In an article of the August 2015 Ensign, President Russell M. Nelson declares, “Disciples of the Lord are defenders of traditional marriage. We cannot yield. History is not our judge. A secular society is not our judge. God is our judge!”
“Traditional marriage”. Interesting term.
This week, the term “traditional marriage” had an interesting wrinkle in the news. The New York Times reported on how ISIS combatants are justifying kidnapping, rape, and sex slavery of Yazidi women, on their interpretation Qur’annic tradition: that righteous warriors can subjugate virgins who are not “of the book” as being concubines. Ugly stories are emerging of how the islamicist soldiers first pray, then rape, then pray again, all in the name of God.
As appalling as this is, the acts of ISIS are part of our “traditional” biblical marriage model. As well, the conquering Israelites were allowed to take in virgins of the conquered cities as their concubines.
We may shrug these things off as being “of the past”, but when we find a bed next to the altar in an FLDS temple and Warren Jeffs continuing to manipulate marriage relationships — essentially continuing the excesses of nineteenth century polygamy that our LDS church has never fully repudiated; when we see faithful saints supportive of marriage equality or Ordain Women punished for asking their prophets, seers, and revelators to seek guidance as to whether women can be ordained, I don’t think we are very far along the path of justice and righteousness as a church and culture.
I raise this not to be provocative, but rather, to explore what it means to defend “traditional marriage” as a disciple. If I am to “hearken” unto the brethren, then I ought to carefully “hear” their words, and “ken”/understand what they have to say.
If I am a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ, and heaven knows, this wayfarer tries and fails at being such most of the time, it seems to me that I am called to love and commitment, not to hatred, or force of any kind. I do not have the option to judge others — I have enough to do to judge my own path, to see if I am “perfect” in the sense that the Lord laid out in Matthew 5:43-48: that is, that I am impartial and unconditional in my love. When I measure “marriage equality” versus the denial of the right for a committed, intimate relationship by my LBGT brothers and sisters, then the law of “perfection” as defined by Christ, that is whole, unconditional love, is clearly in favor of marriage equality. In this sense, President Nelson is correct, history and secular society are not our judges; the words of Jesus Christ are.
If I am “defending” something important like “traditional marriage”, perhaps it might be good to realize that (1) our marriage traditions have evolved significantly over time, (2) any biblical definition, or even our early church definition of marriage, essentially treats wives (specifically in the plural) as property, not as equal partners in love, and (3) the data for what causes marriage decline show that marriages are more under attack by poverty, unrighteous dominion (abuse), and lack of commitment, rather than the alleged threat of a very hurting minority that seeks to have the same right to love and commitment as their heterosexual brothers and sisters.
There is nothing “traditional” about a marriage of equals as we seek today. It is novel in the history of the earth, and it is as divine as anything I know.
Marriage is best enhanced and defended when both partners feel a health attitude toward their love, intimacy (sexuality), and commitment — all of which are demonstrated and enhanced when we consider what is at the core of marriage equality: the desire for two people to be intimately connected — to be One — in all things.
That, to me, is worth defending.
So, President Nelson’s words in the August Ensign are my call to be a disciple of Jesus Christ, and to defend marriage. My commitment therefore is to defend marriage in the fullest sense of the word: love, intimacy, and commitment as a right for all.
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Don’t be a piker. You know what Elder Nelson is talking about.
You couldn’t be more right, Wayfarer!
Marriage, traditionally, as been about men strategizing for money and power, and women have been treated as property. Very recently, marriage has become (in civilized society) about love, equal partnership, and romance. This is the type of marriage we all should be fighting for. Marriage for the right reasons. We should be more concerned with whether each partner in a marriage wants to be in the marriage, is treated with respect, and has an equal say, rather than whether it is one male and one female. I am adamantly opposed to traditional marriage and all for marriage of two people (no matter what gender) who are equal partners in this journey of life.
It’s amazing how much harm we can cause in the name of “defending the family”. To “defend” means to “resist an attack, to protect from harm or danger.” It doesn’t mean to go on offense. Let me be clear, I’ll defend my traditional marriage if ever someone tried to strip me of that right, but so far so good–no attacks. I do see marriage equality under attack, so I’m gonna defend that too, cause marriage for all is better than marriage for some, and same-sex marriage doesn’t undermine my traditional marriage in the least. My marriage is respected and I respect everyone else’s freedom to marry whoever they choose. It’s the golden rule. Does our church still believe in that?
http://latterdayspence.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-truth-all-families-deserve-to-be.html
Way to twist the spirit of the prophets council into the exact opposite of his meaning. Next time use less words and just say you dont plan on following the spirit the bretheren follow.
The problem, Ron, is that the spirit the brethren follow does not seem to be a very loving one. I commend those willing to think for themselves instead of blindly following the brethren.
Nice post, Wayfarer.
And not to threadjack, but I’d like to see a sister post on what Elder Nelson means by “defend.” It seems to me we “defended” it in various states and even the Supreme Court. So what the hell now? Are we to further shun our gay neighbors, prohibit our kids from playing with their kids, and tell them at every opportunity that their family is not a *real* family?
This traditional marriage detour our leaders have taken us on is such bull—-.
Seriously, is there any hope our leaders will get off this crazy train and get back to the gospel of Christ? What ever happened to loving others as Christ loved us? Forget going so far as to lay your life down for a friend, I guess. Apparently, simply judging them in (un)righteous judgment will now suffice.
Great point, Ganderm. What exactly are members supposed to do to defend traditional marriage? And how does the church not see that this type of rallying of members will most likely just lead to even more strained relations between straights and gays?
#5 – typical to define “loving” as “see it MY way” or “GIMME what I WANT”. A manipulative and selfish viewpoint, the very antithesis of love and what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is about.
Thanks for your comments so far.
Clean Cut and Ganderm have hit onone of the troubling issues here. What on earth does it mean “defend”? I get that we should be faithful, committed, and loving… and seek the best for our marriages. I think that’s an important message…but “defend” doesn’t seem to make sense.
Ron – I appreciate that you observe that I reversed what Elder Nelson intended. Well, yes, I did, for very good reason. Elder Nelson has claimed that God’s love is conditional (2003 discourse on “divine love”), claiming that scriptures never say that God’s love is unconditional. Unfortunately, he is wrong. Matthew 5:43-48 clearly speaks to God’s unconditional love, describing it as “perfect”, which in greek meant “complete”, or without any partiality whatsoever. So, to be a disciple of Christ, it is required of us to love and forgive all people without condition or partiality.
As we consider what “traditional” means with respect to marriage — I’m afraid just a few generations ago, marriages were arranged, women were property, and men pretty much had unrestricted authority over women. That doesn’t work today — we have learned through sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, they will immediately begin to exercise unrigteous dominion. So, our ideas of marriage equality have evolved to where they are today. “Traditional” and “biblilcal” are hardly standards we want to follow today.
As a latter-day saint, I am charged to hearken to the words of the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. “Hearken” is to listen intently (“Hear”), and consider seriously/understand (“Ken”). So I “hear” the three key principles Elder Nelson lays out, “disciples”, “defend”, and “traditional marriage” and likened his words to what the spirit guides me to ken/understand.
Oh, the irony that we of all people are talking about “defending traditional marriage”! With our historical legacy one would think we would be more open hearted. Even more ironical, elder Nelson is in a way a polygamist. He is sealed to two women (a privilege no woman could ever enjoy), and has spoken about his joy over knowing that he will have both women for eternity. Sigh!
Thank you, Dexter (#2), and, Clean Cut (#3). You said it so clearly I don’t need to add a thing!
“LDS Church Responds to Supreme Court Monogamy Decision”
http://rationalfaiths.com/lds-church-responds-supreme-court-monogamy-decision/
I agree completely. When there is a difference between the teachings of Christ to love our fellow man, and a conservative motivated Apostle, not only is it wise to follow Christ but it undermines the credibility of the Apostle, and the Church leadership who allow this to be printed in the official magazine of the church.
The other article defending marriage is equally problematic. His premise is that some people have to sacrifice their human rights for the social good. There is a balance between those peoples human rights, and the social good and that balance was correct in 1960. In 1960 Police did not get involved in family matters such as rape or violence to women or children, if women complained about sexual assault in the workplace they were usually dismissed, not the perpetrator.
Racial minorities were maltreated, we as a church preached racism and white supremacy.
being gay was illegal most places so they could be blackmailed, or beaten and had no recourse.
The social good seems to be the privilege of white males.
This is the time we want to return to, and let the women, minorities , and gays suffer.
What Gospel is this? There is to be a part 2 to this article, what are we doing to our credibility?
What are we trying to defend? We are failing dismally if this is what our best minds can come up with
Thinking on this further: there is a very dark side of “defending traditional marriage”. I wonder to what extent the August Ensign articles will be used as justification for emotional or physical violence against LBGT in “defense” of traditional marriage?
Homophobia is very real, and to suggest that there is a privileged majority class that needs defending simply plays to the phobias.
It is irresponsible for leaders of a faith community to ignore the violence toward LBGT people, either self-inflicted or coming from those who fear.
Thanks, Wayfarer, for such a thoughtful post. I agree with you, and, in response to your #14, yes, it is totally irresponsible, and not Christ like at all.
All of this makes me wonder if Elder Nelson and I are “disciples” of the same Lord. The one I follow taught love and respect for ALL people, not hate/fear mongering, which is what the “defend” mentality is.
It’s sad when I hear LDS leaders make such statements over a battle that does not really exist, when there are so many issues that face society today that they should be speaking out against, namely homelessness, hunger, bigotry, abuse, etc, the list could go on..
It just serves to further drive members such as myself away. Sad indeed.
Wayfarer,
Violence against LGBT is not mentioned anywhere by Elder Nelson. In reviewing recent conference talks from the Q15, I find several where defense of the traditional family is mentioned and being loving towards others is also emphasized.
I do not think that advocating violence towards other individuals can be twisted out of this in any way.
You say that privileging a majority class is not needed. Do you also advocate elimination of tax breaks for various things that the government sees as a society good?
I see the defense of traditional (man to woman) marriage as privileging a fundamental ingredient of all successful societies. Why would not the church do this?
A disciple of the Lord doesn’t need Nelson’s advice, a disciple of the Lord follows the Lord.
El oso, to “defend” is to fight against opposition, as noted in a post above. It is inherently violent language, and when coupled with the loaded, political language of “traditional marriage”, it is a call to arms to fight against that which the defender considers is “against”, and this means one thing today: marriage equality.
These words are not benign. The message calls “disciples” to fight…against the repressed minority of LBGT.
