Twenty-eight years ago, I was introduced to Heavenly Father’s Church, through the auspices of “Uncle Sam.” One thing that those drill sergeants shoved into our heads were the General Orders:
- I will guard everything within the limits of my post and quit my post only when properly relieved.
- I will obey my special orders and perform all of my duties in a military manner.
- I will report violations of my special orders, emergencies, and anything not covered in my instructions to the commander of the relief.
Events of the past few years have me re-reading the Book of Mormon, as Mormon implies that he is writing it for our benefit, because we’re going through the same thing [Mormon 8:35-36].
In California, the Church seems willing to make a “last stand” on the issue of homosexual marriage–which is part of a concerted effort to make the behaviour seem normal, rather than the sin that it is. Sadly, it appears that this is a fight that the Church will lose–if not at the polls, then in the courts, ratified at the polls when people elect those who appoint the anti-Mormon and anti-Evangelical judges.
I know good Latter-day Saints who asked me, “Don’t the Brethren see that they will lose this fight?” I know other people–in and out of the Church–who are offended that the Church is actually making such a stand.
To the latter group, I would say that the Church has every right to assert its stand whenever the state acts in areas of morality. It may seem weird that a Church that once practised polygamy is spearheading a move that would seemingly undercut its own moral position, but, since we don’t practise it any more, my guess is that the Brethren are understandibly willing to give up something it no longer values (It’s not that a 21st century anti-polygamy law will make the 19th century Brethren retroactively criminals!) in an effort to stop the loss of something they value much more, and plan to for a long time to come. To me, this is not unlike the USA and the UK allying themselves with the USSR during World War II against the Axis, because, at the moments, those temporary allies were less of a threat than those they were fighting.
It is mostly to those that wonder if the Brethren lost their minds that I address this post.
Yes, the Brethren know what they’re doing, and yes, I believe that the Brethren know that–at least on human terms–they will lose. But, while I think they do hope to win, winning isn’t why they’re in this fight. And I think Mormon and Moroni’s story illustrates why.
I found the juxtaposition of the Church’s backing of Proposition 8 and Mormon’s description of the Nephites’ last days very significant, in light of the last phrase of the first General Order (That phrase is the fifth General Order for the Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard.). Here are Mormon and Moroni, part of a decided minority of the righteous in a sea of unrighteous Nephites, who went to battle at Cumorah–KNOWING that they were going to lose–and probably get killed–horrifyingly. Yet, with the exception when Mormon refused to command the Nephites for their insubordination [Mormon 3:11], there they were, willing to fight until the end.
I note that that General Order doesn’t say, “… not quit my post, unless I’m going to lose,” or words to that effect. MIlitary personnel are to be at their posts, even as they are being overrun. I remember the words of the Code of Conduct: “I will never surrender…. If in command I will never surrender my men….” Mormon and Moroni lived that code. They fought because SOMEBODY had to resist growing immorality. They knew–and lived–the meaning of the words, “I serve in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.” So did their righteous friends who DID give their lives in defense of their kin–and God’s standards. THAT is what is important to God.
Almost 144 years ago, in the Battle of Stone’s River (Murphreesboro), Union forces came under blistering attack by the Confederates. One unit, the Indiana 73rd Infantry, was sent on a flanking maneuver to face a rebel force three times their size. The Union field commander, General Rosecrans, didn’t care, frankly, whether the Indiana 73rd won their position, or got slaughtered to the last man. The fact that they were there enabled him to smash the rebel advance, then continue the offencive toward Chattanooga.
As an aside, the Indiana 73rd won its position–and held it–in spite of losing half their numbers. For this they earned a Presidential Unit Citation. One of the wounded was my great-great-grandfather, Samuel Samuelson. Fortunately for me, he survived the war, recovered (though it took him three years) from his wounds, married and had children.
Similarly, with Mormon and Moroni–and with us, today, God requires our presence where we face overwhelming opposition. Though He wants us to fight to win, our personal victory at that point is insignificant, because our presence at where He places us makes it easier for God to win a smashing victory in the war. God is utterly uninterested in whether we can beat legions of men or devils; He could do that by Himself with a flick of His Finger. What He is interested in is whose side we are on. If we answer that the right way, He will redeem us, though we personally are overwhelmed.
The first ancient war was fought without guns, swords, or physical weapons. It was waged with ideas, influences and charismatic persuations. There was a battlefield victory, but the war is still being fought.
“It may seem weird that a Church that once practised polygamy is spearheading a move that would seemingly undercut its own moral position”
My feelings are just the opposite: I believe the Church has a perfectly consistent position with regards to “Same-Sex Marriage” and polygamy. Namely, that the State ought to respect our right to define marriage according to our own fundamental doctrines and beliefs.
Furthermore, the way the Church was treated the last time we had a disagreement with the government regarding the definition of marriage informs our attitudes today.
In case you don’t remember, the corporation of the Church was dissolved, the U.S. government appropriated all the assets of the Church, including the temples, believing members of the Church were disenfranchised, being unable to vote or hold office, all “Mormon” government officials were replaced by non-“Mormon” appointees in the Utah territory, and draconian prison sentences were handed down against those members who refused to divorce their wives and disown their children– up to one year in prison for each day spent in a polygamous relationship.
“I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me.” — Wilford Woodruff
“We Will Not Yield, We Cannot Yield” – W. Craig Zwick, of the Quorum of Seventy, April 2008
Very True Steven,
Furthermore, I think this action, like so many others, is a testing and trying, a sifting of the wheat from the chaff. Those who believe the prophet is the prophet and leads the church correctly, and those who are “smarter” than the prophet, and “know” morality better than the prophet. We can tell the difference between faithful blogs sites, and unfaithful ones, between faithful commentators, and unfaithful (even those who “hide” at the faithful site of the fairlds). It is a time of testing, a time of choosing.
Which side have you chosen? Which side has your family chosen?
It is our imperative duty.
D&C 123:13-15
Verse 15 seems to indicate that not bringing to light the danger of this issue, could have future consequences pertaining to the saints living in California.
It is not a stretch for me to see that if same sex marriage becomes a state protected practice, it will not end there. It will eventually lead to legal challenges for temple marriages.
I believe that it by no means certain that Proposition 8 will fail to pass. On the contrary, I believe that we will succeed if LDS members, as a group, do what is asked of us by the Bretheren. Recent field polls actually put the yes vote ahead of the no vote by 5 points.
I agree that this is “a time of testing, a time of choosing.” I just believe that in this case, the good guys can win.
Sooooooo true Michael!
Even those seemingly last stand battles are small parts of major wars!
I’m sure the Mexicans thought that the Texan rebellion was over after they anihilated the defenders of the Alamo. Yet, roughly a month afterward, Sam Houston’s main army, with “Remember the Alamo!” as a war cry, won independence.
The Romans spent much of the first three centuries persecuting Christians, yet, fifteen hundred years after the Roman empire faded into the dust of history, the USA, dominated by Christians, became the most powerful economic and military might ever to exist in human history.
Now, if could only remember what brought us here–and apply it!
Hi Stephen!
Apparently I was too sleepy to be as clear as I should have been. I spent several hours after Saturday’s part of Stake conference composing the lesson I got from it–that might explain why.
You’re right; the Church IS consistent in its position. It only SEEMS weird. On this side of the Saviour’s second coming, as Robert Heinlein said in his book, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch!” 😉
You’re also right that the Church is entirely consistent in fighting for what it values more while letting lesser-valued things go.
Do I make sense?
Hi NOYDMB and Dave!
This is one test of many, but I’m unsure that we can say that failure in this one instance is a sign of unfaithfulness–unless we say that failure on ANY of the Lord’s tests is a sign of unfaithfulness.
Those who fail the Prop 8 test may pass, say, the home teaching test, while those who pass the Prop 8 test may fail, say, the tithing test.
Perhaps all of these tests are mirrors that Heavenly Father holds up for us to see where our strengths and weaknesses are.
While I agree that we have the faithless hiding among the faithful, I’m going to look into those mirrors to see whether *I’m* one of those faithless–and adjust my conduct accordingly. 😉
You’re right, Kevin, Prop 8 might win, just like my ancestor’s unit did back in January of 1863.
I would suggest, however, that, as the Indiana 73rd winning its objective was unimportant to General Rosecrans’ strategic objective, winning Prop 8 is less important to God than the fact that we’re at the front, in spite of the arrows from both friend and foe.
Does that make sense?
I read with increasing concern about this issue, although I do not live in California any longer. What concerns me is not the gay marriage issue. I couldn’t care less about homosexuals and their poor abuse rights. They deserve to live in the world they demand.
What worries me is that good people are being drawn into the argument, forced to decide a position and backed into a corner by bullying and argumentative rhetoric. I do not want to pick sides in such a manner. Both groups stage some arguments that have some degree of merit.
At the very least, we should agree to disagree on these issues without becoming contentious. I think this is what the brethren have counselled us to do.
Argue all you want, but please maintain a tone of respect and civility. This is as difficult for me as anyone else, but I’m still going to try.
I think we are thinking of this test in the wrong way.
There are several examples in the scriptures when the right thing to do was stand up and do the unpopular thing even in opposition to God’s chosen leader.
When Nephi broke his bow he righteously reminded his father of God’s will.
David on more than one occasion worked to remind the King of Gods will. This had the King so angered that he ordered David’s death.
We have been asked to stand as a witness to God at all times and all places. The doctrine of the Church comes from two places one scripture and one revelation.
In this case just as in the case of Blacks and the Priesthood we do not have sources form either the scriptures or revelation.
As with blacks and the priesthood this is also used as an excuse for prejudice in the church. As with black and the priesthood the only source we really have is many many conference talks.
I know the brethren do worn us about not using their political actions as excuses for treating gay people badly, but in how many of our wards do our gay brothers and sisters feel safe enough to share who they are with their brothers and sisters. In how many of our sacrament meetings and gospel doctrine classes are hurtful things shared thinking no gay person will ever hear this. This has been true in every ward I have ever attended.
I believe most LDS people believe God’s position on homosexuality and by association same sex marriage is strongly established in all the standard works. If you read a few scriptures in isolation you could get this impression. But as President Packer said in the Word Wide Training “… the proclamation on the family is the clearest statement that we find of those issues.”
If you note as you read “The Divine Institution of Marriage” and other publications of the church the brethren almost exclusively quote from the Proclamation. This I believe is because there is little of worth in the scriptures to quote about it. You find nothing in the D&C and nothing in the Book of Mormon. The two sources of any certainty in the scriptures are first Leviticus and second Paul.
