of the main causes of the destruction of that Civ… It was not that capitalism or any other economic system had destroyed the people. It was just old fashioned pride that manifested itself in material goods which led people to discount Godly principles.

    Hundreds of scriptures say otherwise. Benson’s arguement is a classic example of the shift from Joseph Smith’s communal righteousness to the individualistic righteousness of much of the Protestant movement and Christian-right.

    Here is a quote from “The Proclamation on the Economy” signed by Brigham Young, the first presidency, and the quorum of the twelve in 1875:

    “One of the great evils with which our own nation is menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals. The very liberties for which our fathers contended so steadfastly and courageously, and which they bequeathed to us as a priceless legacy, are endangered by the monstrous power which this accumulation of wealth gives to a few individuals and a few powerful corporations. By its seductive influence results are accomplished which, were it equally distributed, would be impossible under our form of government. It threatens to give shape to the legislation, both state and national, of the entire country. If this evil should not be checked, and measures not taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of riches among the class already rich, and the painful increase of destitution and want among the poor, the nation is likely to be overtaken by disaster; for, according to history, such a tendency among nations once powerful was the sure precursor of ruin.”

    As often illustrated by Christ, the Book of Mormon, and the D&C, the sin of riches is not pride, but the suffering of those who go without.

52. What’s right at time T1 is not necessarily what’s right at time Tn.

    See #47.

53. Loyd,

    I can recieve relevation only for those in my family and in my calling as appropriate. I cannot read the BOM pray and decide that hey you know what? Pres H and the Quorum of the 12 is wrong on SSM. There is a whole section on this in the D&C. Also check section 107 on who can receive revelation for the church. Then read 2 Peter 1 towrds the end of the chapter

    I am not trying to be rude but this is mormonism 101

54. Both Jacob and Alma addressed Sexual sin at length as well.

    Jacob’s discussion was in the context of infidelity. Alma’s discussion dealt with prostitution and Corianton’s actions causing others to leave the church (something which Alma knew very well)… Nibley argued that Alma’s discussion with Corianton had nothing to do with sex at all, but rather with the worship of false Gods.

55. I should try combining comments, sorry.

    I hope nobody takes me to harshly, I am just trying to stirr discussion. The typical mass agreement and conformity just gets a little boring for me.

56. Loyd,

    I think its safe to say that its better to go the EZRA T in 1986 then BY in 1875 when talking about relevance for today. Are’nt MODERN prophets great?

57. I can recieve relevation only for those in my family and in my calling as appropriate. I cannot read the BOM pray and decide that hey you know what? Pres H and the Quorum of the 12 is wrong on SSM. There is a whole section on this in the D&C. Also check section 107 on who can receive revelation for the church. Then read 2 Peter 1 towrds the end of the chapter

    You can actually disagree with the prophets. It’s OK. There is nothing scripturally against it. Orson Pratt did it all the time in general conference. While others wanted excommunicated for it, Young kept him on and encouraged it. I know several who have openly disagreed with apostles and prophets attempts at exegesis, and later sat down and expressed their disagreements. Sometimes the leaders agreed and changed their mind. Your idea that prophets have some sort of magical infallibility goes against the scriptures. This myth only leads to create slaves of others, denies our greatest blessings of freedom, and ultimately leads to creedalism – which Joseph Smith was disgusted by.

58. I think its safe to say that its better to go the EZRA T in 1986 then BY in 1875 when talking about relevance for today. Are’nt MODERN prophets great?

    Yeah, what could those old school prophets and scriptures possibly have to say that has any relevence to us.

59. Loyd: That is completely different from the problem of appealing to prophets to determine what a scripture *really means*.

    Wow! I don’t mean to be harsh here, either Loyd, but for somebody who’s into feminist criticism and stuff, this really ignores most modern critical theory… Of course it’s the same thing! Meaning is a construction of context and guess what! T1 really _is_ a different time than Tn is. So, what something *really means* can totally be different for one Prophet and group of Saints than it is for another.

60. Typically (at least on my conversations), when someone says “this is what the scripture *really means*”, they are asserting what they believe to be the original intent of the author. If you want, we could go all Derridian… we can talk about the individualistic theology of the modern church, the authoritarian power structure of the institution, cultural struggles with Communism, etc in discussing how the scripture is read and understood today. But that is hardly what the normal person has in mind when they say “this is what the scripture *really means*”. They usually mean that when ‘author (A) of scripture X wrote X, he meant Xa.’

    Of course all of that is problematic, because (especially with the Bible) we really have no clue who wrote the scriptures… amid a myriad other problems.

    If you want to say that *really means* really means what the scriptures should really mean *to us* (aka. likening the scriptures), then that’s a totally different story. ‘Likening’ (as Nephi did with Isaiah), however, is very different than saying ‘this is what Isaiah *really meant*’.

61. Nonny, I’m guessing you at least glanced over my Mary Daly paper on my blog. I’d love you comments on there if you have any.

62. Typically (at least on my conversations)

    Ahh, good! I see I’ve won someone else over to the camp of “choose-your-own-prepositions!” Long live those of us who choose our own prepositions!

    Typically (at least on my conversations), when someone says “this is what the scripture *really means*”, they are asserting what they believe to be the original intent of the author.

    I think most people don’t think about authorial intent when they talk about the meaning of scripture. I think they assume that the scripture in and of itself has an independent meaning, perhaps ascribed by God, perhaps by the Spirit, perhaps by something else. Regardless, the meaningful content expressed in the scripture has little to do with what was intended, it has to do with what is currently expressed… I don’t think people sit down and think, “What did Jacob mean when he said this?” I think they sit down and think, “Now what does this verse mean?” It’s a slight difference, but I think it’s important.