You will not be convinced by my words, I realize that. Yet I also know you cannot guarantee that on defense of “traditional marriage”, many who share your opinion will nod in agreement as hateful messages like Elder Nelson’s are shared as the means to vilify those for whom “traditional marriage” cannot work.
The majority need no defense. Canards like how gay marriage will cause the demise of the majority’s natural inclination toward heterosexual marriage and family is a fear-monguering lie without a shred of evidence.
el oso,
You said, “I see the defense of traditional (man to woman) marriage as privileging a fundamental ingredient of all successful societies. Why would not the church do this?”
Hilarious, the church used to say without polygamy the country would fall apart. Now we need to defend traditional marriage for the good of the country? Please.
Those who follow a homosexual lifestyle or who advocate for it separate themselves from Christ.
So what’s your point, Ron? We all separate ourselves from Christ in various ways every day. Should we prohibit you from having a family because you’re a sinner?
Ron,
Christ called us to love, and it is our lack of love that separates us from Him.
“For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
(Rom 8:38-39)
Your comparing what President Nelsen (it is President now, he has earned that title) said to what ISIS is doing is filthy. Shame on you.
And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. Well except when you have a moral responsibility to defend ‘tradition’. Don’t the scriptures often cite blind or foolish traditions?
As said by several above, the irony, considering Mormonism’s martial history, leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.
Now that marriage equality is the law of the land Mormons are called to continue to “defend” against it. How can members “defend” traditional marriage? There are no more legal briefs to submit, no more state referenda. What’s a loyal LDS member to do? I can only imagine this as a call to reject all families that don’t fit the mold. Except we know that “defending traditional marriage” is code for opposing same-sex marriage. So the Ensign article is really about rejecting gay families.
Way #9- “As we consider what “traditional” means with respect to marriage — I’m afraid just a few generations ago, marriages were arranged, women were property, and men pretty much had unrestricted authority over women” Shakespeare spoke of romantic love 500 years ago. All marriages weren’t arranged, and never have been. Too many people read the conclusions of some anthropologist and apply it across the board to all cultures across all time. Even so, why does “tradition” have to fall beyond Judeo Christian marriages from 300 – 400 years ago? They weren’t all arranged (according to popular literature of that era), though I will concede the legal rights were severely curtailed. Keep President Nelson’s comments in context, and if you don’t agree with him, or (as it comes across in the OP) if you think you know better than him, just say so.
#26 – (Steve). Little different than back in ’73, when the SCOTUS had another bout of ‘brain flattulence’ on the order of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) or Dredd Scott (1857)…namely, Roe v. Wade. Just as was done recently with regard to running roughshod over the will of voters in the several states, even “Kal-Lee-Forn-Ya!”, with regard to the LEGAL definition of marriage, so at the time did the ‘good’ justices legislate from the bench. Yet at no time did the Church, among many other religious organizations definitely in the ‘pro-life’ camp, give in to ‘popular’ trends and advocate the murder of unborn innocents in the one place where they should be the safest. So likewise it is with regard to ‘gay’ marriage, which if it follows other social trends and statistics that the LGBT community doesn’t exactly trump from the rooftops (namely the significantly higher rates of ‘marital’ infidelity and domestic violence in LGBT relationships versus the ‘straights’, for starters), will hardly reflect any ‘gaiety’.
AFAIK, no Mormon girl, finding herself in the family way in a less-than-perfect situation, was ever compelled by the law to abort the child. As long as likewise the Church and its members can conduct their affairs as heterosexuals, in the strict marital fidelity context as is taught (especially for the “Yutes”), there will be something to ‘defend’. The urgency of said defence is beyond the scope of this thread.
Its sad to see that in our day “traditional” marriage between a man and woman are even getting trampled upon by our very own LDS. My opinion- if you do not fully support traditional marriage, then leave the church and find a different religion because traditional marriage is at the core of our doctrine .
I would distil Elder Nelson’s counsel to mean that opposite gender parents who breed and bring children into the world need to become the best possible parents who are up to the task of raising their offspring, ideally, in an ongoing committed marriage. Defend the concept that following Christ’s teachings as taught in the restored gospel in the dispensation of the fullness of times will raise youth to become parents up to this task . Secure the safety of the children who will be born into the tradition of opposite-gender parents. Defend the foundations that will build healthy family units so that adoption and fostering are not so commonly required.
Do not view this as casting aspersion on the less common but still important parenting systems of adoption, fostering, artificial insemination, step-parenting, or surrogate pregnancy. The children in all of those systems need secured safety and parents who are up to the task. If a pedigree is laid out that includes a generation of one of these family units, however, it will more often then not return to the ‘traditional’ family unit in the branches that follow.
Am I tweaking Elder Nelson’s words into a message that he did not intend? Not in my mind.
#30 – Yes, Rigel, a man and a woman, legally married, enjoying good health, a convivial, happy marriage, including a healthy degree of ‘friskiness’ (think of Howard and Marion Cunningham from ‘Happy Days’), is the DEFAULT route that the Lord intends for the propagation of the species, in the ‘traditional’ family unit.
Some of us aren’t so blessed with all that, whether it’s the poor health, infertility, or marital discord, or unfortunate combination thereof. Methinks the Church does its best to deal with these ‘improvisations’ and help its respective members find happiness in themselves and within their families.
“if you do not fully support traditional marriage, then leave the church and find a different religion because traditional marriage is at the core of our doctrine ”
Amen
Hi Rigel-I married in the temple my husband of 35 years. None of my children are likely to be married there, in spite of our relentless efforts to draw them into the fold. There are no guarantees, our children make their own choices. Sometimes I wish this didn’t matter to me.
I’m very unsure at this point that this is worth giving offence to others,and diminishing the church’s ultimate influence for good in society as it leaves us in bed with some very offensive and cruel people.
“leave the church and find a different religion”
Persuading people to leave the Kingdom: Aren’t you a little concerned about whether you have stewardship to be doing that? Does it trouble you that you’re speaking in direct contradiction to, and frustrating the efforts of, the brethren? (See Pres. Unchtdorf, “Come, Join with Us,” October 2013.)
In other words, who do you think you are?
People are excommunicated (e.g. asked to leave) all the time if they don’t fully support various doctrines or practices within the church. It is not so much that they disagree or have questions, it is the general attitude that leads excommunication. There is a general assault on traditional marriage – a total disregard for the institution by some in and out of the church. These are the people, in my opinion, that should be asked to leave.
Actually, Rob, polygamy is at the core of your doctrine. Traditional marriage, which the church claims to love and defend today, was mocked by Brigham Young as pernicious. This whole thing is too funny.
Rob O. and Ken, what assault on traditional marriage? Who ever said a man & woman could not get married?
And no, traditional marriage is not at the heart of Christ’s doctrine. To the extent we’ve supplanted traditional marriage for Christ’s doctrine, we’ve gone off track (3 Nephi 11:38-40).
Ken,
“…it is the general attitude that leads excommunication.” For all I know, that’s true in your stake (leadership roulette, and all that).
My question stands nonetheless. You say, “These are the people, in my opinion, that should be asked to leave.” Assuming their local leaders choose NOT to ask them to leave merely because they disagree or because of their general attitude, who are you to countermand the decisions for those leaders? Vigilantism is, itself, criminal.
You’re like Peter cutting off ears. Your zeal is well-intentioned but misplaced. Ironically, you’re trying to defend the leaders by defying their other instructions to not chase people away.
Maybe we should call it “biological marriage.”
@ken #24: “Your comparing what President Nelsen (it is President now, he has earned that title) said to what ISIS is doing is filthy. Shame on you.”
uhhh… no I didn’t. I pointed out that the term “traditional marriage” has an interesting and somewhat ominous history. I think a plain reading of the bible defines traditional marriage in terms of sexual slavery, polygamy, and women as possessions. I didn’t write the scriptures, but I can read their plain meaning.
@IDIAT #27: “Shakespeare spoke of romantic love 500 years ago. All marriages weren’t arranged”
Sure, Shakespeare did, but love marriages were not inherently dominant. Many marriages were arranged. Women were explicitly considered property. Marital rape did not exist as a crime until 50 years ago. People married for alliances, for preservation of property, for many, many more reasons than love. “Traditional marriage” does not mean what Elder Nelson thinks it means — it’s an ugly construct that has only recently become equitable.
As for your comment, “Keep President Nelson’s comments in context, and if you don’t agree with him, or (as it comes across in the OP) if you think you know better than him, just say so.” I think I clearly understand Elder Nelson’s context – he made that clear in 2003 with his proposal that God’s love is conditional. Yes, I disagree with him, because the data is apparent in the text that God’s love is universal and unconditional. Do I know better than him? Does that matter? His teachings deviate from the scripture.
I wish it weren’t so, but alas, it is what it is. Why must we insist that our leaders are above criticism? That’s not healthy.
@Rob Osborn #28 “Its sad to see that in our day “traditional” marriage between a man and woman are even getting trampled upon by our very own LDS. My opinion- if you do not fully support traditional marriage, then leave the church and find a different religion because traditional marriage is at the core of our doctrine .”
(sigh). In what way have I ‘trampled’ the notion of marriage between a man and woman? Have I said in any way that heterosexual marriages should be eliminated? In what way is heterosexual marrriage in any way harmed by extending marriage to those for whom heterosexual marriage cannot work? If you’re going to say that what I’m saying is wrong, please provide evidence that I am attempting in any way to harm your marriage. Please — I’m trying to follow the logic here.
Marriage between man and woman as the core of our doctrine was removed from the doctrine and covenants in the 1880s. Polygamy is the only “traditional marriage” that is still at the core of our doctrine in Section 132.
Do you REALLY think it’s appropriate as a disciple of Christ to invite someone to leave the church? Help me understand your logic here.
Look, we may have some history, as does any church in history, but we are led by living prophets. The living prophets have warned against all the gender-bender immorality we are now plagued with. Just recently, our prophets have once again counseled us on traditional marriage and solidarity of beliefs. The days of supporting non-traditional gender bender marriage is not for our beliefs. Elder Nelson is basically calling for our support of traditional marriage. My opinion- the day is rapidly approaching where LDS who continue to support gender-bender SAM will find themselves no longer members.
That was supposed to be SSM, not “SAM”.
Rob, I think the day when the LDS church accepts gay marriage is approaching faster than your prediction.
Many wonder why so many are doubting the truthfulness of the church. For one, the church’s views on these issues are LESS LOVING than the views of society. That’s sad, and very telling.
@Rob O. “if you do not fully support traditional marriage, then leave the church and find a different religion because traditional marriage is at the core of our doctrine.”