If you note as you read “The Divine Institution of Marriage” and other publications of the church the brethren almost exclusively quote from the Proclamation. This I believe is because there is little of worth in the scriptures to quote about it. You find nothing in the D&C and nothing in the Book of Mormon. The two sources of any certainty in the scriptures are first Leviticus and second Paul.
As you read the book of Leviticus it is very difficult to find anything that fits the church’s theology besides the condemnation of homosexuality. There are a few times one of the Ten Commandments are mentioned, but that is the extent. Out of a book in the Old Testament we almost completely ignore we choose to keep the condemnation of homosexuality. The other thing to note is everything that the Old Testament refers to as abominations are all speaking of observances of the Law of Moses like eating pork or shell fish.
When we look at the teachings of Paul there are many things we as a church theologically disregard, one being his statements about being able to serve God better as a single person, and the only reason to get married is if you can not control your sexual impulses. We don’t even completely theologically accept what Paul says about homosexuality. He teaches that if you don’t have enough faith that God will curse you with homosexuality. In fact most of what Paul says about sexuality in general we disregard, with the notable exception of the condemnation of homosexuality.
So on a matter of such importance that we have so little in the scriptures that we can unquestioningly rely, why can the brethren not come up with anything they can even call a revelation? What we know about how the revelation on the priesthood in 1978 was received seems very different than the process President Packer described in the Training to the World on the Family about creating the Proclamation. Given its differences President Packer did say the Proclamation is scripture like in power. I do not know exactly what that means, but let us look at what the brethren quote from the proclamation as if it were canonized scripture. Still it does not seem to say anything directly about homosexuality or gay marriage. For instance when they quote:
“We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children . . . The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.”
How does this say anything about homosexuality or about not allowing for same-sex couples to legally call their unions’ marriage?
Another example is:
“Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”
What does this say about homosexuality or gay marriage? Nothing, a gay man’s gender can be strongly male or female. A straight man’s gender can be the same. The same goes for women. Gender has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Even so this statement is so generic it does not even answer any theological questions about transgender people or those with genetic make up other than xx or xy.
Even the last line I do not believe gives a reason to fight gay marriage.
“We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”
Gay marriage I believe is a step in keeping marriage and family as the fundamental unit of society. Without gay marriage many same sex couples raising children are forced to do so with out the benefits of this fundamental unit of society. I believe these children would be more likely to peruse a monogamous relationship to form a family if they are raised by a married couple instead of a couple just living together. If same-sex marriage is made illegal it will spur many different laws on different types of domestic partnerships and civil unions, the result will be that marriage will no longer be the ideal form of coupling it will only be one of many forms of coupling.
I believe that inspired leaders can make mistakes. It is time we stand up and ask what the Lord has said. Why do we as a church require our gay brothers and sisters to live in our wards in fear and secrecy? Why can they not stand up and be part of the ward and morn with those who morn or be comforted when they so desperately stand in need of comfort?
We should be spending this energy loving our brothers and sisters that live in our wards in fear instead of fighting a legal battle with no scriptural or revelatory support.
“God is utterly uninterested in whether we can beat legions of men or devils; He could do that by Himself with a flick of His Finger. What He is interested in is whose side we are on.”
Being in the midst of the fight, at times feeling outnumbered and at other times feeling encouraged by both poll results and direction from priesthood leaders, I am more interested in watching the members discover what side they are on. For the most part, it is a pleasing discovery.
Yes, this life forces us to make decisions, and some members of the church don’t like being put into the position in which we suddenly found ourselves after the First Presidency letter was read from the pulpit.
However, as we walk the precincts and make the phone calls to our neighbors, we find out how we really feel about the idea of following the prophet. The First Presidency asked the Saints in California to give of their time and means. For some it means they are publicly attacked and criticized.
Some were surprised back in 2000 when proposition 22 passed (the first time this issue was raised in California). I suspect that some will be surprised again as more and more of the good people of California come to understand what this is really all about – a moral issue.
Gail,
You’re stealing bases in your reasoning. In no particular order:
1) The scriptural examples you cite of Saul and Lehi needing to be corrected are inapposite. Saul, though anointed to be king, was not a religious leader on par with prophets–there were actual prophets in Israel at that time. Nephi corrected Lehi on the question of a single action, not a profound doctrinal disagreement. No one has ever said that prophets get every little decision right, but when a whole group of prophets get together and say, in effect, “we proclaim the following doctrine regarding families” you’d better have a REAL good reason, as well as REAL clear direction from the Spirit, to disregard that.
2) Nothing in the Book of Mormon or D&C? I see it everywhere–verses mentioning how husbands and wives are to love each other, teaching chastity and fidelity in marriage, and so forth. Jacob 2 and D&C 42 and 49 come most immediately to mind. Just because scripture teaches the rule and doesn’t address the deviations doesn’t mean the deviations are valid. Same goes for Paul, whose teachings are somewhat garbled in present form and require more than a cursory reading. And how about 1 Cor 11:11?
3) It really is a shame if some in your wards have been uncharitably antagonistic in their teaching or speaking about homosexuality. But I think that’s because they’re not paying enough attention–Elder Holland’s article in the October 2007 Ensign made it abundantly clear what our attitude toward those struggling so painfully should be. If gay church members are afraid to “share who they are,” whatever exactly that means, then yes some of us could be nicer about it. But teaching the very scriptural doctrine that marriage is both important and man-woman can’t be omitted because some people would rather it were different. We don’t amend our doctrine to ease the discomfort of others who have problems. We do invite those whose behaviors and inclinations aren’t what they should be to come to Christ and be healed.
4) You can’t settle hotly debated issues of sociology by fiat. So you believe gay marriage would provide better outcomes for children of those unions. You don’t back it up, though, and there are compelling arguments against your position.
Tim Malone,
I agree that we need to decide whose side we are on. Through pray and fasting I believe we should chose the Lord’s side.
How many have blindly chosen without prayer and fasting?
Brigham said: “I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self security. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.
( Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe [1954], 135.)
Cassandra,
1) The Brethren did proclaim the importance of families they did not proclaim we should hunt down same-sex-marriage and kill it, unless the line “marriage between a man and a women is ordained of God” means something I do not understand.
2) I take no issue with the fact the scriptures teach us about the importance of fidelity and family. We are talking about the church striving to make these people’s attempt at establishing a family in fidelity illegal. Am I mistaken in my understanding that Paul was the author of 1 Cor 11:11?
3) Yes Elder Holland wrote a beautiful article, but it did not make a change in the way our church members love and honor their gay brothers and sisters, or is my ward the exception are the gay members in your ward able to say I am struggling because I am gay and your ward members welcome them with open arms? Some how one article seems very small when compared to the avalanche of the evils of homosexuality and gay marriage coming from the church. In fact I am not sure that article made much of a blip. Last November I brought it up in my Elders’ Quorum and my comments were met with looks of disgust and surprise as well as comments of I did not see that. Not one person said I say that. I guess that article was not in the October Ensign of the rest of my Elders’ Quorum.
4) Yes I believe that children have a better change of seeking fidelity when raised by people legally married and not just living together. Yes, I have seen many arguments against my position, none I find compelling. I notice you do not mention any of them.
Thank you for your response.
Gail,
1) “Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God” makes it clear that God has chosen a specific format for approved marriage. You are trying to argue from silence that because the proclamation and the scriptures I cited don’t starkly say “marriage between a man and man or a woman and woman is atrocious and ridiculous” that it must be okay with God. Big logical fallacy. And yes, it was Paul in 1 Cor 11:11 who said neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
2) The scriptures teach the principle that husbands and wives are to treat each other in marriage according to certain virtues: it is plainly assumed throughout that marriage is an opposite-gender relationship. The scriptures’ silence on same-gender relationships is NOT equivalent to inclusion; just because the scriptures don’t mention gay marriage doesn’t mean that Jacob would have added “two married men or two married women should also be faithful and nice to each other, just as we told you husband-wife couples.” Again, twisting silence into approval is not a sound case.
3) As a matter of fact, yes, I have been in wards where those struggling with homosexuality were supported and treated kindly. So who has the better anecdote? You’re making sweeping pronouncements about the character of church membership as a whole based on a few incidents. I have no doubt that many members might be less than kind if they find out a fellow member is gay, but to be blunt, so what? The fact that people are imperfect doesn’t get you to the conclusion that therefore the church should do a 180 on its gay marriage stance because that would make everyone nicer. Perhaps disavowing the ten commandments would get unkind members to lighten up where thieves and adulterers and concerned. The brethren want people to be kind, but they also want them to follow the divinely-ordained pattern of happiness and salvation. Pursuing both goals at once is acceptable, and of course they won’t get 100% perfection in either, or in anything.
That’s great that you brought up the Holland article in your EQ. Perhaps you could do a lot of good by pointing people in that direction. The church can’t just up and fix the attitudes of people who aren’t paying attention–perhaps your longed-for church endorsement of gay marriage would also be “missing” from their Ensigns, and perhaps they wouldn’t heed it even if it was included. People and opinions are complicated, and all the brethren can do is to urge kindness and Christlike compassion for those who struggle, which the brethren do in fact do all the time.
4) I mentioned them but did not spell them out, for the comments section of a blog is no place to write novels. Just wanted to make it clear the jury is so way out on this one : ) Moreover, I entirely agree that “children have a better chance of seeking fidelity when raised by people legally married and not just living together.” But because there’s no way in an imperfect world to bring that about, and because marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God, it is better to teach the ideal that children should be raised by a faithfully-married man-woman couple than to capitulate and say that it doesn’t matter what sort of marriage children are raised under. You don’t just jettison an important principle because some small theoretical victory might be gained amidst the larger defeat.
Cassandra,
1) and 2) I beg to differ. I do not argue from silence. My point was never that the silence means that it follows it is accepted. My point is that from silence you are assuming that it means it is something to kill. We are a gospel of order. We believe that surely the Lord God will do nothing but he reveals his secrets unto his service the prophets. We also believe he will yet reveal many great and marvelous things. We are not a gospel that assumes God must mean something because he has not said it. If God has not revealed something why are you putting words in his mouth?
3) I am glad there are places in the church that this kind of bigotry is not a factor, but sadly I think this is the exception. No this does not prove the church should give up their political position, but it illustrates we are not doing enough as a church.
4) No, we can not make a perfect world but it would make a positive difference in many people’s lives. I don’t believe this would be “jettison an important principle because some small theoretical victory might be gained amidst the larger defeat” I think the church is now giving in to a much larger defeat to save face.
Steven:
While it is true that Prop8 is only one of many tests, we must consider the consequences or a lack of action here.