    If verses have a meaning all their own, at least somewhat independent of original authorial intent, then it _is_ important for us to have an interpretation of how that meaning relates to us. That’s what Prohpets are for in the LDS church. And that relationship between the indepenedent meaning of the verse and the application is what all interpretation of scripture ultimately is, I believe. So, in other words, the “likening of the scriptures” is in fact the only thing you can do with scriptures, and therefore, it’s okay for a verse to *really mean* A at time Ta and N at time Tn.

63. Well, this thread was somewhat promising until Loyd hijacked it. Guess I’ll go see if T&S has posted anything over there.

64. I think most people don’t think about authorial intent when they talk about the meaning of scripture.

    We obviously run in very different circles.

    it _is_ important for us to have an interpretation of how that meaning relates to us. That’s what Prohpets are for in the LDS church.

    What about the Spirit? What about that old saying, “search, ponder, and prayer”? What about that think it for yourself stuff that God kept talking about in D&C?

65. Well, this thread was somewhat promising until Loyd hijacked it.

    Sorry queuno. I’ll fill you in with what you missed out on.

    14 I totally agree.

    ~John 04/25/06

    15 Yeah, Me too.

    ~Billy 04/25/06

    16 We have apostles, we’re totally better than those mere reverends.

    ~stinky 04/25/06

    17 #14 I totally agree too.

    #16 Yeah, we’re awesome.

    ~Susan 04/25/06

    18 #14 #15 #16 Amen.

    ~robot 04/25/06

    19 I disagree

    ~Jonny 04/25/06

    20 #19 Shutup

    ~Valerie 04/25/06

    21 #19. It’s okay for you to disagree. But you shouldn’t tell anyone that.

    ~jimmyknee 04/25/06

    22 I think it’s great.

    ~justlikeeveryoneelse 04/25/06

    23 All these other signers think they have know God doesn’t want gays to get married, but we really *know* God is against it.

    ~momof12 04/25/06

    24 #23 yeah. we are awesome.

    ~haloman 04/25/06

    25 I think I’m wearing out my welcome

    ~Loyd 04/25/06

66. What about the Spirit? What about that old saying, “search, ponder, and prayer”? What about that think it for yourself stuff that God kept talking about in D&C?

    Ahhh the straw man. That hallowed tool of internet debate.

    Obviously the caveat here is that prophets interpret things for the whole church (see the Hiram Page incident, also in the D&C for example…), while you have the spirit to guide you in the application of the principles of the church to your everyday life. But, the prophets have the right to tell you what those principles are.

    Otherwise, what’s the point of having a prophet? Is he just to be a figurehead?

67. Otherwise, what’s the point of having a prophet? Is he just to be a figurehead?

    They provide a backdrop with which we begin our explorations, like the scriptures. Moroni said that prophets are fallible. If we can find that a prophet is wrong about something, then we have knowledge about what is right. If we find that (s)he is right, then we have knowledge about what is right.

    Moroni himself said prophets are fallible. Does that mean we toss out the scriptures??? No. We read it, evaluate it, and try to learn something from it…whether or not we agree with them.

68. They provide a backdrop with which we begin our explorations, like the scriptures. Moroni said that prophets are fallible. If we can find that a prophet is wrong about something, then we have knowledge about what is right. If we find that (s)he is right, then we have knowledge about what is right.

    Moroni himself said prophets are fallible. Does that mean we toss out the scriptures??? No. We read it, evaluate it, and try to learn something from it…whether or not we agree with them.

    I don’t argue prophetic infallibility. But, I do argue that prophetic pronouncements and the like should be given more weight than just “a backdrop with which we begin our explorations.” If they are just a “backdrop” then, I return to my original question: What’s the point? Why bother having prophets if they have just as much weight as anybody else?

69. What’s the point? Why bother having prophets if they have just as much weight as anybody else?

    I think Richard Bushman articulated this well when trying to make sense of Joseph Smith’s desire for mutual revelation without total anarchy. The Shakers fell apart because everyone had equal right to creae scripture that was a a sense binding for the community. Church leadership (like any social leadership) can provide some stability and unity. This does not mean that there must be some sort of totalitarian/authoritarian leadership (as I see too often espoused – this false dichotomy of complete authoritarianism or anarchism). Instead church leadership should take into account the voice of the spirit-lead community (as was often the case in the early church, and still often the case today).

    I sometimes question our uniting of the prophet and priest. Scripturally and historically, these were two different roles held by two different individuals that occasionally happened to be the same individual… there is even precedence for this following Christ’s ressurection and even following the restoration. I wonder if we’ve too permanently united these roles and closed ourselves off from the possibility of the outside prophet (like my current hero, Samuel the Lamanite).

70. Edward Gibbons in The Rise and Fall of the Romaan Empire found that the decline in marriage and rise of homosexuality contributed to the Roman Empire’s downfall.

    More recently, in the 1950s, Pitirim Sorokin, Chairman of Harvard Univerity’s Sociology Deparment found that a decline in marriage and rise of homosexuality preceded every civilization’s decline in world history.

    He postulated that (as did Adam Smith with regard to a nation’s prosperity) nuclear families, each acting in their own interest in instilling high moral standards (i.e, fidelity in marriage) allows the nation to be a moral and prosperous society.