The thing is, everybody supports traditional “man-woman” marriage, except for those who see no value in the piece of paper from city hall. But that would not be the LGBT community, who have worked for decades to secure the right to civil marriage. Except for only a very few fringe voices, who dream of a world “beyond marriage,” pretty much everybody believes in man-woman marriage. Gays, Straights, everybody. Nobody is trying to do away with man-woman marriage. It doesn’t need defending.
Dexter,
The church will never accept gay marriage. Only true disciples will be able to discern the truth. The truth is that gay marriage is an abomination.
Steven,
Marriage needs defending. SSM IS NOT marriage, it’s blasphemy and a direct attack on marriage.
Traditional marriage is between males and females. Now a generation of new children will be born who wil be raised seeing SSM and thinking it’s another option–because it is. We defend traditional marriage by teaching our chiildren that we adhere to the Lord’s way of doing marriage and why. And why we are to be different from the world. It’s also just as important to teach them that people often choose to go against what God commands and wants. It doesn’t make it right just because something has been made legal. And to teach them that it’s wrong to discriminate against anyone even when you disagree with what they’re doing. That we are to love our fellowmen and neighbors and treat them with respect–the same way we would like to be treated. I see no problem with SSM parents who have adopted children, living next door to us and having kindness between all. If they know we’re LDS, they know our views on their marriage. Our kids can play together because people interact with peope who have different views and values. The couple next door will tell their children we just believe differently than they do and hopefullyl, that it’s not so bad that they should shun us .
We’ll tell our kids that we don’t agree with how they do things, but they’re nice people and we have no reason to shun them. In this world and life here, we live among all kinds of people. We’re to love and find common ground when possible–and it’s often possible.
Rob,
“My opinion- the day is rapidly approaching where LDS who continue to support gender-bender SAM will find themselves no longer members.”
I suspect you’re right. Although–after an initial 5-10 year inquisition–I think it will result much more from voluntary departures than discipine. (I think you might agree with that.) Imagine how small the Church membership would be in the US today (even of white people) if the 1978 revelation had never occurred. It would be a very narrow (socially abhorant) gate, and few there’d be entering into it (or staying in it).
P.S. I was raised with the notion that half the Church would leave by the Second Coming–the Parable of the 10 Virgins. the separation of the Wheat and the Tares–it’s not just a clever blog title. It seems to me that we are seeing this in the membership division that’s been happening over this issue, ordaining women to the PH and people questioning their faith with the Church going public with what they have. Yes, half will make it and half won’t. We’ve all heard
this repeatedly. Why be surprised when it happens? When members say ‘ if you’re not with God, then get out’–yes, that’s what they’re referring to. We’re nearing the Second Coming. It’s now time to choose where one stands. And that is how half will be ready and half won’t. I wish we could keep 100% of everyone–but it won’t happen. We’ve been told.
“Inquisition” is an absurd hyperbole; apologies. Purge, maybe.
Rob,
Members said the same thing about ending polygamy, and the same thing about giving blacks the priesthood. Pressure will build, the church will cave, like always.
So many ways to become an apostate, so little time!
Having re-visited the Ensign article, and as a followup to my earlier comment, I see this piece as the official church response to the SCOTUS marriage decision. Now that there are no more legal briefs to file nor referenda to vote on, the duty of the church members is to “bear solemn witness of the Lord and live according to His gospel” (p37) and “you and I as disciples of the Lord bear a solemn responsibility to proclaim the will of God to all people. And . . . to stand up for the truth regarding the sacred nature of marriage” (p38).
Elder Nelson goes on to call for civility. “Brothers and sisters . . . proclaim your love for God! Proclaim your love for all human beings, “with malice toward none, with charity for all.” They as children of God are our brothers and sisters. We value their rights and feelings. But we cannot condone efforts to change divine doctrine. It is not for man to change.”
Notice that the issue is about “efforts to change divine doctrine.” This is now the focus of resistance by the Brethren. Members are called to charity and love.
In my opinion, this is a very measured response from one of the top LDS leaders. Compare this to pastors threatening to set themselves on fire.
Having said that, there is one part of Elder Nelson’s remarks I find concerning. On page 36 he unnecessarily quotes a passage from Paul. Here is the passage with everything omitted in brackets:
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, [incontinent, fierce], despisers of those that are good,
[4 Traitors, heady, highminded,] lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
[5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:] from such turn away.
Nelson appears to have edited Paul’s parade of horribles to more closely apply to what many church members believe about LGBT people, and emphasizes “From such turn away.” The Greek text of the phrase “without natural affection” does not refer to sexual orientation, but speaks of “family affection” and love between parents and their children, and children to their parents. Perhaps Elder Nelson is unaware of the meaning of the text. Whatever the case, he seems to be setting up a picture of “perilous times” where there will be gay people. “From such turn away.”
I teach my children to love and respect all. But, I also teach them that SSM is a gross sin and entirely wrong. I have a neighbor down the street who is homosexual and lives with his partner. I am friendly to them as neighbors should be. But he also knows I am completely against his lifestyle. I guess the difference is if we support and pander to them as what society thinks we should do, or if we take a stand to say it’s sinful and not good for society.
If I were gay, I would not feel that you love and respect me if you think what I am doing is entirely wrong and a gross sin.
Do you know how many gay LDS members have killed themselves? Many did this due to people close to them believing that they are gross, unnatural sinners whose inner compass is entirely wrong. You might think you are just calling the sin gross, but gay people will think that they are just gross. I do not respect your view on this, at all.
I think your views are hateful and wrong and lead to much unneeded heartache. It’s sad. Elder Nelson should just leave it alone. You lost. Stop begging members to defend something that is not under attack.
Rob said: “I teach my children to love and respect all. But, I also teach them that SSM is a gross sin and entirely wrong. I have a neighbor down the street who is homosexual and lives with his partner. I am friendly to them as neighbors should be. But he also knows I am completely against his lifestyle. I guess the difference is if we support and pander to them as what society thinks we should do, or if we take a stand to say it’s sinful and not good for society.”
What is worse, Rob, that the homosexual lives with his partner” or that they might be in the “gross sin” of SSM?
Let me clarify #55, *You may think you are just calling the sin gross, but many gay people (especially children) MAY think that they are gross if they hear people they are close to or people they trust sharing such beliefs.
Dexter,
Don’t pull the “gay suicide” card out. Lots of people committ suicide. I had a cousin who committed suicide. We need to find the true cause of suicide in teens, but me saying SSM is a sin is not the reason for teens to committ suicide. I don’t buy that BS. We can approach it truly humble, be accepting and loving to others, even our gay youth, but that doesn’t mean we lie down and let the LGBT movement to run amuck and create more problems for our society that leads to more suicides and problems.
Rob,
That ship has sailed, brother.
Now, the question is whether the increasing number of people who think opposition to SSM is bigoted will “support and pander” to those asking for “religious freedom” or whether they’ll “take a stand” and say that no university saturated in such bigotry (which is not good for society) should be allowed to receive tax-payer-funded grants.
Time to start thinking like a minority. If you lose the sectarian battle, your best hope is tolerant pluralism.
Steven,
Both scenarios are equally wrong- whether they are married by law or just living together in a homosexual relationship, it’s the same thing- sin.
Joel,
I didn’t care what the world thinks. As Christ said- “my kingdom is not of this world”. They could burn me at the stakes, I don’t care, I will not cave in to their gross immorality.
#59, although you’re digging your own hole here and I don’t even need to respond, I just can’t help it.
What does it matter that lots of people commit suicide? That makes it ok to drive more to suicide by teaching this stuff?
What does you cousin’s suicide have to do with anything? That makes you an expert on whether gay people commit suicide due to the church’s views?
You saying SSM is a sin certainly could cause a suicide if you have a gay child or someone who looks up to you is gay.
By the way, brilliant writing to say “I don’t buy that BS”, and then follow that up with how humble your approach is.
#62, you might not care, but the church certainly does.
You are so intolerant of the “sins” of homosexuality. Your hateful views are sin, if sin exists.
Rob,
I respect a principled stand. But you might want to add a qualifier to the end of that “…unless there’s a revelation.”
Gotta stay flexible. We just had a gospel doctrine lesson on that.
I don’t buy the BS about our unacceptance of homosexual behavior being the cause of suicides. It’s a disorder that goes much deeper than that.
And what do you mean you will not “cave in to their gross immorality?” No one is asking you to marry someone of the same sex. Do you mean you won’t even acknowledge that gays have the right to marry? That they exist? What do you mean?
#66, so the church’s teachings on homosexuality have never caused or contributed to the suicide of any person? No one has ever committed suicide because they felt unholy, unnatural, unwanted, or “gross”, as you put it, because they were gay and trying to sort out their feelings within the church?
YOU’RE WRONG!
Dexter,
I am not going to cave in to the popular pandering of their immorality.
Studies have shown that a majority of teen suicides and suicide attempts had nothing to do with gender/sexual preferences. The LGBT community often skews the results in hope that their immorality will be accepted. Suicide factors are highly prevalent in homes where abuse and neglect are present. I hardly think the church teaching morality is “abuse”.
“A majority of suicides have nothing to do with gender/sexual preferences.”
So what?!?!?
If the church’s teachings led to just one suicide, that is a huge tragedy and I hold the church accountable. But I believe the church’s teachings about homosexuality have led to or contributed to many suicides.
And the teachings certainly can be abusive.
And it’s not just teaching. Electroshock therapy was used on homosexuals at BYU. Is that not abuse?
Dexter,
The highest percentage of suicides in Utah are among middle aged white Caucasians working class adults and elderly. Would you suppose that the church teaching of hard work, family responsibility, is leading to suicide in this group? Statistics show that teen suicide in conservative political areas are increase at a higher rate per capita amongst heterosexuals over homosexuals. Why is that? Statistics in Utah show that religious involvement is the number one factor in suicide prevention in Utah followed by eating one meal with family per day. Both of those are principled teachings of the church. Further- over 60% of Utah teens who are suicidal have had problems with breaking the law and have substance abuse problems. It looks to me like adhering to church guidelines is the best preventative measure in Utah for suicide prevention.
Can a parent (or the church-you can substitute church for parent each time I use it) love the sinner but hate the sin?
This whole love the sinner but hate the sin idea might work if someone commits a wrong outside of their character. Example 1: if a normally well behaved 16 year old gets frustrated in a basketball game and punches an opponent, it would be easy to still love the boy, but very much disapprove of the punch. I believe a parent could show major disappointment with the act without the boy believing he was unloved.
Even sexual acts could be handled this way. Example 2: A parent could strongly disapprove of a son or daughter’s going too far with a member of the opposite sex, without going so far as to feel disgusted by their child. After all, the parent most likely hopes their child has the desire to eventually get married and have children, and I believe most parents would understand the strong desires of hormonal teenagers.