An example, it is true that any sin will keep us out of the presence of God. But it is also true that the path to repentance, and the resitution for lying about how someone looks versus the restitution for adultery or murder. While both sins of lying, adultery and murder will keep anyone out of Heaven, it is a lot easier to restore truth than virtue, or life.
Besides, I don’t know anyone who thinks that they have the true morality for skipping their home teaching, while there are bloggers that redefine “morality” to include gay sex, such as KBy at fair. I was disgusted to hear this supposed defender of the church hope that gay people could be allowed to express their sexuality in a covenant relationship, and he expressed this to convince others.
It is most certainly a sign of unfaithfulness. But like all unfaithfulness, it must be repented of before they can be forgiven. There is no forgiveness without repentance, faith, and obedience to the ordinances. The problem, is we have people, representing themselves as faithful, temple-recommend carrying members, telling openly gay people that they are trying to change the church’s definition of chastity, while masquerading at FAIR.
“unless we say that failure on ANY of the Lord’s tests is a sign of unfaithfulness.” Is there any doubt on this? After reading Lewis’s great divorce, I’m convinced any disobedience is either a sign of human weakness or unfaithfulness. It is weakness if we try to obey and fail, it is unfaithfulness if we do not try, it is apostasy (mutiny) if we rebel against the leaders and try to sway others to our side, as described by some fair members at BCC.
I KNOW, because I’ve been among people who have described their OWN agendas (e.i., it wasn’t the conservative right telling me this, I heard it from gay activists themselves), gay marriage is about forcing acceptance. With a government that has no qualms with disenfranchising a church that disagrees with the government, it is frightening to know that four judges can override the will of the people in California, and enforce the “new government’s morality.” Those are simply consequences I don’t want to suffer through simply because the apostates at BCC fight against the Lord’s anointed now.
In the end, it doesn’t matter if the proposition passes or fails, it really matters where we stood on the matter. I pray that the people retain their rights and keep marriage defined as between a man and a woman.
NOYDMB,
So is it also frightening to know that it was judges that over rode the will of the people with Jim Crow laws and separate but equal?
Go ahead Gail.
African Americans just love it when you equate their race with the sin of homosexuality. It’s really fair, and helps scare people into siding with you for fear of being seen as racist.
You can fight against the church, and the Lord’s prophet all you want, but you stand alone.
NOYDMB,
I am not trying to equate blacks with homosexuality at all. I am only pointing out that the process of judicial review is something that protects us as Americans and is part of our constitutional ideals. Judicial review because a convent whipping boy when you do not agree with the out come.
Also I do not stand against God or his prophet. I have a testimony of God’s prophet when he is acting as a prophet and speaking revelation. I also believe it is our responsibility to seek personal revelation on the policies of the church. I have received an answer through the Holly Ghost about modern-day revelation and on whether to support the letter read in my sacrament meeting. I love the Lord and I will not act against his witness in my heart. No prophet has spoken revelation on this matter.
Are you saying I should act against the witness of the Holly Ghost?
1) The scriptures are pretty clear, in the area’s were homosexuality is discussed, that the conduct is not approved. While there may be some legititmacy to the Leviticus example, is it being conjectured then that homosexuality was merely a proscription within the Law of Moses, much like eating pork?
2) We are pushing for a law that cannot be enforced. We are trying to effect social perspectives through legislation. The rights and protections of heterosexuals have already been extended homosexuals, and that is not at stake. I can’t help but wonder if there isn’t a better way to influence the worlds view on marriage other than cramming a law down societies throat. So long as Church’s are able to retain the right to define/administer marriage rites within the parameters of their theology reasonably (incest, rape, underage marriage, all still prohibited), this “war” ought to be fought in the court of public opinion.
3) Frankly more than hearing about the Church’s opposition to gay marriage, I would just like a consistent definition of marriage within our own theology which gives attention to all of its “restored” incarnations. Other than the PR statement of “the Church has not practiced polygamy for over 100 years” I would like to know what is the official modern doctrine regarding polygamy. “We don’t know” is not good enough since prior Prophets seemed to. There is an obvious effort to distance ourselves from the practice, and it would be nice know whether that is because we no longer believe in it, or if we do – details.
Cowboy Says:
There is clear direction on this question and always has been.
“There is clear direction on this question and always has been.”
That just simply is not true, nor is the scripture cited above sufficient to explaining the historical and doctrinal contexts for the practice particularly in the Joseph Smith era. In just seconds one can do a google search to provide all of the recent quotes from the Brethren suggesting “we don’t know why the Lord commanded polygamy”, to the even more perplexing Pres. Hinckley “it’s not doctrinal”. These comments lie in stark contrast with Brigham Young or John Taylor defining this law as the order of heaven, and the secret to fidelity.
We could take the traditional route and continue circling this debate in the all too frequent manner displayed above, but that gets tiring and feels a bit recycled. My comments rather were intended to address two points
1) despite section 132, and the obvious teaching of polygamy in the past – all current statements from Church leaders address the practice only (with the exception of GBH on Larry King, and there is an entire debate on the intent of that one.). All modern teaching of marriage and family emphasizes monogamy and victorian culture. The doctrinal implications of Polygamy are ignored and apparently abandoned, so it begs the question – Is polygamy still part of our doctrine?
2) Until we can straighten out our own intricacies of marriage, we have no business imposing God’s will on others. Lets not forget, over 100 years ago our unique marriage practice was legislated against and at the time we considered it a loss, but the lesser of two evils. Let’s also not forget that President Woodruff presented it just that way.
Theodore Brandley & Cowboy,
The Jacob does have good things to say on the subject of polygamy, but our theology allows for the current practice of eternal polygamy.
My sister married a widow in the temple. My brother –in-law is sealed to two women. I think that makes him a church approved polygamist.
Cowboy Says:
It is true and it is that simple. The rule of the Lord is one man one wife, unless he commands otherwise to “raise up seed unto me.” That is the only exception mentioned by the Lord. Therefore, we may safely assume that is why he commanded Joseph Smith to introduce the practice of polygamy. When the practice became untenable the Lord said, OK that will be enough.
One can try and make it as complex as one likes but that is the core of the issue.
The Philosophy of Theodorus on Following the Prophet 😉
Rule #1 The Prophet is always right.
Rule #2 If the Prophet is wrong, refer to Rule #1
One will never be condemned by the Lord for following the living Prophet. If he is wrong the responsibility is his.
The ability to be sealed to more than one spouse, so long as both are not living at the same time, is also shrouded in doctrinal ambiguity as well as an evolution of practice. I’ll forgo the details since I think most people are aware, but it lies wholly in uncertainty.
Is polygamy still part of our doctrine?
Just a note of clarification on this question – I certainly respect the views of anyone who responds to the question. Even though I disagree, both Gail and Theodore Brandley provided sound responses based on scripture and practice. But in all likelihood only an official statement from the Brethren (12 and First Presidency) could answer this, and I don’t see it coming – socially I think this issue is a total “catch 22”.
Theodore:
You would then argue by reason of Jacob that Joseph Smith did in fact purpose to have a conjugal relationship with the 14 year old Helen Mar Kimball, seeing that the only purpose of their marriage was to “raise up seed” unto the Lord?
Gail F. Bartholomew Says:
You are absolutely right. Jacob was only referring to the laws in mortality. We have very little information about how and why it works in the Celestial world but we trust the Lord that it does work.
Cowboy Says:
No, I think that falls into the category above of Celestial Marriage of which we know very little about.
Cowboy,
I agree that this doctrine is quite unclear. The D&C talks about the new and everlasting covenant as being plural marriage. We now refer to the new and everlasting covenant as eternal marriage.
Gail:
It would appear that you and I are on the same page with the issue, though our feelings on the matter differ. As I said earlier I can entirely respect you and your positions. I can even do the same for Theodore, but I am wary of anyone who would so quickly and simply stamp a note of finality on an issue as complex as the Mormon doctrine of polygamy.
Cowboy Says:
Celestial Marriage is still part of our doctrine. Polygamy in mortality is not. It is kind of like the Law of Moses in that it fulfilled its purpose and it is no longer part of our doctrine.
I’ll share a personal note with you. My grandfather had two wives when the manifesto was issued. He was on a mission in Switzerland when he received word of it. In his diary he wrote about how hard he struggled to accept the direction of the Prophet on this issue. Polygamy had been a basic doctrine of the Church since he was converted at the age of sixteen. Some idea of how hard he struggled with this is summed up when he wrote at the end, “However, it did not cause me to lose my testimony.”
-Theodore
Theodore Brandley,
I have heard the Philosophy of Theodorus on Following the Prophet. Funny I have never heard a prophet quote it.
I do not believe it follows our doctrine. Prophets are inspired by God, but if we followed this rule then they would be God not human.
Also, how does this fit into your rule on polygamy when Abraham was a polygamist. Abraham also had slaves. Was he right, I guess so?
Brigham Young said mixed race couples should be shot. Joseph smith said man would never walk on the moon. Paul said women should not speak in church, and women should veil their faces.
We can go on and on sighting examples where prophets made mistakes. By this philosophy that would mean they were not prophets.
I prefer to believe that they were prophets and human.
Theodore –
There is even a level inconsistency in your responses.
“It is true and it is that simple. The rule of the Lord is one man one wife, unless he commands otherwise to “raise up seed unto me.” That is the only exception mentioned by the Lord. Therefore, we may safely assume that is why he commanded Joseph Smith to introduce the practice of polygamy. When the practice became untenable the Lord said, OK that will be enough.”
This statement bears a quality of finality, while your most recent comment concedes the uncertainty of the doctrines surrounding “celestial Marriage”. That is my point, we do not even understand our own doctrines regarding marriage – we just have “practice”. Lastly, we cannot relegate all revelations on polygamy to Jacob. While it is true, within the context of ancient scripture that is the only doctrinal dissertation of the subject – we have to also reconcile all of the teachings of modern Prophets on the matter. Also, Brigham Young in particular, but many of the early Brethren said quite a few things regarding “Celestial Marriage” as you call it. We say those things are uncertain today because, those things are no longer taught. They are completely left out of RS and Pristhood Manuals, Seminary and Institute manuals, GA talks, or generally Church discourse. So we are back to my original question, Whats the doctrine?
Cowboy,
Your about the uncertainty of the doctrine of polygamy illustrate my point about the uncertainty of the doctrine concerning gay marriage and homosexuality.
The doctrine of polygamy I do not believe did not seem uncertain at the time Brigham Young was giving those talks.
Like you said the only thing that would completely clear up the question is a revelation.
The only thing we know have on the doctrine of homosexuality is statement from the brethren and talks. If you look back forty years those statements have gradually changed. We have no revelation.