    Essentially, such nuclear families exhibit the “agape” form of love, while the Romans and the same-sex advocates today focus on hedonism and the “eros” form of love. As LDS members our objective should be to encourage the “agape” form of love between husband and wife, and with our Father in Heaven. I believe that’s what is intended by a major portion of the Temple ceremony.

    The Church’s support of the Marriage Amendment is entirely consistent with wanting the United States to be successful both morally and economically. Morals and economics are not mutually exclusive!

71. Essentially, such nuclear families exhibit the “agape” form of love, while the Romans and the same-sex advocates today focus on hedonism and the “eros” form of love.

    Wow. Some wonderful generalizations. As I have said before, there has never been a state legitimization of homo-sexual unions in such a way that hetero-sexual unions have had. Because of this, we do not know how fidelity may have been dealt with had it been the case.

72. Ok Loyd so let me get this straight. Young is correct in the Proclamation on the Economy, but Benson is a sellout to the Protestant right? Considering you think prophets are just “provide a backdrop with which we begin our explorations,” Why should we take Young’s statement over Benson’s or anyone’s elses?

    Yeah, what could those old school prophets and scriptures possibly have to say that has any relevence to us.

    It is not that we should not listen to older prophets, its that, from what I understand, the closer one is to our time, the more relevance is given to their statements. Note the use of relevance, not absolute authority.

    As often illustrated by Christ, the Book of Mormon, and the D&C, the sin of riches is not pride, but the suffering of those who go without.

    But people went without because of the pride of the people. From what I have read of the BoM there were rare times when some prospered and they used this prosperity to take care of those in need. There is no sin of riches, rather the sin of setting your heart on riches, clinging to riches, that violates the two great commandments, love God and love your neighbor.

    Your latest post on your blog is truely marvelous. If we put rules infront of charity or compassion, we are wrong and have become as the pharasees and are in a from of idolitry. The same is true of riches. It is one’s attitude torwards riches, not the riches themselves that cause sin. This would exist in any economic system and is not exlusive to “the rich.” There are those amoung the poor that do exactly the same thing with less.

73. One more thing

    there has never been a state legitimization of homo-sexual unions in such a way that hetero-sexual unions have had. Because of this, we do not know how fidelity may have been dealt with had it been the case.

    If one takes the broad view, this is true, even of societies that were historically accepting of homosexuality, but one is lead to ask why? Is it because homosexuality shape societies to it or do societies shape homosexuality? In my opinion its both, it’s negotiated territory, not a monolithic, all powerful society shaping and controlling what homosexuals think and do.

    In the end one has to deal with what homosexuality is now because any attempts at “what if” are merely speculation, things we can not answer.

74. #72 My views on this whole matter come from a drastically different idea of sin than is usually discussed today. I think the best understanding of sin taken from the Book of Mormon and NT deals not with what and individual does, but what an individual does (does no do) to another individual. Pride isn’t a sin in itself, just as wealth is not a sin in itself. The sin lies in either causing or allowing someone to suffer. Pride is not the cause of the sin, but a symptom of it.

    The move from a communitarian Gospel to an individualistic gospel can be seen in dozens of ways. One of these, is the idea that sin is an individual issue – that sin is what one does to oneself. For example, the act of sex has in many ways become a sin in itself. It’s become a private issue. Many don’t realize that sex is something done to someone else. Outside of certain contexts, it is no longer an expression of love, but using another person as a chunk of flesh for personal gratification. The whole list of sins have become more and more private issues. Stealing has become wrong because God said so… as if stealing was an act against God. Stealing is wrong because it is stealing from another person. And on and on and on.

    Joseph Smith stressed that the Gospel was about community (which is why I love the RLDS new name). The word ‘church’ itself originally denoted community and assembly, before it denoted what it does now: organization, institution, authority. Joseph was clear that heaven was something we created as a community. It is not a place where we strive to reach as individuals (with hope of bringing our family along). Heaven was the creation of family. It’s about love and outreach. It’s about uniting the human family. It’s about creating a community with God and with eachother.

    We spend way too much time telling other people that they don’t belong. We spend too much time ignoring those in need as we prepare ourselves for personal salvation. We spend too much time trying to save ourselves instead of trying to save others… We need to save others from sin… our own sins. We need to spend more time lifting those up that we’ve thrown down. D&C says that as long as one has more than another, the world lieth in sin. The sin is our apathy for those in need. Christ said “Blessed are those who seeketh after righteousness.” Righteousness is not some personal perfection with God. Christ’s use of ‘righteousness’ (I forgot the Greek at the moment) meant justice and liberation. Those who seek after righteousness are those who try to create equality by liberating the oppressed and downtrodden.

    I’m done preaching.

    In the end one has to deal with what homosexuality is now because any attempts at “what if” are
    merely speculation, things we can not answer.

    The same could be used to promote racism, sexism, and a myriad other types of hate.

75. The same could be used to promote racism, sexism, and a myriad other types of hate.

    And it has been. But that doesn’t make it wrong. Just becasue an idea is used for an unworthy end doesn’t mean the idea in and of itself is wrong.

    In the case of the priesthood and those of african ancestry, there was a real dearth of revelation on the subject. It’s not that those who came before Spencer Kimball in the presidency of the church didn’t want to give the priesthood to the blacks, it’s that they were told not to.

    From the perspective of a believing Latter-Day Saint, that means the policy had God’s de facto sanction. The policy was used to promote racism by certain members of the church. The racism was wrong. The policy (or reversal thereof) was done by God, and therefore not wrong.