But with homosexuality, if a parent feels the way Rob described, I doubt very much that a parent could effectively hate the sin without the child feeling unloved to some degree, especially if the parent voices such disgust at the “gross” sins of homosexuality. Rob, and others like him, make it seem as if they would not just be disappointed (like they would in examples 1 and 2) but absolutely disgusted. And further, in example 2 a parent would understand the child’s sexual desire, but disapprove of the act. But with homosexuality, the parent would be disgusted by their child’s desires! How painful would that be for a child? It’s not, “well, my parents are disappointed with me because of what I did.” Instead, it would be easy for the child to think, “well, my parents are disappointed/disgusted in me for WHO I AM. They are disgusted by what I naturally want.” This would be very traumatic when they are taught that a straight person’s natural feelings and desires for sex are healthy, but theirs are gross. Now that the church has come around to the idea that people don’t choose to be gay (finally), the church needs to be more loving to those who have desires that they cannot choose not to have.
In this instance, I think it is impossible to love the sinner but hate the sin. Homosexuality is not an act, it’s a major component of who they are.
Let me note that I am not trying to pick on Rob here at all. He used the word “gross” for what he views as homosexual immorality. But whether Rob feels the way I described above or not, my point is that we all know there are parents (and church leaders) who are absolutely disgusted by homosexuality in a way that is unfair. The parents I was trying to describe in example 3 would be the type of parents who would be disappointed if their 17 year old son had sex with a girl, but horrified/disgusted if their 17 year old son had sex with a boy. How is that right? How is that Christlike? Both have sexual desires that they didn’t choose, and can’t change. So to treat the first one with love (but disappointment) and the second with disgust is wrong. The first one perhaps could be loved while hating the sin. But the second one seems like hating the sinner and the sin.
#71,
We are discussing the harm caused by the church’s teachings on homosexuality, and that harm includes some suicides. This is not about suicide in general. I believe the church’s teachings on homosexuality cause homosexuals to feel inadequate, unnatural, unloved, and like they don’t belong, to put it lightly. Your stats do not speak to this point at all. If you truly feel that the church’s teachings have not caused or contributed to any suicides, feel free to say so. I do not believe that. I don’t know how anyone can believe that.
This one comment, alone, demonstrates how Elder Nelson’s article empowers bigotry:
“I don’t buy the BS about our unacceptance of homosexual behavior being the cause of suicides. It’s a disorder that goes much deeper than that.”
I once thought as this poster did, and went through several years of suicide watches and attempts by my daughter…until she came out and established a loving, committed relationship with her partner.
Homosexuality is not a “disorder”, and treating it as such, or as a deep and shameful sin is by itself a significant cause of teen suicides in Utah. As I understand it, half of teen suicides in Utah are due to shame around gender and sexual identity: a disordinately larger ratio than those with “normal” sexual leanings.
We LDS sustain 15 men as prophets, seers, and revelators, where “sustain” should mean that we take their positions seriously. To presume that every utterance they make is the word and will of a God who dictates such to them is flawed thinking bordering on idolatry. They are men, who reflect their best attempt to understand the will of God within the confines of their mind and heart, subject to their own cultural biases. To presume they are individually or collectively infallible is out of harmony with both scripture as well as historical fact.
To sustain a prophet is also to provide feedback as to the facts. To me, the best example of an individual doing this was Levi Savage’s speaking truth about the future of the Martin and Willie handcart companies in the face of Franklin Richards promise that all would be well. Richards erred in his “prophecy”, and people needlessly suffered. Levi supported the trek and was instrumental in making the best of it, but was condemned for his true and faithful words.
Many of us have children or family members who are LBGT. Some as well, have had to deal with being LBGT within the church. While there may be a church answer for a few, the vast majority of LBGT find no loving answer within the church.
We have no modern revelation that declares that LBGT marriage should be prohibited, nor that same sex attraction is sin.
We only have:
1. Old Testament prohibitions that need to be understood in their cultural context.
2. A scripture in genesis about how it is not good for man to be alone, and after seeking among the animals a “help meet” for Adam, God finally figured out that Adam wasn’t into bestiality and thus made a women out of his rib: a mythologized account explaining “traditional marriage”.
3. An opinion by Paul that homosexuality the result of sinful departure from God. In context of Romans, one cannot impute that Paul believed that under Christ we were under the law of the Torah. Thus to Paul, the law demanding death for certain acts was overcome in Christ Jesus.
4. A core doctrine of our church declaring that polygamy — not one man and one woman — is the law of the highest realm of the Celestial Kingdom.
5. The Law of Chastity, which states explicitly that LDS qualifying for the “higher laws” of the gospel, are only to have sexual relations with their husband or wife, to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded. It should also be noted that this law is at the same level as the “law of consecration”, demanding that LDS turn over everything they are and have to the LDS church.
6. A legal brief entitled “the Family: a Proclamation”, defining traditional gender roles and heterosexual marriage as being an ideal structure for raising families, but does not explicitly condemn alternatives to the ideal form of marriage.
I recognize that many saints will feel that the Brethren’s opposition to marriage equality is sufficient evidence that this is the doctrine of God. Yet the brethren also unanimously supported illegal polygamy and the priesthood ban against blacks. In the latter case, the the idea of exclusion was equally considered “doctrinal”, even if there were no explicit revelations involved.
Digging into the doctrine of the church, what we find is that the institutional bigotry against gays is not doctrinal, but rather, embedded in policies like the annotation on records and exclusion of LBGT from any leadership callings, mandatory excommunication of those having transsexual operations, etc. nothing in doctrine or current revealed word, only policy.
Policy can be changed. We can grow up and realize our errors and embrace a loving acceptance and full inclusion of those for whom the “ideal” form of family is not workable.
Let’s assume for a moment that heterosexual polygamy is indeed the law of the highest degree of the celestial kingdom. Will we all practice it? Are we condemned to “hell” if we don’t? How does a God who loves all his children not have a “plan” for those whom cannot make polygamy work.
Ok you say, we no longer practice polygamy…but in the eternal sense, Elder Nelson indeed does. Is Elder Nelson more qualified for the highest degree of the CK than, say, SWK or BKP that did not practice “the principle”?
Ok let’s go another step. You gotta be married in at least a traditional marriage to enter the highest degree of the CK. what about faithful singles? Children who die before 8? The myriad of faithful who never get married? Is there no plan for them? Should we cast them out because marriage has not worked for them?
If it is not good for man to live alone, according to god’s word, then why are we forcing some of god’s faithful children to live alone?
Addiction to gay sex is like any other addiction. The human body is not designed for gay sex.
Wayfarer, I *love* your comment!
Dexter,
Let’s discuss the real cause of teen suicide. You seem to think that it’s the LDS church stance on homosexuality. It’s not. Stats don’t lie. Church involvement in a youth’s life is a known prevention to reduce teen suicide. Recognize that fact. You seem to think that if the church were to accept active homosexuality, that teen suicides would drop. That’s false.
Involvement in religion by youth is the number one prevention for suicide. That’s a fact.
So what is the number one cause of teen suicide? That’s hard to say specifically but stats show that bad home environments, depression, eating and mental disorders coupled with ease of access to firearms are the main contributing factors in teen suicides. Even Utah’s own teen suicide prevention site does not list homosexuality as a leading cause of teen suicide. I grew up in Utah, had a rough teenage life, was made fun of unrelentingly, got involved with drugs, substance abuse. I was in that high category of stats for suicidal tendencies. Lucky for me, I had religion and a strong family to help me through coupled with having mental healthcare at the right time. I didn’t become a statistic. It bothers me thus tremendously to see LGBT activists promoting this belief that our church treatment of homosexuality as being the cause of teen suicides. That’s misleading, it’s complete BS. LDS youth actually fare better than non LDS youth in suicidal tendencies.
Wayfarer,
Get your facts right. Utah teen suicides are not overwhelmingly because they were gay. That’s a lie.
Garafalo et al. (1999) found that LGB high school
students and students unsure of their sexual
orientation were 3.4 times more likely to have
attempted suicide in the last year than their
straight peers.
Eisenberg and Resnick (2006) found LGB high
school students were more than twice as likely
as their straight peers to have attempted suicide.
LGB youth who attempt suicide were twice as
likely than their straight peers to say that they
had really hoped to die (Safren & Heimberg)
In one study of adults and young adults 30.1
percent of transgender individuals surveyed
reported having ever attempted suicide (Kenagy,
2005). (versus the 4.6 % of adults and young
adults in the general population) (Kessler et al,
1999)
Rob, I hope your comments only reflect your own opinions and biases, and are not indicative of the wider sentiment among church members.
But if that is the case, we have a long way to go yet.
Rob Osborn, I wonder where you’re getting your data. Here is but a portion of the material that demonstrates that suicides among LBGT are a significant source of suicides and a serious problem, especially in cultures of family and societal rejection:
1. Suicide is the 2nd leading cause of death among young people ages 10 to 24. CDC, NCIPC. Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) [online]. (2010) {2013 Aug. 1}. Available from:www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars.
2. LGB youth are 4 times more likely, and questioning youth are 3 times more likely, to attempt suicide as their straight peers. CDC. (2011). Sexual Identity, Sex of Sexual Contacts, and Health-Risk Behaviors Among Students in Grades 9-12: Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
3. Suicide attempts by LGB youth and questioning youth are 4 to 6 times more likely to result in injury, poisoning, or overdose that requires treatment from a doctor or nurse, compared to their straight peers. CDC. (2011). Sexual Identity, Sex of Sexual Contacts, and Health-Risk Behaviors Among Students in Grades 9-12: Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
4. Nearly half of young transgender people have seriously thought about taking their lives, and one quarter report having made a suicide attempt. Grossman, A.H. & D’Augelli, A.R. (2007). Transgender Youth and Life-Threatening Behaviors. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behaviors.37(5), 527-37.
5. LGB youth who come from highly rejecting families are 8.4 times as likely to have attempted suicide as LGB peers who reported no or low levels of family rejection. Family Acceptance Project™. (2009). Family rejection as a predictor of negative health outcomes in white and Latino lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults. Pediatrics. 123(1), 346-52.
6. Each episode of LGBT victimization, such as physical or verbal harassment or abuse, increases the likelihood of self-harming behavior by 2.5 times on average. IMPACT. (2010). Mental health disorders, psychological distress, and suicidality in a diverse sample of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youths. American Journal of Public Health. 100(12), 2426-32.
If you have statistics and data to back up your allegation that suicides among LBGT youth are not a problem, please cite them.
#45 – In a pig’s self-serving eye would the Church ‘accept’ the LGBT lifestyle on the terms you seem to think it should.