Cowboy Says:
I use the term “Celestial Marriage” because Eternal Marriage, whether monogamous or polygamous, is only in effect in the Celestial Kingdom.
Concerning more details of Celestial Marriage? We don’t know. I’m sure nothing more has been revealed other than what we know. We’ll probably have to wait and ask the Lord when he comes.
-Theodore
Gail F. Bartholomew Says:
Prophets are indeed human. What is implied in the above philosophy is to follow the instruction that the Prophet gives to us, when he is acting in his capacity as a prophet
-Theodore
Theodore,
Is it not acting in his capacity as a prophet when he is giving revelation? If yes we then agree.
Theodore:
Like so many loyal defenders, you are trying to paint tidy pictures of the issue and missing a lot of details.
Gails point about the use of “Celestial Marriage” was what I was trying to imply. At it’s inception that phrase specifically referred to polygamy, only later did it become a general reference to marriage into the Eternities.
My point about the “uncertainty” of Polygamy is not that it is incomplete, but inconsistent, and now’a days swept under the rug.
Gail:
Your comments are spot on. This is the trouble with the “just trust the Prophet” rhetoric. When Brigham Young was teaching his doctrines regarding race he felt that this was the will of the Lord and taught it as such. I don’t want to be cliche’ by mentioning the Adam-God history, but what is more poignant than the fact that the words came out of the Prophets mouth repeatedly, is that he was willing to publicly and officially discipline (excommunicate) a leading Apostle (Orson Pratt) for his disagreement on the matter. Yet to date I think it is safe to say that the overwhelming majority of men who have been Apostles and Prophets, have disagreed with Brigham about this.
Gail F. Bartholoew Says:
Exactly!
However, this brings up the important subject of what constitutes revelation. The Holy Ghost is a revelator. Giving revelation is one of His responsibilities in the First Presidency of the Universe. In the Church, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are all ordained and sustained as prophets, seers and revelators. Referring to them the Lord said, “And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation (D&C 68:4). In order to assure that their revelations are coming from the Holy Ghost the decisions of these Brethren must be unanimously confirmed by the First Presidency and/or the Quorum of the Twelve (D&C 107:27). Be assured that any statement released to the press by these Brethren has been confirmed by the other members of the Quorum of the Twelve and/or the First Presidency, and are therefore revelation. “Thus saith the Lord” is implicit in these public statements.
-Theodore
Cowboy Says:
In regards to the inconsistency, it took a lot of years for the members of the Church to move away from polygamy. It was a process. I don’t think it is being swept under the rug. The latter-Day Saints are more open about their history now than ever before. Case in point is the Joseph Smith Papers project. I think that it is just not relevant now except from a historical point of view.
-Theodore
“The latter-Day Saints are more open about their history now than ever before. Case in point is the Joseph Smith Papers project. I think that it is just not relevant now except from a historical point of view.”
The first part of this statement is debatable, largely because 1) the internet has sort of forced this on the Church in the first place. 2) They are still providing watered down history in the correlation manuals being printed for use in the Church.
The Joseph Smith papers have yet to be determined. What will be interesting is whether they truly will be published as they stand, or whether they will be carefully selected. Obviously I am pretty skeptical in this regard, given the expressed position of the leadership on the role of Church history (Boyd K. Packer – The Mantle is Far Greater than the Intellect) skepticism should be natural. For what it is worth, I am still willing to give the effort the benefit of the doubt initially, and am just as excited as you are for their completion.
Teddy,
Have your read Morris A. Thurston’s Commentary on the Six Consequences. Thurston is an active member and teaches law at BYU. If you haven’t you need to. If you have you know that all the reasons the Brethren give in “The Divine Institution of Marriage” are best on at best is half truth. If we can be assured these actions on prop. 8 are revelatory than why would they need to falsely justify the position?
Gail:
Just a final point on this topic. Your comments left yesterday ( October 15th, 2008 at 2:41 pm) about the correlation of Polygamy vs. SSM, was my point exactly. I do not object to the institutional position of the Church within its organization regarding homosexuals, ie, Same Sex Marriage. However, if we are going to take the moraly superior position of dictating Gods will to the nation in the form of public policy, then we should at least have a clear perspective on the family with regards to our own doctrine.
The overall public sentiment regarding the FLDS raids has not been very positive for that group, and the Church has been very adamant about distancing itself from that group and its practice. However, the same political support that would have preserved polygamy would also be in favor of voting down prop 8. That is exactly why I ask what the doctrine is.
Gail F. Bartholomew Says:
Your addressing me as “Teddy” conveys a note of condescension. I am personally not offended but it appears to be an indication of how you feel about what I have written. If I am wrong please let me know.
At your suggestion I read Thurston’s commentary. In the introduction Thurston states, “I do not believe these so “called “ consequences” have originated at or been approved by Church headquarters; rather, I suspect they are the result of overzealous volunteers.” I agree with Thurston on that point. The language of “The Devine Institution of Marriage” is in most cases is markedly different than the language of “Six Consequences.”
The primary difference between the conclusions that Thurston draws and the conclusions that the Brethren warn about, concerning the ramifications of the normalization of same sex marriage, is that Thurston is basing his deductions on legal precedent and the Brethren are basing their predictions on the spirit of prophecy.
But even considering the aspect of legal precedent, Elder Dallin H. Oaks would have had considerable input into the drafting of “The Devine Institute of Marriage” and I’m sure you know that his legal credentials exceed those of Thurston.
Your accusations that the document presented by the Brethren “is based on half truths and is falsely justified” cannot be drawn from the comparison of these two documents. If you have some specific detailed evidence you may present it where we can examine it.
-Theodore
Theodore,
I truly apologize no offence was intended about your name. I like nick names and I am a fan of TR. I wrote this at 5:30 AM and once I sent it I was hopping you would not take offence. From what you have written you strike me as very intelligent.
I also agree with Thurston’s idea of overzealous volunteers, but when I read and reread I hear all the same arguments as the six consequences. When I see the Brethren on the internet they all seem to refer to the same logic and refer to cases generically that have occurred in other areas that would back up what they are saying. When they refer to these arguments I do not hear them saying that they are “basing their predictions on the spirit of prophecy.” They do quote from the proclamation a lot. You may be calling that revelation, and according to President Packer it is revelatory in power. But again nothing in the proclamation says anything about gay marriage or homosexuality, and none of it even comes close to justifying killing same sex marriage.
I say it is based on falsehoods because all the arguments are lifted from the six consequences. And yes I agree Elder Oaks should know better than support these arguments.
Gail F. Bartholomew Says:
Have a little faith people! Yes, we should pray about this issue, just like every other issue. However, the prophet is not going to lead us astray. The Lord would not let that happen. Do what the prophet tells you to do and the knowledge of what are doing is right WILL come. If you have faith then you should know that to be true!
Amy:
The Prophet would like to introduce you to the Celestial law of marriage. It is essential that you keep the entire thing to yourself, that includes not telling your current husband. By so doing you are ensuring the salvation of your entire family, with regards to your current husband – everything will work out in the millenium, so don’t sweat it.
Teddy (if this is OK),
You have asked for a large task, but hear goes.
I will quote parts from “The Divine Institution of Marriage” and explain what issue I take with it.
“Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. While governments did not invent marriage, throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed marriage as an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself. Hence, regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special benefits aimed primarily at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared. A husband and a wife do not receive these benefits to elevate them above any other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and family.” This is an argument to abolish marriage for seniors and the infernal. We also know there are many same-sex couples that are raising one or both of their children. This could even be the same percentage as opposite-sex couples that raise children. We do not know.
“Our modern era has seen traditional marriage and family – defined as a husband and wife with children in an intact marriage – come increasingly under assault. Sexual morality has declined and infidelity has increased. Since 1960, the proportion of children born out of wedlock has soared from 5.3 percent to 38.5 percent (2006).”
This is an argument for same –sex-marriage not against it. The idea of same-sex-marriage promotes monogamous relationship and therefore reduces promiscuity. Also if we look at the data as seen in this study in countries where same-sex-marriage has been legalized this one factor turned around a long term trend of declining marriage and increased infidelity. The legalizing of same-sex-marriage actually increased opposite sex marriage and decreased opposite-sex divorce.
http://isocrat.org/politics/marriage/statistics.php
“In recent years in the United States and other countries, a movement has emerged to promote same-sex marriage as an inherent or constitutional right. This is not a small step, but a radical change: instead of society tolerating or accepting private, consensual sexual behavior between adults, advocates of same-sex marriage seek its official endorsement and recognition.” Yes instead of wanting to tolerate consensual sexual behavior this is a move to promote sexual behavior within marriage. I not sure I understand why that is a bad thing.
“The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services.” This is an example of an argument lifted strait from the six consequences document. Note no mention of this being a predictions based on the spirit of prophecy. Given that you have read Thurston’s commentary I will not repeat the clear facts that this is based on a falshood.
“Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership.” This is merely a list of arguments lifted from the six consequences and anyone who has read Thurston’s commentary will see how they are all based in clear misrepresentations of the facts. Again please note the lack of any predictions based on the spirit of prophecy.
“The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for society.” Again not only an argument lifted from the Six Consequences and no mention of predictions based on the spirit of prophesy, but is also a clear twisting of facts that clearly show the opposite effect. Again you can see the article.
http://isocrat.org/politics/marriage/statistics.php
“Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.” I find this argument simply offensive. There are plenty of couples gay and straight that cannot have children biologically and are not in the least bit selfish. Some these couple gay and straight do dedicate their lives and partnerships to raising good children. There are plenty of couples, gay and straight, that choose not to raise children that dedicate their lives to unselfish pursuits. We all know that there can be parents that are selfish. Being gay or not having children does not make someone selfish.
“Despite that, the all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children.” This simply ignores the fact that proportionally just as many heterosexual and none transgendered children are raised by same-sex couples as opposite-sex couples.
“As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula.” This is another example of an argument lifted strait from the Six Consequences not a prediction based on the spirit of prophesy.
“But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life.” My issue here is that marriage has been redefined so many times since Adam and Eve that I have lost count. The church takes no issue with any of these other multitude of changes. Why is this suddenly a problem?
“As Church members decide their own appropriate level of involvement in protecting marriage between a man and a woman, they should approach this issue with respect for others, understanding, honesty, and civility.” I just wonder what happened to the honesty part of this?
Amy:
One of the challenges to online blogging is that any snide remarks one makes are forever in print. Looking back my comment earlier to you was really in poor taste, and reflected a bad mood I was in. Sorry for the comment.
Gail, I apologize for being so long in responding. It has been a very busy weekend.