    Joseph Smith stressed that the Gospel was about community

    I agree with your notions of inclusiveness, though I disagree that sin can only lie in the actions that happen between people. Here’s a short list of sins from the Decalogue that don’t fit in your framework: Taking the name of God in vain, worshiping idols, keeping the Sabbath day holy, coveting. None of those are about actions towards another individual, but I’m pretty sure Joseph Smith would have told you they were pretty darn important.

    I’m not saying that you can’t say that community was important to Joseph Smith, but I am saying that I think Joseph wouldn’t have allowed the sense of community to take precedence over all other things, including commandments that may or may not be convenient. It’s true that it’s a false dilemma to say that prophets can’t be authoritative and fallible.

    It’s another to imply that we must concentrate on community building rather than commandment following. You can do both at the same time. And I think that if you direct your efforts towards that kind of grass roots change in the church, you’ll find that you’ll be more succesful in the long run. The average member of the church isn’t liable to take what you have to say at face value if you preface it by saying that commandment keeping is irrelevant to the gospel…

76. RE: 70

    That’s misleading. Go to Harvard’s sociology dept now (or virtually anywhere else in academia save BYU) and ask their opinion re: homosexuality vis-a-vis the downfall of various cultures. Then report back. You make some good arguments against SSM, but implying that the academic community agrees is simply untrue. On the contrary. If anything it’s a bastion of pro-SSM opinion.

    I see you’ve been reading C.S. Lewis, too.

    UFI is a right-wing hate group devoted to attacking gays, nothing more. Sad that a Seventy is involved. There is NO data available re: monogamy rates of married homosexual couples. Who knows. Even gay marriage divorce rates are largely unavailable, and for that at least there is a paper trail (in MA, Canada, et. al.).

    Mormons and Fundamentalists make strange bedfellows. In the long run, this alliance may prove counter-productive to the Church’s mission.

    Saddest of all, everyone in DC knows that this proposed constitutional ammendment is doomed to fail. It’s virtually impossible to change the consitution. The deeply cynical Republicans will keep this on the agenda to win votes. The last thing in the world Karl Rove et. al. want is for there to be some kind of final resolution of the SSM marriage debate. Expect this debate to heat up even more as November approaches, then disappear again.

77. The same could be used to promote racism, sexism, and a myriad other types of hate.

    So has TV, the internet, the Bible, and any number of other ideas or things. It does not make them wrong or inherently evil or “hateful.” Is it “hateful” mearly because I disagree with you?

    I find it intresting that you use guilt by association, don’t respond to the actual point of what I said, i.e. Homosexuals and homosexuality have allways occupied a negotated cultural space are are not simple victems of culture and that speculation, the “what ifs” are not useful in facing a simple fact proved by research about homosexuality, and then withdraw.

    There is more that I could say but it is late. Perhaps tomorrow.

78. #75 My comments on similar arguments being constructed to support racism and sexism was a reply to Nate’s assertion that social and state delegitimazation of same-sex relationships might have some underlying motivation with something inherent to homosexualty; and his assertion that even if today’s infidelity among homosexuals is a result of historical delegitimazation, it doesn’t matter because it is a truth of today.

    My reply was just that both of those arguments could easily be worked (and have been worked) to support racism and sexism which I assume that (hopefully) Nate abhors.

    It’s not that those who came before Spencer Kimball in the presidency of the church didn’t want to give the priesthood to the blacks, it’s that they were told not to.

    True in some cases, but there were many Church leaders who were quite racist and did not want the blacks to have the priesthood. Good arguments have been made that the reason why God did not allow the priesthood to be restored was because certain racist leaders had to *go*(I use racist in a way that was the social norm, and not in a matter connoting conscious hatred.

    Here’s a short list of sins from the Decalogue that don’t fit in your framework: Taking the name of God in vain, worshiping idols, keeping the Sabbath day holy, coveting.

    The first three fit very well when we include God as a member of our community. The last, coveting, is a good point that I have not yet thought of much. Thanks for giving me something to think of. I’m prolly going to go into the direction of property and/or objectification… though they may not fit at all. I wonder if our idea of coveting is even related to Moses’ use of ‘coveting’… much like Moses’ idea of using God’s name in vain has little resemblence to how it ofen applied today in relation to cussing, vulgarity, etc.

    The average member of the church isn’t liable to take what you have to say at face value if you preface it by saying that commandment keeping is irrelevant to the gospel…

    I understand that all too much. I can tend to be a little to provocative and out there for the common member. So I’m glad you haven’t bailed on me yet. I often do wonder though if the church is losing it’s great potential by appealing to the lowest common denominator. Jesus seemed to realise that the Gospel was something powerful that would require much… far beyond and far different from the systematic rule keeping of the Pharisees. He set the standard with the young rich man and Matthew 25. He knew the Gospel wouldn’t be well liked (and he was speaking to the rule-keepers… those who loved keeping the commandments).

79. # 76 MikeSinWeHo:

    I’ll grant you that today’s Sociology Departments in the Ivys are overrun with GLBT – so what is your point? Mine is that truth through the ages (just as the Gospel) doesn’t vary with every politically correct whim.

80. Denmark has had state-sanctioned same-sex unions since 1989. There are plenty of data for honest researchers to peruse. The fact is that such unions have a zero to 5 percent fidelity rate.

    Please don’t diss the UFI organization without investigating. UFI has considerable charitable operations in Africa: Stay Alive and Orphan Care.