Church’s views LESS ‘loving’ than the ‘world’s’? Au contraire, mon frère. You seem to confuse ‘love’ with sycophancy. Just as a good parent has to risk unpopularity with offspring to teach and uphold what’s right, likewise is the Church put into that position, especially in the light of unwarranted criticism by spoilsports like yourself that engage in endless iterations of self-justification.
#62 – Joel, you make one terrific argument for the Libertarian stance on matters of Government involvement, especially funding and HOW that funding ought to be ‘fairly’ obligated.
Imagine for a moment that all American swine suddenly became airborne AND the Libertarian party gained the White House, the Congress, and a majority of the State governorships and legislature. With the mis-named Department of “Education” suddenly abolished before close of business on Inauguration Day, it’s Secretary and workforce summarily dismissed (likely resulting in a monumental immediate increase in measureable educational standards), “private” higher educational institutions would have to worry about interference from bureaucrats suddenly bereft of their positions as they’d likely be likewise bereft of Gov’t funding; both scrambling for their livelihoods.
“Freedom” is a wonderful thing, but it also entails personal responsibility and the dispensation of the notion that the rest of the world owes you anything.
Dexter wrote:
“Do you know how many gay LDS members have killed themselves?” There’s a part of me that would retort, “and this is a problem, why?”…however, the worth of EVERY soul, including those steeped in the falsehoods of the LGBT lifestyle and teachings, so…probably a lot FEWER than your shrill rants would lead readers to believe, with the only ACCEPTABLE number being zero.
I see NO citation of meaningful statistics to show an epidemic of suicides amongst LDS youth that ‘struggle’ with LGBT issues, Dexter, none, whatsoever, merely your unsubstantiated assertions. As if ANY organization that exercises its First Amendment rights could POSSIBLY be committing any kind of tort against an identifiable group that opposes that organization’s agenda or doctrines. Only in your deluded fantasies is it even possible.
The statistics show that suicide ideation is significant, exceeding 50% of surveyed youth in cases of LBGT youth in low acceptance family and religious situations.
The problem stated in the literature as well is the difficulty in forensic investigation of “successful” suicides among youth: parents and leaders actively suppress the LBGT status of their deceased youth, as was the recent Leelah Alcorn case. A Utah public official off the record in the wake of the suicide of Jack Denton Reece expressed both the significant number of teen suicides due to LBGT issues and the frustration with not being able to report them, because in Utah, such things do not happen.
Wayfarer,
I am not saying sucide risk is not a problem in LGBT youth. I agree that the rates of being suicidal amongst LGBT youth are higher than their hetero counterparts. What I am saying is that the majority of teen suicides are not gender identity/sexual identity confusion issues. I dont want to paint the wrong picture to the unknowing that a parent can relax about their children’s suicidal tendencies just because they are not gay. That is not the case. Yes, gay youth may be more inclined toward suicidal behavior but it still only makes up the small minority of causes of teen suicide.
Properly addressing the cause of suicide is important overall. Its wholly unfair to place blame on the church for suicide rates amongst LDS gay youth. There is no statistic available that I know of that honestly tracks the rate of teen suicide amongst LDS LGBT youth compared with other groups. Yes, we do have statistics on state teen suicide rates and Utah does rank 9th in the nation. But doe this place blame on the LDS church for why youth in this state commit suicide more often than average? No. In fact, according to statistics of populations and suicide rates of adjoining states, Utah has a lower suicide rate where Mormonism is more prominant versus adjoining states where the Mormon church is less prominant. Why is that? If the LDS church really were to blame for a higher suicide rate amongst youth then Utah and Idaho combined should have more suicides per capita amongst their youth than adjoining states. But this is not the case. If anything, this shows that there is no negative influence of teen suicide by the church or its members. The Utah government has done there own studies in the state of Utah and have found that there is a direct corellation between religious involvement and teen suicide prevention. The LDS church absolutely dominates thecultural influence in Utah and Idaho. So, I find it interesting that the teen suicide rates in Utah are lower than every other surrounding state (Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, Colorado, Idaho)which have drastically less LDS cultural influence and membership numbers.
Trends have also shown that teen suicide numbers are falling nationwide. Of interest is why the suicide belt (The rocky Mountains) have such high suicide rates as compared with the nation. One such study has began to show physical evidence linking altitude with suicide. I am very interested in the causes, the true causes of suicide and how to prevent such. Studies I have read show that LGBT youth who are raised in conservative Christian homes are less suicidal than those raised outside of these homes. Am I troubled that a rather high amount of youth in Utah commit suicide? Yes, But I am also troubled that a higher amount do so in Montana. Why is that? It certainly cant be the church, the stats dont lie.
http://www.suicidology.org/resources/facts-statistics
I found this study interesting. In part they conclude-
” In summary, active LDS males aged 15–34 years are at decreased risk of suicide compared with their Utah counterparts, both less active and non-LDS. In addition, active LDS males aged 20–34 years are at decreased risk of suicide compared with their US counterparts. We believe that the inverse association between high levels of religiosity and suicide is relatively unexplored, yet ecologic studies and our own research indicate that it is real. In fact, since individual data are used and our measure of religiosity is not self-reported, our findings represent stronger evidence than previously published research in support of the hypothesis that religious involvement is protective against suicide.” http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/155/5/413.full
“Let’s discuss the real cause of teen suicide. You seem to think that it’s the LDS church stance on homosexuality. It’s not. Stats don’t lie. Church involvement in a youth’s life is a known prevention to reduce teen suicide.”
Amen.
I would add, suicide is a complex subject and wouldn’t tie it to church teaching favoring traditional marriage. Take it from one who has firsthand experience dealing with a child with same gender attraction, it too is complex.
Rob Osborn,
I appreciate that you’re trying to see a way that LDS religiosity does not have an effect on suicide rates for teens, and I’m aware that there are other factors as well.
The Family Acceptance Project did not measure what religions were involved in their studies, but they did find a slightly positive value where religion was apparent, but the correlation toward low/moderate/high acceptance of the family had a much stronger effect.
Take a careful read of the following: http://familyproject.sfsu.edu/sites/sites7.sfsu.edu.familyproject/files/FAP_Family%20Acceptance_JCAPN.pdf
You cannot argue, successfully, that the LDS position of extraordinary low acceptance of LBGT is not a factor in LDS teen suicides. Low acceptance results in a lifetime probability of 56.8% suicide attempts for LBGT in low-acceptance families. As well, over 50% of homeless children in Utah are LDS and LBGT, where families have cast the LBGT child out.
If you want to give the Church a pass on this, I understand. The church at least is trying to grapple with the issue with MormonsandGays . org and with some softening of policies about homosexual inclinations versus actions. But from personal experience, this is not enough.
I had to coordinate a teen suicide in our ward, and I had a daughter who, prior to coming out being gay, was completely suicidal. In the case of the teen suicide, the public position, particularly by her parents, was completely in denial about her orientation — it was a complete secret, hence the statistic would never include such a child. A third child in the same ward was brutalized and bullied until he left the church. This gives an example, an anecdote for sure, of 3 children in a population at the time of about 20 youth.
Please, please, don’t tell me that the vehement rejection culture of LBGT within mormonism does not cause teen suicides. Please don’t tell me that whenever a top leader in the church calls for an unspecified battle against those who would threaten marriage, that this doesn’t get interpreted by the culture as a cause for bullying, censure, and casting out of children who cannot comply with such norms.
in the above…
coordinate *the funeral for* a teen suicide…
It might help to distinguish between (a) statements and programs of the Church itself and (b) the real-world environment that the Church’s statements can foster in the homes of overzealous and domineering parents.
For instance, it’s not the Church itself saying ‘better dead than gay’ (except, maybe, “The Miracle of Forgiveness,” etc.). But I think the Church is responsible for prompting brutish, as-for-me-and-my-house types to go that far.
That distinction has two effects. It may reduce the degree of culpability a bit. But, on the other hand, it diminishes the Church’s (and its defenders’) plausible deniability.
As an analogy, the mere contributing factor of Brigham Young’s blood-atonement rhetoric to the Mountain Meadows Massacre makes him less culpable than if he’d directly ordered it. But it’s seems almost irrefutable that his rhetoric fostered the hostile environment. So, perhaps we should narrow and define the allegation.
Very reasonable, Joel.
I have narrowed the allegation to what Elder/President Nelson said, and now in the September Ensign, ELder Ballard is echoing the same message. It’s as if the church can’t get enough of “defending traditional marriage”.
My original post was a call to interpret President Nelson’s (and now Ballard’s) message in a way that is in harmony with the spirit of love and discipleship.
1. Both Nelson and Ballard do not deny that being a “disciple” involves being loving. In fact, in the September Ensign, Ballard is quite explicit about condemning bullying and abuse in the name of defending marriage — that, at least, is a step in the right direction.
2. Neither Nelson nor Ballard define what it means to “defend”, but they do frame the conversation in terms of a battle. Ballard insists that LDS should not allow people to disrespect our ability to conduct marriages between a man and a woman. While I agree that if anyone would prevent us from marrying men to women that it would constitute an attack on marriage. But who and where is there anyone who is making such an attack? Without the evidence of harm, the idea that marriage is being attacked is a canard.
But the worst part of this is that when we frame the call to defend in terms of the battle metaphor, then we put people into a battle mode. War is never pretty, and people unfortunately do things when they feel like they’r being attacked that can harm others. This can be interpreted by many LDS as a justification to cast out and bully LBGT children. It can be used as a way to force reparative therapies. Nothing good comes from the battle metaphor, and when combined with a fictitious premise that heterosexual marriage is being attacked, it creates an disingenuous premise to bully.
3. We have no standing as an LDS church to “defend” traditional marriage. period. Our formal definition of marriage is Polygamy. It is the only canonical definition we have in our scripture. Until Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants is repudiated, and the Proclamation on the Family is made part of canon — both have to happen, before the church can say that our doctrine is based upon “one man and one woman”. Rob Osborn has correctly represented how the members are confused over this, falsely claiming that “one man one woman” is the core of our doctrine. It is not, and Elder Nelson is in fact a polygamist by virtue of being sealed in the eternities now to two women.
The Church’s hypocrisy on marriage equality is profound. In the 1880s, the Edmunds Tucker acts and the resultant Supreme Court decision of 1890 formally disincorporated the church, seized all of the Church’s assets, incarcerated all church leaders that could be found, and drove the church into financial bankruptcy. We stood our ground, declaring that demanding that we could not practice polygamy was forcing a definition of marriage — monogamy — which our leaders taught was an apostate form of marriage.