Not true. You left out the next paragraph of Devine Institution:
“It is true that some couples who marry will not have children, either by choice or because of infertility, but the special status of marriage is nonetheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation, and to the inherent differences between the genders. Co-habitation under any guise or title is not a sufficient reason for defining new forms of marriage.”
The statistical analysis you refer to does show marriage rates increasing about the same time as same-sex-marriage began, but it does not prove a cause and affect relationship. It is more probable that increased popularity of marriage also encouraged same-sex-couples to seek for marriage. But, I’m not a statistician and would invite a comment from Steven Danderson on this point.
The Brethren acknowledge this but cite several studies to show that the exception should not be adopted by society as a norm:
Devine Institution:
“Many…single parents have raised exemplary children; nevertheless, extensive studies have shown that in general a husband and wife united in a loving, committed marriage provide the optimal environment for children to be protected, nurtured, and raised. This is not only because of the substantial personal resources that two parents can bring to bear on raising a child, but because of the differing strengths that a father and a mother, by virtue of their gender, bring to the task….Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?”
No, yours is a false argument. Sexual morality is defined by God as being limited to sexual relations between a man and his wife (female). Governments can change their laws as to what defines a legal marriage but that does not change God’s law of chastity.
Same as above. It is a move to legitimize immoral sexual behavior as defined by God. Civil government cannot change the laws of God. Even if it was legal it would still be immoral.
The above statement from the Brethren is true. The following statement in “Six Consequences is false: “Catholic Charities in Boston already closed its doors…” Additionally, “Six Consequences” was published after “The Devine Institution of Marriage.” The statement of the Brethren is not based on a falsehood, but your accusation of them is. You make other blanket accusations ( which I will not detail) that the Brethren lifted their arguments from “Six Consequences.” Your accusations cannot be true because “Devine Institution was published before “Six consequences.” (see http://justinmclachlan.com/08/09/six-consequences-author-had-rocky-start-in-salt-lake-politics/ )
When Prophets, acting in their capacity as Prophets, state that such and such behavior will in the future result in such and such consequences, that is prophesy. Prophecy from true Prophets is rarely popular. Many Prophets have been killed for making such unpopular statement.
I don’t read the Brethren accusing anyone of being selfish in that quote. Self-fulfillment can be a wonderful thing. They are simply stating that changing the time-proven institution of marriage cannot be justified simply because of the desires of a few.
I’m not sure what “multitude of changes” you are referring to other than polygamy and Celestial Marriage, but whatever it is it is moot and irrelevant. The Prophets have spoken and taken a firm and determined stand on the issue. We can choose to either follow their counsel or to oppose it. That is what Steven Danderson’s initial post on this blog was all about. “What He is interested in is whose side we are on.”
When the Brethren state that “Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets” (The Family: A Proclamation to the World), I think that we had better pay attention and support them.
-Theodore
Theodore:
From a theological standpoint I can agree with you on a lot of your points, and even the “Divine Institution of Marriage”, not all. However the objection many people take with the Prop 8 initiative is not the theology, but the appropriateness of legislation which limits the extension of civil liberties to all people, soley on the basis of religious premises. To counter this many prop 8 supporters will argue that redefining marriage under the law is an imposition on their civil rights. Most people agree that this implication of this law are in name only, in other words this does not affect the rights (estate, visitation) of Same Sex Couples. Nor does it impose obligatory acceptance on the part of religious denominations either in precept or practice. The debate lies wholly in the effect’s this law will have in either promoting homosexuality or restraining it as a social taboo.
The point is, this law only affects the treatment of homosexuals by the State. For a Nation and people who take pride in a “free society” and one geniously divided between Church and State – it seems counterintuitive to advocate laws which clearly circumvent these values, even when it’s not popular as you say. Lastly, I have mentioned this before, but we should recognize that the arguments, which we so quickly dismiss, from those who oppose Prop 8 – are the same exact arguments Mormons used to defend Polygamy exactly 100 years ago.
Teddy,
No problem in taking time. I wrote a lot.
Your first argument sighting the next paragraph down is a good one I should have mentioned this paragraph in my first statement. It was lazy and sloppy on my part.
I know that the brethren are directly referring to the paragraph I stated. But they are stating exceptions for their arguments. First they state that same sex marriage should not be aloud for the reason they can not produce children. Then they say that is a reason for gay marriage, but not a reason for other cases. I believe that this is nonsense.
Next you point out that evidence of correlation is not evidence of a causative relationship. This may be true. But latter in the Divine institution the brethren imply that correlation between what happens in these countries should be considered when looking at same sex marriage. I recently say an internet video clip of Elder Bednar stating we should look at the consequences of legalizing same-sex-marriage in other countries. Is this suddenly not valuable evidence to look at when the facts are not what you want to prove?
Yes, the brethren state that the exceptions should not be made the rule, but they are not striving to make any of the other exceptions illegal only this one.
You then talk about the brethren’s definition of morality. My question is which is more moral monogamy in a legally binding relationship or promiscuity? You may say they are the same if the percipience’s are of the same sex. If so I respectfully disagree. Just as civil marriage is not perhaps as moral as temple marriage, but it is more moral than living in sin or promiscuity.
Next you cover my claim of arguments being lifted from the Six Consequences. You are claiming that Six Consequences was written after the Divine Institution. This does point out my ignorance about the timeline here. When was the Six Consequences written? You also make a good point I can not argue categorically that these arguments were lifted from the Six Consequences. All that I can say is the arguments are the same, and being the same argument they are still unfounded. And yes, they very well could have originated in the Divine Institution, but I hope not. Lastly there language seems clearly saying this has happened before therefore they will happen again, not if this happens then this will happen.
Then you claim that the Brethren are not saying that same-sex-marriage is selfish. You may be right. You state:
“I don’t read the Brethren accusing anyone of being selfish in that quote. Self-fulfillment can be a wonderful thing. They are simply stating that changing the time-proven institution of marriage cannot be justified simply because of the desires of a few.”
If this is what you they are stating it goes to my next point of the definition being changed many times. Although I may be wrong I still read the Divine Institution as saying that these relationships are selfish because they can not produce children.
In the beginning Marriage was one man one woman and eternal. This according to our theology was not just a commitment between Adam and Eve but with God as well to obey his commandments. It was also inherent in this definition needed to be preformed by one holding authority or by God himself. This definition of marriage soon changed to include more than one wife. Recognition of time only arrangements that ended with death for some time even became the norm. Also, with the advent of divorce these marriages could then end at any time. At some point it also started to included marriages preformed by those performing priest craft. Then it also included civil ceremonies that had nothing to do with God. In recent years we even have seen the legal definition of marriage included arrangements that had nothing even to do with sexual monogamy at all, open marriages. Now after all these definitions of marriage we are being told that it is unacceptable to change the definition because it has always meant the same thing.
Gail & Cowboy,
Whether one agrees with the stand the Brethren have taken or whether one disagrees, for Latter-Day Saints the bottom line is that the Brethren have taken a stand. We are free to support the Brethren or to oppose them, but we are all responsible for our individual decisions. I admit that this is a much harder test for someone who disagrees with them.
-Theodore
Teddy,
I agree with you in part. This why I prayed and asked if I should follow the letter that was read in my sacrament. I received a very clear answer. Once an answer isreceived the following in not hard. Also, The Divine Institution of Marriage was not really a statement of position like the Proclamation. The Divine Institution of Marriage, the document we are discussion, is a statement of justification of action. Also, we are blogging on The Foundation of Apologetic Information & Research. I believe you have taken the Apologetic side of this exchange. Yes there are points we will find that we will just have clear disagreement on, but I do not believe we have gotten to the essence of those. One could be our interpretation on the brethrens statements about selfishness or statements about only stating you do not change the definition of marriage because one feels like it. What I am asking is I believe we have been having an intelligent exchange, and I believe you have more valid points to make on this subject, therefore we may both have more to learn here. I hope you are still planning to tell me what you think of my last thoughts. I hope you are not just stating it come done to whether I believe the prophet or not. I think we have illustrated that we all believe in the prophet in this interchange.
Thank you,
Gail
For what it is worth, I have a tendency to drag on debates while blogging. It is always good to discuss these important issues, because 1) doing so allows to me articulate my positions and evaluate those positions for myself. 2) It allows to hear and understand the perspectives of others, which has at times caused me to re-evaluate my own positions. This being the case, there also comes a point where we begin to rehash our arguments and get into circular reasoning. I think I have made my points on the issue here, I would still be interested in a response to my last argument – but barring that I would have something truly substantive to contribute beyond that, I think my contributions to the discussion are complete. Thanks for conversation!
“God is utterly uninterested in whether we can beat legions of men or devils; He could do that by Himself with a flick of His Finger. What He is interested in is whose side we are on.”
Very nicely put. Who could say more?
I don’t want to interrupt the thread jack, but going back to the theme of the original post, in some ways it reminds me of the Apostle Paul in the Book of Acts when the Lord requires him to appeal to Caesar. In Acts 26, it reads:
31 And when they were gone aside, they talked between themselves, saying, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds.
32 Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.
Sometimes God requires us to stand up and tell the government what we believe. Maybe it doesn’t influence the government or its policies, but it has an impact on those around us.
DPC:
This isn’t the Church standing up to the Government, or any entity, and issuing a religious decree/warning. This is not a voice of warning, rather it is direct involvement in the legislative process through financial support, and campaign efforts in favor of cause which limits civil liberties. I would be in favor of a press release which warns society of the implications of promoting homosexuality, or any sexual sin. I would be fine with the Church aggressively promoting a “public awareness” campaign warning against the ills of sexual misconduct. I am not in favor of attempts to enforce the religious agenda through political means, even my own religion.
Cowboy:
I’m not sure how the Mormon church is attempting “to enforce [its] religious agenda through political means.” I may be wrong, but it appears that the final say at to whether Proposition 8 is passed rests solely with the voters of California and not with the Church. Your statement about the Church limiting civil liberties is puzzling given that you appear to favor limiting civil liberties. Arguing that the Church and its members should not be given the liberty to try and influence California voters’ decision on a matter of public morals because you happen to disagree with their position seems contrary to the long-standing protection that political speech has been given in the United States.
If the issue was to legalize gambling or allow the proliferation of adult businesses in residential neighborhoods, would the Church’s involvement in forstalling such efforts be an attempt to enforce a religious agenda? Or would the Church be limited to issuing warnings about the dangers of gambling or the sinfulness of patroning adult establishments?
The point of the blog post is that God’s message is being spread even if the voters of California reject it. It may seem fruitless and/or pointless, but God has a reason for asking the members in California to rally support for Proposition 8.