    Your faith in the Brethern to select Seventies is showing. Perhaps you should blog on another forum.

81. May I remind all commenters of the following from the Brethren, released on Monday:

    Because national campaigns on moral, social or political issues often become divisive, the Church urges those who participate in public debate — including its own members — to be respectful of each other. While disagreements on matters of principle may be deeply held, an atmosphere of civility and mutual respect is most conducive to the strength of a democratic society.

82. R Biddulph: You’ve quoted it twice now and I don’t get the zero to 5 percent. And I’m not about to go sifting through 50 pages or so of propaganda that you linked to previously to find the answer. Don’t researches usually come up with a specific number–maybe something like 3% weren’t faithful with an error rate of 2%? I mean we know it can’t be zero, right? There has to have been at least one couple that remained faithful to each other. So why even throw the zero in there?

    My point is that the results of this “study” sound dodgy, let alone the methods that were used to get those “results”.

83. 82: Some of the studies in the 50 pages concluded zero, some others at various amounts between zero and five percent. The point is that any of them are light-years from the Lord’s standard of 100%. Please point to one UFI study which you consider “propaganda”.

84. Your faith in the Brethern to select Seventies is showing. Perhaps you should blog on another forum

    I say we burn him! Nobody has the right to point out anything that might implicitly infer that the Brethren’s Seventy selection process is not infallible. They have never made any mistakes… well except those…ummm. Yeah.

85. #37, made me laugh. Thanks, I needed that. (Ivan Wolfe)

    Loyd, I’m not tired of you yet. You go, guy!

    And nobody made a comment that I got a letter, possibly SIGNED by Boyd K. Packer or one of the apostles, APOSTLE, defending the friends of the court brief. I still have it and if somebody wants to buy it, I can be bought. I need some money. Say…$20.

86. I’d like to address MikeInWeHo’s comment #76 in which he drags out the commonly used canard that groups like UFI are “right-wing hate group devoted to attacking gays, nothing more.” As RBiddulph has already pointed out, the UFI does much more than “attack gays” and carries out work helping people in Africa and elsewhere, and is motivated, more than anything else, by Christian charity, not hatred.

    But there is a large point here. Defenders of SSM love to say that people who defend traditional marriage “hate” gays. Well, there probably are some people on the “right” who hate gays. I’m sure there are people such as David Duke and Michael Savage listeners who are filled with hatred. But there are perhaps an equal number of people on the “left” of this issue who are filled with hatred toward people they call “heteronormative.” Radical feminists in the 1960s and 1970s formed groups such as SCUM (you can read more about it here and here) whose purpose was nothing less than the end of men in the human race. The strategy of SCUM and other hate-filled radical groups is clearly to destroy marriage because it causes more men to be born and it represents patriarchy, which they abhor.

    So, there is hate on both sides. But the vast majority of people who support SSM — and the vast majority who oppose it — are not motivated by hatred. They are simply pursuing policies that they perceive to be most just. Reasonable people — again the majority — can disagree over those policies in a reasonable way. But claims that either side is motivated by hate are certain not to further the debate in any way.

87. I say we burn him! Nobody has the right to point out anything that might implicitly infer that the Brethren’s Seventy selection process is not infallible. They have never made any mistakes… well except those…ummm. Yeah.

    Its not so much they are infalable, its rather that their mistakes allways seem to come when they disagree with you, well atleast according to you. I guess you are just more enlightened than those old, fallable men that inside are burning haters.

    agree with your notions of inclusiveness, though I disagree that sin can only lie in the actions that happen between people. Here’s a short list of sins from the Decalogue that don’t fit in your framework: Taking the name of God in vain, worshiping idols, keeping the Sabbath day holy, coveting.

    Beound the Decaloge, “That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Note the thought causes the sin before one makes any action.

    Also, If a person was in isolation, and he did not know of God, his whole life, would he/she be sinless? He/she has no community to sin aganst.

88. Beound the Decaloge, “That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Note the thought causes the sin before one makes any action.

    I believe objectification to be a sin against the objectified.

    Also, If a person was in isolation, and he did not know of God, his whole life, would he/she be sinless? He/she has no community to sin aganst.

    Yes. That person would be sinless… as well as numerous other *-lesses.

89. Geoff. I just realized what SSM is. Haha. I’ve been studying for finals (and avoiding it as well). I guess some of my thinking abilities have been limited.

    I don’t think I’d consider myself a SSM advocate, but rather an anti-SSM skeptic. I’m interested in the whole debate, but wonder if we there is anything beyond religious reasons to push for anti-SSM legislation. Nonny and I have been discussing what “really means” *really means*. It seems that much of this marriage debate (at least concerning its legislation) is centered around what ‘marriage’ *really means*. The above amendment pursuit seems to center on the idea that ‘marriage’ *really means* ‘between a man and a woman.’ This *real* definition is pushed by an appeal to history. This is of course highly problematic from an LDS point of view, because historically the Church has argued that ‘between a man and a woman’ is NOT the historical definition of marriage.

    The other end of the debate, which Nate T. seems to push, is that ‘marriage’ *really means* some sort of fidelity. This is again problematic because fidelity is hardly the standard of marriage anymore. Furthermore, if marriage were to be defined by some aspect of fidelity, why should then two men or two women be who are in complete fidelity with eachother be banned from getting married.