So Wilford Woodruff declared that we had stopped sealings some time prior, that the practice would not continue, and assured the members that the Prophet would not lead the church astray. When he pronounced these words at the end of 1890, he knew his words were false, for sealings had been continued, and continued in fact with Church approval until 1904. The prophet of the Church publicly lied — led the Church and public astray, and as a result of his statement, we now have the folk doctrine of prophetic infallibility — that the prophet cannot lead us astray.
Scroll forward to 1984. Dallin Oaks was made an apostle, and his first act was to lay out a strategy for politically and legally preventing gay marriage. In 1993, the church is preparing to go to war against feminists, gays, and intellectuals with the excommunication of the september 6. But they have a problem, there is no doctrine in the church that states that marriage is one man and one woman. Elders Ballard, Oaks, and the legal team at Kirton McConkie draft a brief to be used in Hawaii four years later, the key parts of which have to be enshrined in Doctrine — so this doctrine is laid out in a brief entitled “The Family: A Proclamation to the World”. President Hinckley, the master at public relations, decides to release it at a women’s relief society meeting in 1995 — yet the women had no part of the declaration, and actually disagreed with some of its tenets. These go ignored in the cause of “following the prophet”.
In 1998, the Church has some success in Hawaii with its brief, beginning an unholy alliance with evangelical Christians (who otherwise think that mormons are the antichrist), and others that lasts through 2008 with the Proposition 8. In 2003, President Hinckley demands that members of the Church render “uncompromising loyalty” to their church leaders on political issues, cueing up the language that be used in 2008 to invoke the Law of Consecration on faithful members to dedicated their time, talents, and means to the cause of passing Proposition 8.
History is repeating itself. The Church got is tail-end handed to itself as a result of Prop8, yet continued to have Kirton McConkie draft amicus briefs to various states and then ultimately to the Supreme Court to try to prevent marriage equality. All of these efforts fail; yet ironically, the Church is doing to other churches who now consecrate gay marriage, exactly the same thing that the republicans and mainstream christians did to the LDS church in the 1880s: establish a religious definition of marriage in the law that prevents the rights of others to freely practice their religion.
The irony and hypocrisy are astounding.
“As well, over 50% of homeless children in Utah are LDS and LBGT, where families have cast the LBGT child out.
If you want to give the Church a pass on this, I understand. “
Those that cast out their children just because they are struggling with the issue are in the wrong. Some of these kids have run away with very worried and distraught parents. Also, some were physically threatening and deserved the boot, so let’s not assume they have all been ‘cast out’ by their family.
I don’t think we are giving the church a pass; and, quite honestly the church is not for everyone. If my child decides to pursue same sex marriage rather than a life of celibacy, I would rather they leave the church than stay in and try and force the church to accept same sex marriage in the Temple. I do agree that civil marriage is the same for same gender or opposite gender from the prospective that both marriages end at death.
The jury is still out (speaking collectively) on how well adjusted children will be growing up with same gender parents.
Wayfarer,
I no longer live in Utah but I grew up there as a youth. I had a lot of problems growing up there. The most stressful for me was school and being made fun of, no friends, etc. Church was a refreshing safety I looked forward to until I fell away into inactivity for a long period. I do not honestly believe the church culture and it’s teachings has a negative effect on gay youth. I grew up there, even knew several homeless youth. I do know that most homeless youth are kicked out because they choose to disobey, break the law, substance abuse, etc. Drugs and and substance abuses were a problem in my age growing up there. A lot of LGBT homeless are also drug addicts which lifestyle promotes that type of homo, bi, behavior.
Unfortunately, that is a most accurate summary, Wayfarer. It’s too bad most members are not so well informed on this issue.
Wayfarer,
I hear ya. You hit on why SNL and the Daily Show both have done jokes about Mormons being outraged over “traditional” marriage. To outsiders, the irony is obvious and comical.
And I think your point about the environment and mood created by war rhetoric is well taken. (See Mountain Meadows Massacre as an extreme example.) At very least, I think it’s good for left-leaning members to point out where leaders have ALSO SAID not to be assholes to our gay neighbors or our own children.
On my narrow-the-allegation point, I was thinking specifically about assigning responsibility for suicides.
#95 (Wayfarer) wrote: “WE have no standing as an LDS church to “defend” traditional marriage” (emPHAsis mine)
As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger after they were cornered in a canyon by 1,000 Apache…”What do you mean ‘WE’, PALEFACE?”
Frankly, were I your bishop and/or SP, I’d give you a wee ‘talkin to’ to publicly trash the Church and its doctrines, especially on marriage, like that. At minimum, your understanding of Church history and its position on marriage is skewed to the degree that I’d question that you’ve ever been an active member. I’d leave it to your actual leaders to do what they will, if anything, b/c I’m not a bishop or SP and certainly not yours…everything in order.
WHEAT…OR TARE? I’d say in your case, definitely a “Tare”, but unlike how Ron has expressed that dissenters should leave, I say persevere and teach as Christ would…probably why His advice to the laborers in His field was to wait until the crop of either plant had reached full maturity, and then to thrust in the sickle and reap (Matt 13:29,30)…and beware the prescribed fates of the tares.
I have known a fair number of gay people throughout my life. Most always, young folks who are gay have tried to hide it desperately from family and friends because of the terrible shame it would bring, the recriminations, rejections, taunting, bullying, and being physically attacked in many sadistic ways heterosexuals thought was funny and deserving. In every case I’ve known of these people as adolescents began self-medicating with alcohol and drugs to dull the pain, fear and anxiety. My experience has been that the drug/alcohol culture you referenced as “promoting homo, bi behavior” is not at all promoting such sexual orientations but rather, helps those who are beaten down BECAUSE of their orientation to escape from their nightmarish reality for a while. It doesn’t work, of course. But it’s the go-to realm when struggling through turbulent adolescence for so many troubled young people for so many enduring reasons.
As disciples of Christ, we must find the rhetoric and the heart-felt charity to be there for those who are struggling. This can be difficult when so many young people simply cannot confide in their parents for fear of disappointing them, or seeing loathing in their eyes, or hearing shame-promoting lectures. Understanding must be found. It must…… For all thy learning, get understanding, the Savior counsels. It takes great courage to listen with ears to hear to those who live in a world of dark rejection and shame—to walk with them, and talk with them….that thereby we show true love for them.
We can learn so very much we have no idea we don’t even know, let alone understand from those whom we reject and shame. What wisdom we can gain from such willingness to learn and then understand. How Christlike this would be if only we would…..
Ken, it’s not complex. The more loving and accepting we are towards homosexuals, the better off everyone will be.
Of interest-http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_gender_issues/Same-sex_attraction/Family_members
I note in much of this dialog that we speak of lesbians, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer saints as being “them”. I really wonder, though, if this is truly accurate, or even helpful. When we say we “love the sinner and hate the sin”, implied in the idea that we should love the others among us that are LBGTQ as long as they live a life of celebacy within the standards of the church, and even then, their records will be annotated with a designation that forbids them from any significant leadership positions or roles with children and teens, are we following the Savior here?
The story of the Zoramites in the Book of Mormon is illustrative of the problem I see with how we as a culture treat those that sin differently than us. In Alma 31, each Zoramite would go to the “holy stand” and bear his testimony of three things: 1. That they set their hearts on wealth, 2. That they were elect over and above others, and 3. that they “knew” that there should be no Christ.
As LDS, we often focus on the first and third parts of this condemnation: that materialism at the expense of belief in Christ is wrong. We condemn the Zoramites and speak of “them” as being wrong, whereas the poorer Ammonites were the archtype of the correct disciples of Christ. My question to those reading this is, “We LDS: are we Zoramites or Ammonites when we declare war to defend traditional marriage?”
When we stand up and “defend traditional marriage”, saying that only a marriage between man and woman are acceptable to god, we are declaring that because we have had the blessing of a specific sexual identity, we are somehow better than others who do not. We are judging others. We are making those who suffer “the other”. This sentiment was taught in all of our Church meetings, in response to the First Presidency letter on this topic. Having seen the deleterious effect of our LDS teachings on the suicidal tendencies of my lesbian daughter, I felt the need to speak up. The church leader then positioned himself at attention and declared to me that I chose the wrong way to face if I defended marriage equality. I was socially forced into silence by that rebuke.
“In the quiet heart is hidden sorrow that the eye can’t see”. I thank God that my daughter was not in this meeting, to yet have more condemnation on her identity. Because I spoke up in defense of marriage equality for those for whom “traditional marriage” is not a choice, I was judged. I was condemned. I became, in that moment, “the other”, the “them”, the enemy in this war to defend traditional marriage.
Jesus told a parable about those who trusted in themselves and their own righteousness and despised others who sin differently. He said,
“Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
“And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
“I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”
President Dieter Uchtdorf spoke of being a disciple in his April 2012 conference talk, “The merciful obtain mercy.” https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-merciful-obtain-mercy?lang=eng. He asks us to perform a self-test to see if we are truly Disciples of Christ, one key question being, “Do you exclude, push away, or punish others because of something they have done?” He teaches, ‘This topic of judging others could be taught in a two-word sermon. When it comes to hating, gossiping, ignoring, ridiculing, holding grudges, or wanting to cause harm, please apply the following: STOP IT!”
He cites a bumper sticker, of all things, as being the core principle: “Don’t judge me because I sin differently than you.” We are all sinners. We are all beggars before God.
If we are all sinners, if those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or even questioning or unsure of their sexual identity, simply seek to find the mercy and grace at the throne of God, are we so different from each other? Do we need to declare that those who cannot live within a “traditional marriage” must live apart from others? Is this even close to what the Savior intended?
I was harbored deep feelings of contempt toward homosexuality. Amidst the depths of alcoholic recovery, however, I sought to take a personal inventory of my life, and I came to realize that (1) i had had homosexual experiences when I was a child, (2) when I pushed away the friend who encouraged such behavior, I was bullied by him and others, and accused of being a “fag”, and (3) I did everything I could to demonstrate masculinity in order to be not viewed on as being a “fag”, including participating with the bullying of others. My alcoholism was the only way I could handle the shame of the secret dark parts of my soul, and the deep guilt I felt for being something other than who I am.
I had a complete release from my alcoholic addiction through the undeserved grace of Christ. I was unworthy of any of his love, but received all of His love. How can I not follow him in His pattern? He calls unto me, “I say unto you, be One, and if you are not One, you are not mine.” He calls me to be “perfect” — not in being flawless, but in being “whole” and “impartial” in loving all.
Because “they” are not the “other”. “They” are us.