Prop 8 intends to deny the right of marriage to a couple because they are homosexual. The reasons cannot be widdled down beyond, “because that’s not what God wants.” Laws are not to be passed soley on the basis of religious views. If the Church (any Church) wanted to make a constitutional case for Prop 8 they would need to demonstrate that homosexual marriage is an inherent ill to society that impedes the general welfare or social good. This has not been done, I doubt that it can, though it obviously does curb tradition.
I am not limiting the civil liberties of the Church in this matter. I am not attempting to employ legal means to block the Church from it’s current efforts. I am not an attorney so I cannot say whether the Church’s actions are lawful, I would suppose that they are otherwise they likely would have been challenged by now. I am questioning the appropriateness of an effort to enforce religious will, and the legality of the Proposition, but again not the Church.
“If the issue was to legalize gambling or allow the proliferation of adult businesses in residential neighborhoods, would the Church’s involvement in forstalling such efforts be an attempt to enforce a religious agenda? Or would the Church be limited to issuing warnings about the dangers of gambling or the sinfulness of patroning adult establishments?”
These issues have been rigorously debated all over the country, and many groups have made reasonable defenses here which do not rely wholly on religious ideals. Generally the parties in these disputes settle on zoning accomodations.
Just a quick thought, I am not sure how applicable arguments comparing the sex trade and gaming industries, which are all commercial endeavors, are to extending the rights of marriage to all consenting adults within their personal relationships.
Gail,
Why do you think you received a different answer than the Brethren?
One of the most difficult things in discerning personal revelation is to know the difference between the positive feelings of the Spirit and the enthusiasm we have for our own philosophies and ideas. In teaching this concept I once asked a seminary class how they could tell the difference. After a long pause one young man lit up like a light bulb and waved his hand in the air. “I know, I know. You ask your mom!” I told him he was exactly right. It is very easy for one person to be misled, either by Satan or by their own attitudes, but it is less likely that several people consulting together will be misled. This is why the Church is led by councils. The decisions of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve must be unanimous before they are carried out (D&C 107:27). This same principle is applied in stake and ward councils. It should also be applied in family councils. When one feels that their revelation does not agree with the revelation of the Brethren they should counsel with their priesthood leaders concerning the issue.
-Theodore
Theodore:
This kind of falls along the same line of circular reasoning exemplified in the Rules of Theodorus.
“Don’t follow the Prophet blindly, get your own confimation. If your witnesses don’t jive, then default the Prophet is right. Follow the Prophet anyways, but don’t follow the Prophet blindly, get your own confirmation. etc, etc, etc.”
There are several logical pitfalls with this type of reasoning. Can Satan ever trick the Prophet? What about examples where once staunchly held policies are changed? What about disavowed doctrines from former Prophets? I am ever wrong for disagreeing with the Prophet, even when I know he is wrong? At some point we begin challenging reality, and we are right back to where we started.
Cowboy,
It is possible for any one individual to be deceived. As mentioned above this is why the Church is led by the unanimous decisions of councils. What you are really asking is can Satan ever deceive all of the combined First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve? The answer is no.
Times change, people change, and policies change. This is why we must have a living Prophet. The dietary laws of under Moses are not the same as those required today. The Law of Moses itself was given because the people would not accept the higher law. So, the Lord changed it and gave them something they could live with. But the people were denied the blessings of the higher law. In this dispensation the Lord commanded the Latter-Day Saints to live the fullness of the Law of Consecration under the organization of the United Order. They couldn’t do it, so the Lord gave them the lesser law of tithing. We have been denied the blessings ever since. The words of the living Prophet always take precedent over dead Prophets.
How do you know when the Prophet is wrong?
If you think you know that the fifteen wise and worthy men of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are all wrong then I would think you would reevaluate your own position.
However, there is a proper channel for expressing ones disagreement with the Brethren. That is to write them a letter and pass it through ones bishop, who will forward it on through the stake president. Consultation will be given at each level. If the individual is still not satisfied, the letter will be forwarded to the First Presidency. A letter sent from a member directly to the First Presidency will immediately be sent back to the individual’s stake president for consultation at the local level first.
Our perception of reality may not be the same as the Lord’s perception of reality.
-Theodore
Theodore:
I am generally familiar with the Law of Moses, I am not a Rabbi either however. I am also aware of the common responses you have offered to the common questions I asked. I wasn’t intending to stress the questions as “unbeatable” positions, rather that the line of circular reasoning in your the Prophet is always right rhetoric gets tiresome. This is apples and oranges here I realize, but I was stabbing more at the logic, then the theology or the specific questions. Ultimately this conversation will transform into how do we know if the Prophet is really a Prophet, and the answer to that question is largely personal. I have made my points here, and I need to quit trying to beat my points in, admittedly I struggle with that like a lot of people. I appreciate your response and the overall conversation – while we tend to disagree I feel the overall discourse has been amicable and at points engaging, but I should have quit a few posts back. Thanks again, and I look forward to future conversations on future topics.
CB
Cowboy said: Prop 8 intends to deny the right of marriage to a couple because they are homosexual. The reasons cannot be widdled down beyond, “because that’s not what God wants.”
This is so laughably untrue that I almost felt that I need not respond to it. Perhaps if you get a chance you should read New York Court of Appeals case Hernandez v. Robles where the majority opinion enumerates several reasons disfavoring genderless marriage that have nothing to do with God or religion.
The truth of the matter is that both sides have cogent, reasonable arguments and a failure to acknowledge effectively ends any reasonable argument on the matter.
DPC:
Quick reply, to the specific mentioned.
1) Are you an attorney – I don’t ask to discredit you, but if you are I will take your legal rebuttals more seriously, be honest. I am not an attorney.
2) There are several reasons why the case cited does not apply to Prop 8. One is because the New York case involved rights associated with marriage, and civil unions. This would imply tax exemptions, estate rights, visitations – durable power of attorney, etc. Second, the court decision was overturned not because Just Cohan was deemed wrong in her interpretation of the constitution, but rather because she circumvented the legislature. In California, the State Supreme Court has deemed the marriage ban unconstitutional, and turned the matter over to the legislature – hence Prop 8.
Teddy,
On my mission Gene R. Cook spoke and told us that Satan cannot duplicate the simple peace that comes from the spirit. I trust that peace.
“Our perception of reality may not be the same as the Lord’s perception of reality.
-Theodore
I dare say that we are askew in our perception from the Lord’s more often than not. Isn’t that all part of putting off the natural man.
Hi gang!
I apologise for the delay in posting my comments. I am in the middle of teaching research classes, and setting up our Ward’s FHC Internet connexion.
Here are some thoughts that I’ve had from reading your comments:
1. We should leave the judging of those who disagree with our stand on this issue to the Lord and His authorised servants (from bottom to top): the person’s Bishop and Stake President, and the Brethren in Salt Lake.
Those asked to support Proposition 8 should–of course–pray about it, then do as led by the Lord. He is the One Who shall hold us accountable for obeying or disobeying lawful counsel.
Perhaps I shall blog about THAT some day. 😉
3. While the Lord DOES separate Church and state in Matthew 22:21, the Church DOES have the right to try to influence legislation that overlaps its jurisdiction.
4. Moreover, members of the Church have the right to operate in the political system to bring about their view of good government as much as any other citizens. The fact that they are religious does not negate their rights.
5. Nobody is taking away any equal exercise of rights. Everybody has the right to marry any single person they wish–of the opposite sex.
6. God did not make gays “that way”; the fall did.
7. Bishops, Stake Presidents, and Temple Sealers are acting as “agents for the state” when they perform weddings. As such, they may be liable to lawsuits for discriminating. I would not want local leaders having to choose between going to jail and violating the Commandments.
8. I have a question to ask those who think that the Brethren are wrong to forbid homosexual conduct: If you don’t believe that they have the right to determine LDS doctrine, why are you Latter-day Saints?
9. DCP and Cody and others: Thank you for your good wishes.
8. I have a question to ask those who think that the Brethren are wrong to forbid homosexual conduct: If you don’t believe that they have the right to determine LDS doctrine, why are you Latter-day Saints?
Seeing that recently Gail and I have been independently leading the charge on this one, I should re-clarify my position – Gail might be wise to do the same.
I have stated, and again state that I do not oppose the Church’s doctrinal position on homosexuality, nor do I oppose of it’s internal policies regarding the matter. I do take issue with efforts to restrict civil liberties on the basis of religious doctrine. I find the effort disingenuous, largely because historically and quasi-doctrinally our own views on marriage have been seen as non-traditional, and even coined “barbarism”. During the time when government was imposing it’s moral will against the Church, our defenses/position on the matter was the same as those who oppose Prop. 8. I would argue, let the homosexuals have their rights, and let the missionaries preach.
Just a quick comment on number 7. Is there any solid basis for the argument that the State could force the Church to either solemnize SSM or dismiss its authority to marry. Everything I have read clearly states that this is not in jeopoardy. Post Civil rights, blacks were still not permitted to enter the temple until 1978. Anyone not of our faith, and even those who are still may not enter the temple if they do not have a temple reccomend. So the only argument that seems reasonable here would be that perhaps Bishops could be enforced. Still, having spent some time in the Mid-West, on rare occassion the KKK has been given State permission to set up public rallies and spew their hate tripe publicly. What precedent, or policy effort are you reffering to.
Steven,
So if the fall created homosexuality, did the fall create heterosexuality as well?
Cowboy thanks for the suggestion.
I do believe that the church leaders have the right to say what church policy is. I wish to clarify I believe our doctrine is always determined directly from revelation. “On this rock I shall build this church” We believe that Christ was referring to revelation not leaders. The Catholic Church differs from us on this point. They believe the rock was the man. Therefore, there leaders determine doctrine and policy.
The leaders are God’s leaders and when the scriptures are not clear and no revelation has come they have the responsibility to determine policy. This was the case of Blacks and the Priesthood. This is also the case of our current stand on polygamy as Cowboy has pointed out. It is also the case on homosexuality as I have previously pointed out. Unfortunately most members do not look and read for themselves and believe that all these points are clearly spelled out by God.
I also state as Cowboy has stated that the churches arguments for polygamy were similar to the anti prop 8 arguments. I would also like to add the church often stated We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. Apparently, the church believed marriage was part of the worshiping God. Why we refuse to allow homosexuals the same privilege we allow all men, says something about how we are treating homosexuals.
I also believe that protecting one person’s rights in this country really protects all of our rights. As we have talked about before the evidence shows that in other countries were same sex marriage has been legalized marriage has increased among heterosexuals and divorce has decreased among heterosexuals. If we truly want to defend marriage we need to defend all people’s rights to marriage.