    Lynn Wardle at BYU has given probably the best articulations of the SSM debate, by looking at marriage as a state-sponsorship of an approved relationship because of social benefits achieved for the state. If (and that’s a big if) one could show that heterosexual marriages are more beneficial for the state, the state does have the right to sponsor it. I however have problems with this arguement when it is used to provide less rights for homosexual members of the state.

90. I believe objectification to be a sin against the objectified.

    But how can one sin, according to you, if it is not expressed in the community. A thought has absoulutely no effect in the community unless it is translated into action.

    All the examples of your philoshphy you have shown so far have real tangable hurt to people. i.e. not giving to the poor. A thought before action takes place does nothing to actually hurt someone.

    In the end objectifactation is a sin of the heart and is thus individualistic, not communal. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that.

    One thing I think I agree with you on though is that when we seek to be right, but without charity, we are still nothing. Endless litanies of rules will not get us there, because defining rightousness as following a set of rules is misguided; it won’t get us to where Christ wants us to go. But yet rules and commandments, speaking in the most general terms, are also a sign of Christ’s charity to us, so we can avoid hurt to ourselves and others. Thus asking people to follow commandments could very well be an act of compassion or an act of pride depending on one’s intents and methods.

    Christ exemplified this in his treatment of the woman who was caught in adultury. Beyound showing the woman compassion/charity in preventing her stoning, he showed further compassion/charity be asking her to “go and sin no more.” He asked her to keep the commandments. Too often we jump up to be right, like the Pharasees, starting from the point of compassion, like Christ.

    I think people’s view of the statement in the original post revloves around this concept. Did Elder Nelson act as a Pharasee or as Christ in latching on to the proclamation? Some give him the benefit of the doubt and some do not. Perhaps the medium has somthing to do with it. As Nephi said “neither am I amighty in writing, like unto speaking; for when a man speaketh by the power of the Holy Ghost the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men” (2 Nephi 33:1). Perhaps the spoken word would make it more clear to us.

    In any case, the statements of the Brethern on this issue should atleast carry some weight and should not be easliy dismissed, but should give us a chance to think and prey about the issue, to help us decide where the point of compassion lies.

91. The other end of the debate, which Nate T. seems to push, is that ‘marriage’ *really means* some sort of fidelity. This is again problematic because fidelity is hardly the standard of marriage anymore. Furthermore, if marriage were to be defined by some aspect of fidelity, why should then two men or two women be who are in complete fidelity with eachother be banned from getting married.

    Looking over my posts, I don’t know how you got this yet it is true. I don’t exactly go along with SSM because of the benefit arguement (the man/woman marrage being generally the best situation to raise childern and thus determine what the nation will be in the future), and that the Confucian in me reminds me that names in a culture mean somthing and are potentally very powerful. Putting a man and woman together is a differnet thing than putting a woman and woman or a man and a man together, and should be treated as such. I guess I could say its fidelity and more.

    To me, marrage is between a man and a woman, and this is histoical bedrock. Moreover, there is nothing preventing Homosexuals from celebrating their fidelity in their own rituals apart from government sanction. Lord help us if the only things that count are the things the government endorces and are involved in count! If it is a matter of rights, the Dean’s compromise, the creation of a sperate category that preserves the distinction between homosexual and hetrosexual unions, yet grants the same rights to both is appropiate as long as the government does not force anyone to preform homosexual (or heterosexual for that matter) unions.

92. R Biddulph (83): I hardly think it’s fair to compare the Lord’s standard of 100% with the 5% you allege from the study. As if 100% would ever be reached. Where do you get the Lord’s standard is 100%, anyway? Does he want 100% of abused women to stay in their relationships? Does he want 100% of molested children to stay in the same family and home as their abusive father?

    I would guess that fidelity rate among married heteros is around 29% give or take 7%–I’m sure you could find a study. Whatever that number is, is the number you should be comparing to the alleged 5%.

    As far as pointing to a UFI study as propoganda… I don’t need to. UFI obviously has an agenda and therefore is not as credible as an unbiased source. Would you go to “ex-mormons for truth” for statistics on teen suicide rates among Utah mormons?

93. It’s good to see that we are included in the body of theologians working to sanctify marriage. I personally am all for marriage between a man and a woman – but am not for the next political step which is deciding what “type” of marriage will be acceptable. The next step is to outlaw all civil unions – in favor of religious unions. I highly doubt that the majority of members of the committe mentioned will include temple marriages.

    As we work to making an America that is dominionist, Christian, and governed as a theocracy – it looks like the big end of times battle for us will be between which God governs America – the Evangelical or Mormon God. Unfortunately, we’ll need a lot more constituents to vote in our God.

94. RE: 79, 80, etc.

    My point was this: Don’t imply that academia or scholarly research generally supports this position, because it doesn’t.

    “The Fact Is” (a phrase you seem to enjoy): at least on this string you provide nothing other than a link to a UFI brochure on sexual orientation. Said brochure describes homosexuals as violent, diseased, unstable, suicidal, pedophiles, bad parents, on and on and on. (DEAR FELLOW BLOGGERS: Read It!) The brochure also asserts that while anti-gay violence is “rare,” the violence which does occur, while wrong, is understandable. All protestations aside, I think it’s also understandable that Joe-Average-Gay-Guy and his family might find such literature slanderous, and yes, hateful.

    Also, you’re on thin ice pointing to Denmark, Canada, et. al. to support your position. Again, “The Fact Is”, 1. they haven’t collapsed a la Rome, 2. SSM is proving to be no big deal, and 3. the longer SSM is in place, the more societal support for it grows. That’s why it will eventually happen here; the experience-based evidence will be increasingly overwhelming.