To those who are so vehement in your defense of “traditional marriage”, I ask you: “why?” Have you plumbed the depths of your own sexuality? Are you intrigued as a male with lesbian pornography? Do you feel contempt in your heart about the specific manner in which gay man have sex? Are you hiding behind the old testament word “abomination”? Do you personally know a LBGTQ person, and have developed a trusting relationship with them or do you avoid any contact with those whom you consider fithy?
“Come unto Him, all ye that are heavy laden, and ye shall find rest unto your souls.”
Can we follow Christ if we are not the refuge of love to those we think are different?
The answer is that we are not different. We are One.
Then let is be disciples of Jesus Christ, and welcome with open arms, all of US that are heavily laden, and seek for all of US that which we deeply need: love, commitment, and intimacy in marriage.
Wayfarer,
You can make it as eloquent as you want but it doesn’t change it from being sinful. The nbasic fundamental unit of society is a man and woman married to each other in complete fidelity. That is the strength of God and his glory.
If we all just did whatever our fleshy carnality wanted we would all be the vilests of sinners. It’s thus not about doing whatever feels good, it’s about being obedient to God and what he commands. SSM is a sin and against God.
^^^^ Exhibit ‘A’
Wayfarer,
Your comment @98 is too good to be hidden away in a long comment thread. It deserves to be a post of its own.
Just wondering if we spoke eloquently and flowery enough about pornography that we too could justify it in our minds as a beautiful and natural thing and in course slander the prophets on that point too?
“Just wondering if we spoke eloquently and flowery enough about pornography that we too could justify it in our minds as a beautiful and natural thing and in course slander the prophets on that point too?”
Place it in King James English and make it part of scripture. It worked for the whole issue of slavery.
Better yet, have the prophets themselves utter it in official proclamations and church members can frame it and hang it on their walls.
Rob Osborn. I guess you’ve run out of logic on this. Why don’t you simply add in the bestiality and pedophilia canards as well?
Re #95
Douglas rants: ‘Why, you uppity whippersnapper! Children are to be seen, not heard. If I were your father, I’d take you over my knee and…’
Behold “the thinking has been done,” infantilization that is Mormonism.
Wayfarer,
My point is that SSM has no logical basis in our gospel. As LDS, we should readily uphold the prophets, not knock em down. See too much of that these days.
#111 (Joel), Dude, you’ve got me confused with someone else. I’m a ‘dirty’, MIDDLE-AGED man (what do you mean, “Old”? at 56…?), and whippersnapper is not in my vocabulary.
My children are largely grown, save for the baby of the family, herself a teenager, and have to deal with their own kids. As “Grandpa”, I enjoy the BEST part of it…I just RENT, not BUY! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Douglas,
That’s the imagery I get from your “were I your bishop” comment.
Your gist appears to be that members are children who warrant parental wrath if they “talk back” with contrary opinions.
I’d love to be able to tell my non-member friends in good faith that we’re not a cult. Comments like yours make that more difficult.
Douglas,
In response to your comment: “Frankly, were I your bishop and/or SP, I’d give you a wee ‘talkin to’ to publicly trash the Church and its doctrines, especially on marriage, like that. At minimum, your understanding of Church history and its position on marriage is skewed to the degree that I’d question that you’ve ever been an active member.”
Interesting. I said WE LDS have no standing to defend traditional marriage as being defined as one man and one woman. I stand by that from a historical perspective. Perhaps you are unaware that Brigham Young condemned monogamy: “Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire…. Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers…. Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord’s servants have always practiced it. ‘And is that religion popular in heaven?’ it is the only popular religion there” (Brigham Young, Deseret News, August 6, 1862)
Twenty years later, the republicans, with mainstream Christian support, passed the Edmunds act, and later, the Edmunds Tucker act, that defined marriage in this country as “one man and one woman”, made polygamy a felony, and confiscated all LDS church properties. The LDS church objected to the Supreme Court saying that these laws established one religion (mainstream christianity) and prevented the free exercise of another religion (LDS polygamy). That was a correct argument, but it failed in the Court.
After the Supreme Court decision, and in coverup of the LDS violation of the Edmunds Tucker act, Wilford Woodruff lied about the cessation of polygamy (it had not stopped), and claimed that he could not lead the public or church astray — even in the very act of doing so.
This is the Church history you claim I do not know. In fact, my great grandfather was one of those who continued the practice of polygamy with Woodruff’s and the apostles approval, taking on additional wives after 1890. They covered it all up by my great grandfather having a false name with some of his family.
As for the “wee talk” with my bishop and stake president, I have already made it clear my beliefs, and the way that I sustain the brethren is by hearkening to what they say and applying it to my life. They know I actively support marriage equality, and in my most recent temple recommend interviews, they encouraged me to continue to speak up for those who are disenfranchised by our culture. I have had a temple recommend for over forty years.
Might I suggest you read the quote from President Uchtdorf in comment #104 above? He said, “This topic of judging others could be taught in a two-word sermon. When it comes to hating, gossiping, ignoring, ridiculing, holding grudges, or wanting to cause harm, please apply the following: STOP IT!”
Douglas,
“’Freedom’ is a wonderful thing, but it also entails personal responsibility and the dispensation of the notion that the rest of the world owes you anything.”
I couldn’t agree more. For that reason, I’d prefer the church drop its rhetoric about threats to religious liberty because the only plausible threat their talking about is taxation status, and federal grants and the availability of student loan money at its universities. As you point out, “the world doesn’t owe” that to churches anyway.
Wayfarer,
Well said.
It may be too educational for the comfort of some. But we live in the Information Age. Members will just have to grow up and figure out how to deal with facts that may disturb narratives that are sanitized to the point of being legends, not history. And, yes, members will have to confront radical inconsistencies among their prophets and cope.
To its credit, Salt Lake seems to be moving in that direction. But it may take another decade before reactionary members and local leaders get the memo that it’s now moral to be candid about
the past–even if it happens to shake the testimony of the person next to him or is embarrassing to the LDS community.
Joel… Exactly.
When the “internet” thing was getting popular in the 90s, Usenet newsgroups and listserv mailings performed the function of giving voice to those who had become aware of issues in our religious beliefs.
In trying to create a more supportive space, a few of us tried to create moderated, safe places for Mormons to discuss the issues. Then, as now, strongly polarizing voices from either the hardline orthodox or viscerally opposed created little opportunity for a Middle Way dialog or a thoughtful interpretation of the issues of our faith.
Thought tends to cease when people assert that any critical discussion of Mormon leaders’ pronouncements constitutes “evil speaking of the lord’s anointed”, even when such dialog is respectful and fact-based.
I agree that the Church is driving toward addressing the floodgate of verifiable facts about our history, doctrines, and practices — things that have been systematically suppressed in our correlated materials.
But the result of fifty plus years of “correlation” is a culture that knows nothing else and deeply fears open discussion and independent thought. This creates a tyranny of the majority of active members for conformance to cultural norms that, while on the surface may appear benign, deeply damage those for whom the cultural norms are untenable.
Elder Oaks was clear in the 1984 strategy for fighting gay marriage that we must differentiate between identity and behavior. Our doctrine now (and in his brief) is that same sex attraction is not sin, but having sex outside of marriage certainly is.
Thus, the practice of homosexuality in terms of sexual intercourse (prior to 1990) / relations (current) outside of marriage is a violation of the law of chastity.
But our doctrine has a challenge: we have no official, revealed doctrine outside of the levitical restrictions that says that same sex marriage is prohibited.
As I understand it, Elders Oaks and Ballard realized that from a legal perspective, the church needed a doctrinal statement amidst the rise of feminism and LBGT activism that would put a stake in the ground
doctrinally. Elder Packer had to be the driving force behind this push: his statements and direct action to excommunicate dissent was pivotal.
1993 was the watershed year–the tipping point, driving the church to aggressive action.
The drum-beat from 1993 to today was all about the defense of the LDS ironic position around marriage. If gays were allowed to “marry”, then the law of chastity would allow committed homosexuals who are legally and lawfully wedded to be in compliance with the law of chastity as explicitly defined in our doctrine.
The recent defeat of the church’s position in the Supreme Court is a devastating loss in the war the church declared in 1993.
The reaction has been to retrench–to demand that the members “defend traditional marriage”. But since the law and Supreme Court decision in no way dissolves any “traditional” make-female marriages, what on earth does it mean at this point to continue the battle? It’s as if raising the confederate battle flag after Appomattox actually will do any good.
This metaphor has deep relevance. I live in an area where the civil war is still being fought. The confederate battle flag represents something deeply offensive and troubling to many: it is a symbol of white supremacy, and creates an unwelcoming environment to people of color. This is not a good thing.
So our leaders are saying “defend traditional marriage” without having any way of doing so… We are compelled therefore to interpret what that means.
For some, that will mean raising a “confederate battle flag” that gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals and questioning/queer are sinners to be condemned. Our leaders don’t want that to happen, but the don’t seem to realize that an unspecified call to battle will have that effect.
For me, the need to interpret drives me to find a faithful interpretation of “defending marriage” that involves what I understand it means to be a disciple of Christ. I am trying to give serious heed to Elder/President Nelson’s words.
Wayfarer,
You really believe we have no official doctrine concerning SSM?
Sure Rob, I’ll play. Show me scripture outside of the Torah any revelation that prohibits same sex marriage.
So you think just because SSM isnt found in the bible that its okay? Is that your logic? We have living prophets today that have repeated officially Christ’s doctrine regarding marriage which absolutely defines SSM as a sin.
Under your logic I could marry my dog or even my neighbors 10 year old daughter.
Why do you not adhere to our living prophets on this matter?
After reading through all of these comments, I have been appalled by many, (and here I am so very tempted to say names, but I won’t, the other readers can easily tell who I am referring to) and uplifted by many (particularly those of Wayfarer, Dexter, and others). For those who have been uplifting for me, thank you! For those of you whose comments I found appalling, I must say to you that if you are a Priesthood holder in the church, you are dishonoring and disrespecting your Priesthood calling by your hateful, belittling speech! You should be called to repentance for the hatred you spew forth!!!
A true disciple of Christ knows how to behave, and that’s not it!!
#120 (Wayfarer) – unless you reject the New Testament and the apostleship of Paul, read Romans 1:27. What part of “men working with men that which is UNSEEMLY” is ambiguous to you?
Rob, I am still looking for a definitive statement of doctrine. Since you cannot come up with one from scripture, I will accept any statement of official doctrine.
Douglas, is Paul giving us a commandment of the lord, or is he explaining that a cultural practice is a consequence of something?
Read the scripture carful in its context
Thank you, Douglas, for your kind words. The challenge I see is that we are all guilty of judgment of others — even when we engage with those who don’t see the way we do. I recognize that those who have condemned me here are speaking from a dark place in the soul, cultivated by a culture of fear and bigotry. They are not bigots or fearful alone — we all have that dark place, and I have struggled with their feelings myself, that is, before my daughter came out to us.