I apologize “on this rock I shall build my church”
I have been a member of the church all my life. I served a mission; I can count the number of times I have missed church in forty years on one hand. I know how strongly we protest when people say we believe in blind obedience. I have protested along with them. I now wonder.
As I speak to other Mormons in person and on the net about my answer to prayer I received I received not to support prop. 8 I question this blind obedience thing.
Mormons know prop 8 will hurt families and children. Still we give millions.
Mormons read Thurston’s commentary and know every reason for prop 8 is based on lies. Still we give millions.
Mormons read the evidence that shows traditional marriage actually improving after gay marriage is legalized. Still we give millions. http://isocrat.org/politics/marriage/statistics.php
We not only still give millions; Mormons try blackmailing people into giving millions too.
Why do we do this, because God’s leaders said we should do everything we can? We know that through out time Gods leader have made mistakes, but we act as if we are blind to all the facts. We are looking at the sun and saying we cannot see it. And we still say we do not believe in blind obedience.
Rephrased by Teddy: “I have received the true revelation from God, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have been deceived.”
Sister Gail, I can understand a sincere difference of opinion with the Brethren on an issue such as this but you are basing your opposition on personal revelation in exact opposition to the Brethren. This attitude is a fast-track to apostasy.
Others have studied it out and agree with the Brethren. This is not blind obedience. Some have studied it out and disagree with the Brethren but are following them anyway. This is obedience but it is done with their eyes wide open and an understanding that perhaps God knows more than they do. Do you think Abraham agreed with God when God told him to sacrifice his son? Abraham’s sacrifice was strict obedience but it was not blind obedience. It was done with a humble acknowledgement that God knew more that did Abraham.
Many Mormons have also read the rebuttals to Thurston, such as the one at below, and do not believe that “every reason for prop 8 is based on lies.”
http://sayyestoprop8.blogspot.com/2008/10/rebuttal-to-thurstons.html
-Teddy
Rephrased by Teddy: “I have received the true revelation from God, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have been deceived.”
Sister Gail, I can understand a sincere difference of opinion with the Brethren on an issue such as this but you are basing your opposition on personal revelation in exact opposition to the Brethren. This attitude is a fast-track to apostasy.
Others have studied it out and agree with the Brethren. This is not blind obedience. Some have studied it out and disagree with the Brethren but are following them anyway. This is obedience but it is done with their eyes wide open and an understanding that perhaps God knows more than they do. Do you think Abraham agreed with God when God told him to sacrifice his son? Abraham’s sacrifice was strict obedience but it was not blind obedience. It was done with a humble acknowledgement that God knew more that did Abraham.
Many Mormons have also read the rebuttals to Thurston, such as the one at below, and do not believe that “every reason for prop 8 is based on lies.” (http://sayyestoprop8.blogspot.com/2008/10/rebuttal-to-thurstons.html)
-Teddy
“Do you think Abraham agreed with God when God told him to sacrifice his son? Abraham’s sacrifice was strict obedience but it was not blind obedience. It was done with a humble acknowledgement that God knew more that did Abraham.”
If only we could all be more like Abraham. The luxury Abraham had, though, that he was placed in a position where he had to trust God directly. As far as the OT reads, there was no mortal intermediary between him and the Lord. Abrahams trial was about trusting in God through thick and thin. For the rest of us, trusting in the Prophet is more akin to the position Isaac would have been in had Abraham discussed his intentions with him prior to being bound on the alter. I can imagine there might have been a “dad, are you sure God wanted you to do this.”
Cowboy,
The Rabbinical Tradition is that Isaac was 37 years old at the time and believed his father when Abraham told him that God wanted him sacrificed, and agreed to it. (The New Encyclopedia of Judaism, Isaac). Josephus says he was twenty-five (Antiquities I, 13, 2). That Isaac was a young adult is consistent with the analogy of the sacrifice of Isaac with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Jesus also knew about it and agreed to it. (For it to be more accurate analogy Isaac would have been 33 years old).
-Theodore
Teddy:
Your reinterpretation of Gails poorly worded statement is a bit rhetorical. Her point was that the spirit told her not to support this cause. While there may be something of an management error implicit in her statement, the candor used in your restructuring I think is a bit foreign to her overall sentiment. This is important because she is correct that there is historical precedent for “policies” which of a similar nature, which have even recently been characterized as, non-doctrinal, non-authoritative, folklore. Elder Holland stated in his PBS interview for “The Mormons” that, regardiing the priesthood ban, members should not continue to perpetuate the folklore. He further stated that the justifications for the ban were the best efforts 19 century thinking could contrive in order to give shape and context to something that God had been silent on. In other words the ban may have come from God, but that is the extent.
To summarize, the former Priesthood ban demonstrates a historical example of a situation where by and large, most of the brethren were unanimously decided on false doctrine, ie the folklore/doctrinal justification for the ban. While the ban may not be perfectly analogous to the current situation, it gives at least reasonable consideration for Gail’s position.
Just a quick response on Isaac. 1) Thanks for the extra-biblical insights (seriously) 2) I was aware that Isaac was an adult at the time, and I can’t say when Abraham told him of his intentions. As far as the Genesis account reads, at the point where they ditched their slaves and headed up the mountain Isaac still expected a goat, and Abraham wasn’t entirely forthcoming at that point. I have seen this matter debated heavily in Christian circles, though the rabbinical tradition you refer to does give more authority to the matter. 3) That still places us, the member, in a position more akin to Isaac than Abraham. I have always thought that significant in any example where we compare our trials to that of Abrahams. 4) While the understanding of the Saviours willing acceptance of his Purpose is essential to our individual walk and growth with him, it is not relevant to the point that, therefore Isaac was willing.
Teddy,
Thank you for your response.
You are welcome to call me Sister Gail if you wish, but I do prefer Brother Gail. You would have no way of knowing that I am a man, but I am. Your knowledge of my sex makes no difference in the validity of your arguments.
Your rephrasing of my statement would make a lot more since if you quoted the revelation you are referring to. In all my reading I have found no revelation on killing gay marriage or even on homosexuality. Even if you count the proclamation as a revelation though the brethren do not call it this The Proclamation says nothing about killing gay marriage or even about homosexuality. When we look at either the letter from the first presidency or the Divine Institution of Marriage the Brethren have never said God is telling us to fight gay marriage. If you look at all the things quoted from the proclamation in these documents it never says anything like revelation has told us to fight for prop. 8. The brethren have never claimed revelation casually. We as members infer revelation just out of course. In the 2nd Declaration in the D&C it says “In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball” I do not see this language used willy nilly by the brethren. It is used exceedingly sparingly. I suspect that this is because revelations do not come every day. I am not claiming to be receiving revelation for the church or even in contradiction to revelation given to the church. But when I have shared my personal revelation I have been called apostate more than once and have been meet with a huge amount of anger. I have even been asked why I would ever need to ask in prayer about this issue. The assumption that the letter read in sacrament meetings is a revelation even though the brethren never stated it as such sounds a lot like blind obedience. When the fact I would make this a matter of prayer is meet with anger also sounds a lot like blind obedience.
Thank you for the link. I am read through it carefully I have not finished yet, but I am overjoyed to hear someone actually studding this issue. Most members I have talked to that have read the commentary say that commentary is interesting, but it means nothing because this is what I am told to do.
Cowboy,
In the example you cite there has never been disagreement among the Brethren that God had placed the ban, only disagreement on the probable reason for the ban. There may now be differing opinions among the Brethren as to the exact reason they are openly supporting Proposition 8, but they are unanimous in that support. There may be “reasonable consideration” to disagree with the stand the Brethren have taken, but for a Latter-Day Saint to openly and actively oppose the Brethren is nevertheless a giant step towards personal apostasy.
-Theodore
Point taken – Thanks Theodore. I am personally wary of institutions and groups which suggest that it is unhealthy to disagree from time to time with even our leaders. You might respond, well you can disagree intellectually – just keep it to yourself and never voice it, follow the leaders anyway. What groups in history have taken this approach, which we are not ashamed of today? I hate to think this is the direction the culture is moving towards.
Teddy,
My quote of the 2nd declaration in this case is not comparing the doctrinal points of view. I was giving an example of the brethren claiming revelation. I was illustrating this language has not been used in any documentation regarding prop. 8 or anything related to the topic of homosexuality.
I am at a disadvantage. I am not aware of what you are basing this categorical knowledge that the brethren all agree on prop. 8.
Teddy,
I also am unaware of what you are basing the categorical knowledge that the brethren agree the ban of blacks from the priesthood came from God.
Gail:
You are not going to get a modern statement from the Brethren on the Priesthood ban. The general MO is to avoid the issue if possible, and then issue simple policy statements when not possible. Elder Holland in the PBS interview previously mentioned does not come right out and say that the ban was authoritative, but he certainly alludes to that fact.
Cowboy,
We are talking about Prophets of God. What groups in history are you ashamed of that followed true and living Prophets of God?
-Theodore
Gail,
“…we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society” (Proclamation on the Family)
Is this language prophetic enough? The support of the Brethren for Proposition 8 is not anti-homosexual, as opponents try to frame it, it is to defend and preserve the natural family which is the foundation of all society, as put forth in the Proclamation on the Family.
No policy decision is ever made by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve unless it is unanimous.
The modern awareness of the ban came from Abraham 1:21-27, which has been sustained as scripture by all apostles of this dispensation. There is no record of any sitting member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve suggesting that the ban did not come from God.
-Teddy
Theodore –
You have a tendency to restructure our statements into the arguments you would rather address than the ones posed to you. Outside of Jesus, there is nothing in the scriptures of which I am aware that suggests the absoluteness of the Prophetic omniciences that you are advocating. The New Testament demonstrates examples where the Apostles did not agree with one another. It also demonstrates occasions where they were out of step with the Saviors line of thinking. So again, there is historical precedent, modern and scriptural, for Prophetic error.
Coincidentally, nearly every nation, society, cult, group, etc. which has espoused the doctrine of unquestionable authority, has done so in the name of God. They have each taken the approach you have, the leaders are always right (even when they are wrong), and failure to follow 100% is a direct attack against God. If that is how it was to be here, then count me out.
Cowboy,
“And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation” (D&C 68:4).
As with New Testament times, modern day Prophets also have differing opinions. But, also as in New Testament times, when they prayerfully consider and discuss those differences and unitedly seek to know the will of the Lord in the matter they are given revelation from God, who is omniscient, and they come together on the issue.
They have “done so in the name of God” without authority from God to do anything in His name. History of full of false prophets. That is why I asked “What groups in history are you referring to that were following true and living Prophets of God?”