    Hey look, it’s OK that you loath homosexual sin as much as you do. You and Mr. Dobson enjoy yourselves all you want. Calling UFI a hate group was intentionally provocative on my part, just to highlight it’s extreme position. They’re not just against SSM, they want to stamp out homosexuality generally insofar as possible. And that means the elimination of the (visible) GLBT community, return of sodomy laws, etc. And that, it seems to me, is a highly problematic goal for anyone who claims to be a Christian to espouse.

    Ah, the sheer anonymity of the Bloggernacle. No chance of getting burned here. Perhaps just a bit scorched.

95. Nate C: First, fidelity means sexual exclusivity within marriage. There are many who divorce for other reasons (economic, physical abuse, etc.). The statistics say that 80% of marriages have fidelity, with those who were not abstinent until marriage (probably tha majority) much lower, and those who were abstinent until marriage much higher. Temple-worthy LDS should have 100% fidelity.

    So, let’s say the fidelity for couples of all faiths who have been abstinent until marriage (the Lord’s plan for us) is 90 to 95%, and Temple-worthy LDS couples is 100%. I conclude that the fidelity of heterosexual couples adhering to the Lord’s commandment is orders of magnitude higher than “commited” homosexual couples (0 to 5 %). The same research shows that the average homosexual has hundreds of liaisons in his lifetime.

    UFI’s goals are strong, faithful families. Their research has found a number of ways those goals are compromised. Same-sex relationships are just one of those ways.

    The sad truth is that the GLBT lobby wants to deconstruct marriage, from an implicit goal of 100% fidelity, so society views GLBT relationships (0 to 5 percent fidelity) as acceptable.

96. #95 First, fidelity means sexual exclusivity within marriage.

    No it doesn’t, but I’ll play along.

    The statistics say that 80% of marriages have fidelity

    You are taking the number completely out of context. The report states that 80% (actually 75-81% of men and 85-88% of women) of heterosexual couples have never had extramarital sex. These numbers are problematic because it is only taking into account current couples. It does not say that 80% of marriages have been loyal, but that 80% of current existed marriages have not had instances of infidelity. It does not take into account the number of marriages that have ended because of infidelity (like the second counselor of the relief society in my ward growing up whose temple marriage collapsed after it was discovered she was having sex with my school’s janitor).

    Temple-worthy LDS should have 100% fidelity

    So should a wedding performed by a Judge. Do you think people get married with the idea that there shouldn’t be fidelity in their marriage?

    So, let’s say the fidelity for couples of all faiths who have been abstinent until marriage (the Lord’s plan for us) is 90 to 95%, and Temple-worthy LDS couples is 100%

    100% of Temple-worthy LDS couples lived abstinently before getting married? Are you joking?

    “commited” homosexual couples (0 to 5 %).

    You continue to pull this silliness, but fail to look at the facts that have been presented…such as the completely stupid idea that 0% might possibly be a true figure. You also fail to ignore the implications that a lack of legitimazation of homosexual relationships (married and un-married) have on the fidelity issue.

    I’m supposed to be studying for finals right now. I’ve only had a little time to glance over UFI’s report. It’s a joke. They pick and choose their quotes and bits of information. Some things are blatantly false or highly questionable, there are self-contradictions, etc. It’s rather sickening to read. I found especially disgusting their appendix with comparisons of homosexuals and heterosexuals in relation to suicide ratios. Are their heads so far up themselves, that they can’t realize that perhaps a primary cause of suicide attempts of homosexuals is directly related to the sorts of hate, misunderstandings, etc that ilk like UFI propagate in our society. I’m certainly glad that the LDS church has stooped to this level of stink.

97. I have no interest in debating the R Biddulphs of the world. It’s like arguing with a creationist over the age of the earth. Fun in college maybe, but I have more important things to do now. There are always going to be people spewing this kind of distorted, misleading, angry material. They’re not really interested in discussion, so I have nothing to say to them. It’s hard not to return anger for anger and hatred for hatred, but I try to take a deep breath and let it go.

    It saddens and sickens me when the LDS get involved in these groups. The whole Church gets tarred when members disseminate hate literature, which the UFI document referenced in #17 most certainly is. Again, Dear Co-Bloggers, please read it yourselves. It’s light-years away from anything the Elders have put out in terms of tone, accuracy, and compassion.

    It’s unwise to hop into bed with the right-wing fundamentalist crowd just because they have similar views on SSM and a few other social issues. If they could, the Pat Robertsons of the world would get rid of the LDS chapels just as fast as the gay bars.

98. #90 But how can one sin, according to you, if it is not expressed in the community.

    While the expression of objectification may not be visible, I believe it changes the dynamics of the community without any *action* taking place.

99. Loyd- I might get banished for this, but dude, you are so full of it.

100. Aaron O, no banning for now, but please keep this discussion civil. I’ve never seen anybody convinced by the statement, “you are so full of it” but I have seen people convinced by logical, factual arguments. Why don’t you try one of those?

101. Nah. I like “full of it.” It keeps me guessing and wondering… what exactly is it?

102. Well, MikeInWeHo –
     It’s like arguing with a creationist over the age of the earth.

     I was thinking the same about you and Lloyd, oddly.

     Really, despite all the claims and counter claims, it comes down to this: Do we believe in the authority of the Prophet, or not?