To put a finer point on this, I was just informed of the following, the source of which is sensitive, but completely reliable and true.
Here is what I learned just happened: a young LDS man left his Sunday meeting services early, went home before his family got back from church, and hung himself.
He was quietly fighting what he had been taught were the demons of same-sex attraction inside of his own soul. He had not disclosed this struggle to his family. Meanwhile, his mother and church leaders were outspoken in social media and offline about how society is being destroyed by gay people.
The person who told me this made this comment: “For anyone who still thinks that it is “nothing personal” to broadcast the hateful, fear-mongering propaganda about gay men and women destroying society, blood is on your hands. For anyone who thinks LGBT people have won the culture war and we should therefore ‘let the crazies be crazy,’ you conspire with the work of destruction.”
I couldn’t agree more. If I condemn someone to a life of solitude, if I judge them for their private and painful journey, if I sit quietly by while my leaders encourage statements that cause suicides, I, too, have blood on my hands. I have not done enough.
I cited a talk by President Dieter F Uchtdorf about how we must stop judging and condemning our fellow saints for either their LBGT orientation, actions even, and those who support marriage equality. I have tried, here, to be civil and gracious to those who disagree with me, but the time has come that the near suicide among many attempts by my daughter, and now knowing at least two people who have committed suicide as a direct result of “defending traditional marriage”, I cannot sit quietly and say “All is well in Zion”.
#127 – My condolences to this family for the loss of their son. Obviously some dynamics were involved but this would be neither the time nor the forum to debate and/or pontificate about it.
No one should ever feel unwelcome or ostracized over LGBT issues at Church. Though it’s obviously not a direct comparison, and can be considered trivializing, I liken it to why not to stare or ridicule an obviously obese, out-of-shape person at the gym (I USED to be ONE of THEM)…are they not where they need to be? If placing ashtrays for smokers, recycle bins for drinkers, and pink triangle placards for LGBT folk were what it took to get them to come to Church, I’d have the buildings festooned with them.
My strident stance about matters LGBT does not give me or anyone else any special ‘right’ to sit in judgment of others. As I’ve said previously, I’m not THEIR bishop. Plus, the same Apostle Paul whose writing I take seriously did also write “Work out YOUR salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12).
My comment #126 that starts with “thank you Douglas”, was meant to be directed at “Doug” #122.
Paul to the Romans, chapter 1, contains language seems to condemn homosexuality and lesbianism. I asked Douglas whether Paul’s comments about homosexuality and lesbianism was a commandment of god, or is he explaining a cultural practice that is an effect of something.
Now that I have a little more time, let’s explore Paul to the Romans.
Chapter 1:18 explains that the wrath of god is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. But what unrighteousness is Paul recognizing and why?
In verses 19-20, Paul points out that it is God that manifests himself to men, and that the invisible things of god are clearly seen. Paul is speaking of recognizing the hand of god in all things, and the need for us to do so.
In verses 21-23, however, he explains how some, when they knew god, refused to glorify him as god, and ultimately changed the glory of god into an image, made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and to fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. In verse 25, he explains that they have changed the truth of God into a lie, and served the creature more than the creator.
Paul is speaking of “idolatry” here — that the Romans certainly participated in idolatry, and had corrupted the worship of god.
Paul then explains the *consequence* of idolatry: that (verse 24) god gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts; that (verse 26) God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of woman, burned in their lust one toward another…
Paul is not explaining the cause of the Romans’ condemnation before god as being homosexuality and lesbianism; Paul is alleging that homosexual and lesbian attraction is caused God who is giving them a punishment of same sex attraction as the result of their idolatry.
Pausing here for a moment, we know from history that homosexuality, prostitution, and lesbianism were more common cultural practices in Rome, and for a Jew, such practices were considered wrong by the Jewish law. Paul is not revealing a commandment of god here, he is explaining that god punishes people by giving them same sex attraction in response to their status as Roman polytheists.
If you lift the scripture from its grammatical context, omitting the words “For this cause God gave them up to vile affections”, then you are distorting the actual, plain meaning of the text. If you lift the scripture out of its cultural context, it cannot be understood as to why Paul spoke of these specific practices as being “vile”.
But there is much more as we read further in Romans.
In verse 32, he says “they which commit such things are worthy of death”. This becomes the key of the entire Epistle to the Romans. Paul is setting the context for his rejection of the Law as salvific, that ONLY through the worship of God can we be saved, not through any action on our own — including “keeping the commandments”.
Then, in the very next verse, Romans 2:1, he begins with a “therefore”. Now this word is the least understood in the way Mormons read scripture. The term “therefore” means that what I am about to say is connected to the context of the verses I just read, and vice versa. Whenever we lift a verse from scripture that includes the word “therefore”, we better understand what the “therefore” is there for.
In this case, “Therefore thou art inexcusable O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
Now you might say that you aren’t a “sodomite”, therefore this verse doesn’t apply. Read back again at Paul’s “consequence” of what God has caused to those who don’t love him:
Romans 1:28-32 “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgement of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”
and now to re-read Romans 2:1: “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.”
I venture to say that Paul has just included every single one of us as being those who have a reprobate mind to the extent that we set aside God and practice idolatry. Now, in Chapter 2, he is addressing exactly the topic of this thread: the judgment of those who sin differently than we do.
Romans 2:3: “thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?”
We are all sinners. Deiter Uchtdorf has correctly identified that our judgment of others is a reprehensible practice, and has given us a commandment to “STOP IT”. Will we?
Throughout the Epistle to the Romans, Paul will explore how the solution to the universal sin of man is to return to worship of God through Christ Jesus. This is the core theme of his text: that by the torah law, and the homosexuality provisions are as good of an example as any, we are all sinners, we are all deserving of death, and that through Christ Jesus, we are removed from the consequences of sin. And while this seems like a free pass, it is not. Paul says, “shall we continue in sin? God forbid!”
But here is the deal: Paul clearly says that it is not up to us to judge this. At. All. He says in 2:2: “But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.”
I am asking the readers here to realize the extreme importance of leaving the judgement of our brothers and sisters with god. Each of us have our “thorn in the flesh” — a challenge we cannot resolve, and which keeps us humble before god. Shall we judge others because their sins are different than ours? We have enough to do.
I am asking you, begging you, pleading in the name of all that is holy that we stop the relentless persecution of our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender brothers and sisters. Please, stop condemning. stop treating them like sinners if they choose to have a committed relationship, for it is not good for man or woman to be alone. It is not our right to choose for them. It is not our job. We must be made of better stuff than this.
For those of you who feel that your gay neighbors down the street are disgusting, please, get to know them personally. Embrace them as you would your brother or sister. Understand who they really are. You will find joy beyond measure, and your heart will change and become more Christ-like than you ever imagined.
Wayfarer,
I am sure you are aware of the recent statement by the Prophet and twelve apostles-
https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-leaders-counsel-members-after-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision?lang=eng
That is the official doctrine and position. SSM is not allowed in LDS doctrine. What I dont understand is if so many LDS are in denial on this point, why not move over to the Community of Christ (former reorganized LDS church), who share much of the same scriptures yet they allow SSM.
Rob,
The letter of the FP and Q12 describes that there is official doctrine, without citing the text of that doctrine. They did exactly the same thing with blacks in the 50s.
Yet, as it turned out, there never was a revelation, only a bigoted interpretation.
Once again, you have invited me to leave your church. You judge me unworthy of being your brother.
Did you somehow miss President Uchtdorf’s message? Could you not understand Paul’s core sentiment, that since we are all sinners, we have no standing to judge?
I stay LDS in the desire to prevent another LBGTQ suicide caused by people like you who find their gay neighbor to be gross and disgusting.
Given that you are teaching this to your child, I pray to God that he or she does not have to deal with suicide ideation as a result of your judgment of your neighbor.
Search in your heart, my friend, as to why you find homosexuality so disgusting. Have you been suppressing your own dark thoughts and temptations? In my experience, those who hate LBGT the most are those who are suppressing latent homosexuality, and statistics bear that out.
I am not asking you to become homosexual. I do not practice homosexuality either. But I will not judge or prevent another human being from enjoying the love, intimacy, and commitment found in marriage if our own religious definition doesn’t work for them.
Wayfarer,
I teach my children correct moral principles. They are left on their own after that to choose to be obedient or disobedient. But, it is my duty to teach them correct principles. I teach my children the doctrine of our gospel which teaches that sex outside of marriage between a man and woman is a sin and not correct but that repentance is available. There is no doubt my children will more than likely fall into some degree of moral sin in their lives. We all do. I also teach the youth at church these same correct moral principles. The importance of getting this doctrine right and teaching it is paramount in the day and age we live in. Immorality is hitting us at every angle now. Homosexuality is but one of the many many immoral sins that now plague our society. Sex outside of marriage runs rampant (of which I too was guilty of), divorce at an all time high, sexual sins of all levels and degrees plague us as a gross sin of darkness that covers the land. One of the worst is pornography which attacks everyone in some degree nowadays. I know hoe easy it is to fall victim to these gross sins because I too have fallen victim from time to time. But, as I get older, wiser and smarter I know that all of these above mentioned items will be the downfall of our freedom, both spiritually and temporally. We as LDS must take a strong stand and defend morality and have solidarity with each other on this important issue. That is why it saddens me to see so many of my beloved LDS who choose not to heed the council of the Lord and stand tall in defense of morality.
Also, I have no homosexual tendencies in my age. Per haps in my youth there were some strange moments, perhaps awkward situations, but that is precisely why we need morality taught to us so that we can take a straight course and plot out the right direction back to our Heavenly Father. For some it must be very very difficult. But even as difficult as it may seem, it gives us no right to justify the flesh in sin as Satan would want us too. I too have my weaknesses such as my strong attraction to members of the opposite sex. But, I remain faithful to my wife and constantly ward off temptations of the flesh. Pornography is the same thing- its a strong pull trying to lure me in. I fight and pray everyday to not fall into temptation of the fleshh and get bound down in that gross sin either. I am not perfect. I dont claim to be, but, I do know right from wrong, and as a leader, father, husband, I must stand for whats right, put on the whole armor of God and defend what is right. SSM is definitely not right and is a gross abomination in the land.
Rob,
Thank you so much for your response — I deeply appreciate your willingness to answer my question honestly, and with reference to your own lived experience.
There is much to cover in response, not to debate, but rather, to help understand how my lived experience so much parallels yours, yet I may have things that can help us better understand where we are coming from.
I will respond more later.
Thanks.