So, the bottom-line question is then, “Are the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve true Prophets of God?” Everyone must answer that question for themselves. It is a matter of faith. If one believes that they are, then one will follow them as if God Himself were speaking. If one does not believe that they are true Prophets of God then he/she is left to follow their own opinions.
-Theodore
Theodore –
Once again, thanks for the dialogue – and I mean that. Your example in The Doctrine & Covenants requires a fairly strict interpretation. The absoluteness I am referring to is the notion of consistent ongoing infallability, whereas the D&C reference is referring to isolated “things”. You will notice in my comments about the Priesthood ban that I already made the point that you were trying to belabor, that the ban has not been disputed by modern Prophets, rather the justifications, ie doctrine. While I do concede this point, it remains a fact that the Brethren of former generations were decidely agreed upon a doctrine (Curse of Cain – Valiance in the Pre-existence) that modern leaders have clearly repudiated. At this point, many, many, other doctrines of former years still remain in doctrinal ambiguity.
Your assumptions of the New Testament are unsubstantiatable. The best one could do by an appeal to the New Testament is show a few examples where the Apostles met in “solemn Assemblies”, nothing that will demonstrate unaninimity of thought however, this is an assumption you must make. The debates between Peter and Paul are favorite topic for NT scholars. My point is not to show that the apostles could not work together, nor that the Leaders of todays church can meet and move productively towards a common goal. But the default position of the Prophet is always right is no better in our Church, than in any other Church now or in history. To the question can the Prophet ever be wrong, history bears out “yes he can, and in times past has been”. It is up to the individual to decide where to go from there. We don’t praise Joseph Smith because he was willing to tow the traditional Christian line, rather because he was willing make his own decisions.
Teddy,
“…we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society” (Proclamation on the Family)
This is referring to other prophesies it is not saying this document is a prophecy. This also says nothing about killing same sex marriage. In fact the evidence suggest that legalization of same-sex-marriage helps traditional marriage. So it seems prop. 8 is what is part of the disintegration of the family.
“No policy decision is ever made by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve unless it is unanimous.”
The letter from the first presidency was signed by the first presidency. So that would tell us that the first presidency agrees. It says nothing about the 12. The divine institution of marriage is signed by no one. So we do not know who agrees with that.
So am to understand that you are saying that “…cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.” Is the whole reasoning for not giving priesthood and temple blessings to blacks? That is a bit of a stretch.
“There is no record of any sitting member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve suggesting that the ban did not come from God.” With this reasoning we could say that there is no record of any of them stating that they believe it was from God either.
I still seek answers to my questions. What revelation says anything about same-sex-marriage? Where is unanimous agreement recorded about prop. 8 or about the ban on priesthood for blacks?
Cowboy,
Acts 5:12
“And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; and they were all with one accord…”
There was serious disagreement amongst the early Brethren as to whether the Gentiles should receive the Gospel. After deliberation we read: “When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life” (Acts 11:18).
In Acts 15:1-24 the divisive question of circumcision was resolved in total agreement among the apostles.
It is not that they work together towards a common goal. They work together to find and confirm the will of the Lord. Big difference. I have stated earlier in this blog that I believe that any man can be wrong or be deceived as to the will of the Lord, but the combined quorums of the First Presidency and the Twelve cannot. To substantiate your position can you provide any examples where the combined Brethren were contrary to the will of the Lord?
-Theodore
Gail,
When the Prophets say, “we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring about the destruction of society” that is not only prophecy it is dire prophecy. Of course everyone is free to disregard it and oppose it as did most of the citizens of Jerusalem in the days of Jeremiah.
The Brethren obviously believe that same sex marriage is part and parcel of the continued disintegration of the family. For government to redefine “marriage” to include homosexual couples will not change God’s eternal view of marriage.
President Gordon B. Hinckley:
“Any major questions of policy, procedures, programs, or doctrine are considered deliberately and prayerfully by the First Presidency and the Twelve together. These two quorums, the Quorum of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, meeting together, with every man having total freedom to express himself, consider every major question.
‘And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other’ (D&C 107:27).
No decision emanates from the deliberations of the First Presidency and the Twelve without total unanimity among all concerned. I served as a member of the Council of the Twelve and during the years that I have served in the First Presidency, there has never been a major action taken where this procedure was not observed.” (As quoted by M. Russell Ballard in “Counseling with Our Councils” p.48-49)
-Teddy
“To substantiate your position can you provide any examples where the combined Brethren were contrary to the will of the Lord?”
I have named a few in previous posts, those should suffice. This would be a foolish argument for either of us to get tangled into much further because any comments from here are likely to be normative perspectives, and therefore subjective. We have no evidence one way or another, that trancends individual ideologies, of The Lord’s position on Church policy/declarations/etc. I think I have made point, if you would like to respond to some of the examples I have mentioned before, you can have the last word. Thanks for the dialogue – for what it is worth, I don’t take any of this personal but enjoy the discussion – even with the disagreements. See you on another topic.
PS – I’ll give you the examples in Acts 11, and 15, you have a point there. I disagree on Acts 5 though, and I am not convinced that these examples demonstrate universal infallibility of the combined body.
Cowboy,
It has been good to visit with you as well. May the Spirit be with you.
-Theodore
Teddy,
I must say that I have also enjoyed our exchange. Thank you.
You have made good argument about the brethren all agreeing on the actions of prop. 8 perhaps they do. I still am not sure of this because I not sure you would call this action a “…major questions of policy, procedures, programs, or doctrine…”.
I also agree that it is clear that the brethren believe same-sex-marriage is part of the decline of traditional marriage, but that does not put it in the revelation. If God believes it why did he not include it directly in the “prophesy” as you call it?
I do take issue with your statement: “The support of the Brethren for Proposition 8 is not anti-homosexual…” I do believe the brethren’s support for Prop. 8 is not consciously anti-homosexual.
When we fought for the right of polygamy we waved this flag:
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. Apparently marriage is part of how we worship all mighty God. I think our doctrine makes a good case for that. We can not be part of God’s highest degree of glory unless we are part of the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. If there was not an anti-homosexual peace of this why do we not grant them what we grant all men? In the churches efforts we are putting homosexuals less than all men.
Also, we ask homosexual members not only live the law of chastity in a more difficult manor than the rest of us, we ask them to do so in secrecy and in shame. This not only happens because of the bigotry that resides among members, but the church asks homosexual members to do so in the pamphlet “God Loves His Members”. The brethren make a huge statement when they spend many many times the time and effort to make homosexuals free exercise of their beliefs illegal than they do to try and stop members’ bigotry.
The brethrens’ anti-homosexual message I do not believe is conscious, but it comes across loud and clear.
Gail,
The Brethren are against homosexual behavior and they are against what the homosexual movement is doing to change the definition of marriage and family. But they are not anti-homosexual in the sense that they have animosity towards homosexuals. To quote from “The Devine Institution of Marriage:”
Homosexual behavior, whether legalized in a marriage or not, is a sin and cannot be condoned by the Church. Being tempted by homosexual desires is not a sin, but succumbing to those temptations is.
“For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15).
Jesus was tempted in all ways like we are but resisted all those temptations.
-Teddy
Teddy,
I am a strait man for the record. Also, for the record I am not saying that the church needs to accept homosexual behavior to accept homosexuals. There is many behaviors the church does not accept, but does not choose to ask the members to strive will all there time and means to make illegal. Many practices in religions we do not condone, but we do not choose to make illegal. We let them worship how, where, or what they may. Even the terrible things done in the name of polygamy today the church does not condone, but we let them worship how, where, or what they may.
Yes, we welcome homosexuals into our congregations as lone as they pretend to be heterosexual. Homosexual members are asked to not associate with people that speak openly about homosexuality in the pamphlet “God Loves His Children”. We choose to say not only homosexual behavior is wrong, but homosexuals should keep it a secret and we will not grant to them what we would grant to men.
Gail,
This demonstrates how critical the Brethren believe this issue is.
All sin is addictive. Kleptomaniacs will steal things they don’t need or even want. I have known people who would lie when the truth sounds better because they are addicted to lying. A murderer will murder again if not stopped. What we sometimes refer to as serial killing is also known as bloodthirsty. Etc., etc. Addictions to sin are the chains with which Satan binds us.
The sin of homosexual behavior is highly addictive. As a former alcoholic and nicotine addict, when I was trying to rid myself of these addictions the last thing I would have done was to go visit my old drinking buddies at the bar. The advice of the Brethren for those subject to homosexual temptations to avoid those who speak openly about homosexuality is sound advice.
In an LDS cultural setting it would be inappropriate for me to openly discuss my addictions to alcohol and tobacco unless, as above, it was to demonstrate a gospel point.
I am not sure what you are referring to that “we will not grant to them.” If you are referring to the priesthood it is a available to “all worthy males.”
-Teddy
Teddy,
Many LDS homosexuals have never had any homosexual experiences. There is no way that they could be addicted to homosexual sex. Yes, even heterosexuals can be addicted to heterosexual sex, but even those that have heterosexual sex on a regular bases are not always addicted.
We ask these people to either live a celibate life in secrecy, or live in a sexual relationship with someone they have no sexual attraction to in secrecy, pretending that they are just like everyone else.
Even recovering alcoholics are advised not to keep their addiction a secret. In fact the secrecy is part of the addiction. I know many LDS alcoholics that are open with their word brothers and sisters about who they are as recovering alcoholics.
You still have not address the fact that we do not treat homosexuals out of the church with different religious beliefs about marriage differently than we say we treat all men in our article of faith.
Gail,
If one is tempted by homosexual thoughts but does not give in to that temptation that does not make that individual a “homosexual” any more that one who is only tempted to steal is thief. By that definition Jesus was the worst sinner of all because he was tempted in all ways.
God expects everyone to live a celibate life unless they are married to someone of the opposite sex. There are many married couples who have lost their sexual attraction for each other but still remain happily married.
Agreed, but as I mentioned, the temptation alone does not make one a sinner nor an addict, and it is only appropriate to discuss one’s addictions in certain circumstance. You wouldn’t expect a serial adulterer to openly talk about his addiction every Sunday.
If there are religions or groups that want to solemnize same sex couples amongst their membership it has little affect upon us and we do not interfere. Let them do what they want. However, for them to have the government legalize same-sex marriage for all forces their philosophies, and the repercussions thereof, on everyone else.
As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained,
“Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination” (Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters,” BYU Devotional speech, 9 February 1999).
-Teddy
Hello!
Very Interesting post! Thank you for such interesting resource!
PS: Sorry for my bad english, I’v just started to learn this language 😉
See you!
Your, Raiul Baztepo
Hi Raiul!
No need to apologise! It is said that English is the hardest language to learn! 😉