     Regardless of whether future revelation may overturn current practice (I doubt it, but admit its possible), we are bound by what the current prophet teaches. That’s what it really boils down to. Reject the teachings if you want, but I guarantee our discussion here (or anywhere else on the net) is not going to change the church’s basic heteronormativy.

     And Loyd – you claim to be famliar with current critical theory, but if you were, you would look at Queer theory and realize that, yes, the complete abandonment of the basic idea of marriage and family is the ultimate goal (a bit of a simplificiation, but Queer theory is obsessed with breaking down meaning and eliminating entire categories, especially “heteronormative” ones).

103. I am about to bet money on whose grandkids are likely to remain active in the LDS faith. Those that follow the prophet like my buddy Ivan Wolfe or his opponents in this debate.

     I am serious. Our kids pickup on our attitudes towards things. I am trying to imagine myself trying to explain to one of my many kids in Primary that Yes GBH is a prophet but that he is complety wrong on this. But kiddo keep on going to primary and singing that follow the prophet song.

104. re: 102

     Having been round-and-round this argument so many times it gives me vertigo, I have come to realize that it’s about as intractable as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. So for the most part, I jump right to the “let’s agree to disagree” place.

     I’m inactive, gay, and raising a child with my partner, btw. So the follow-the-prophet argument doesn’t really resonate with me at this point. I agree that no amount of bloggernacle patter is going to change the Church’s current position, although I do see it moving toward some kind of accomodation for families like mine eventually (probably a long time down the road). But of course, who knows.

105. And Loyd – you claim to be famliar with current critical theory, but if you were, you would look at Queer theory and realize that, yes, the complete abandonment of the basic idea of marriage and family is the ultimate goal (a bit of a simplificiation, but Queer theory is obsessed with breaking down meaning and eliminating entire categories, especially “heteronormative” ones).

     How ironic that I was just reading Judith Butler on Queer theory just a week or so ago. You’ve got it all wrong Ivan. You’ve got the typical generalization and either are unaware of or avoiding Butler’s criticism that you are misunderstanding her and the bulk of third-wave feminism.

     I have no idea how my kids would end up. I have no idea how I will end up. However, if my kids someday have to choose between *faithful* LDS institutional membership… and Christlike attitudes of love, I hope they make the right decision.

106. Loyd and Mikeinweho (what does this mean? your moniker?)

     You guys are making my point for me in your responses. Like I said I am laying bets on the impact on your attitudes/beliefs on your future children and grandkids. Mike you are right since you are raising a kid with a gay partner the choices have already been made. As for Loyd you got a lot of angst/anger my brother.

107. Loyd –

     you clearly have no idea what irony is, since it isn’t “ironic” that you were reading Butler.

     And I’ve been forced to read enough Queer theory in my PhD program to know that I do not have it wrong at all (simplified, yes – this is a blog comment after all. Wrong – not at all).

     But, then again, I reject 95% of modern critical theory, since most of it is far left wing politics in the guise of literary theory. Luckily, modern critical theory has 0.0007% impact on the world outside the ivory towers of academy. That’s too much impact, in my mind, since nearly all of it is traceable back to Marxist thought, and we all know how successful Marxism has been in the USSR and the rest of the world.

108. Yeah. I could have picked a better word. Ironic was not the right one. I’m working with only an hour or so of sleep over the last few days and well… as you can all figure out, I’m not right in the head. You could say I’m “full of *it*”. HAHHAHAhahahahahahaaaa

     I sometimes wonder if cultural studies and critical theory have inflicted my mind. Perhaps all the power structures I find flying around me are all merely illusions in my head… that it.

     The USSR is hardly the Marxist ideal.

     I like sushi and have a distate for green peppers. I do have angst, but there was something brewing in me after taco bell last night.

     So what are you doing your Ph.D. in?

109. Ivan, I agree that modern critical theory has virtually no effect outside the academy. But if that’s the case, why do you seem so worried about Queer Theory leading to the destruction of marriage and the family and sunshine and lollypops and rainbows everwhere? Seems like you are contradicting yourself, or (most likely) I just don’t understand your point in 102. The old argument that acceptance of homosexuality will lead to the destruction of society is increasingly feeble (it has always been bad history), and will ultimately have to be jettisoned unless Canada, Holland, et. al. implode soon.

     I live in West Hollywood, CA, which is often referred to as WeHo. Hence the blog handle. For those in the know, WeHo is kinda like Gay Provo.

     Seems kinda harsh to jump on Loyd for slightly mis-using the word irony, imo. And for what it’s worth, I feel like more anger is being directed at him than is coming from him.

110. Loyd –

     That’s it! It all boils down to green peppers, since I love green peppers. That must be it.

     As for my PhD – I’m focusing on Rhetoric and Literature. My dissertation is on the rhetorical impact of late 19th century American utopian fiction.

     While the USSR is hardly the Marxist ideal, I don’t think the ideal is possible in reality. In fact, I believe that pretty much whenever hard core Marxism gets adopted by the government, the USSR is likely the end result: a bad economy and the only motivation for work is fear.

     I’m no fan of capitalism, but at least it takes into account that most people are greedy and selfish. (I think capitalism is the worst economic system in the world – except for all the others). Marxism/socialism assumes those in power will be good stewards of their authority. Until the second coming, that ain’t happening.

     With France’s economy in the tubes, and China increasingly adopting capitalistic policies, I think it’s pretty fair to say Marxism/socialism have had their chance and failed. That’s what bugs me about a lot of critical theory – it basically denies reality in so many cases.

     But feel free to disagree. It’s a free country (more or less).

Comments are closed.