Robert John Williams is finishing up his Ph.D in comparitive literature in So Cal. His band, Faded Paper Figures, has just released its first CD.
I wasn’t going to write anything publicly on this issue. The question of gay marriage comes up every few years (usually as a way of mobilizing politically people who are otherwise relatively non-political), and will probably come up again. I figured it would become an issue for more conservative Mormons, much like gun-ownership, flag-burning, etc. etc., but that the church would exercise its political muscles in its more typically subtle, cultural way—not explicitly demanding officially that church members get involved on one side of the issue. But it appears that the frenetic piousness of American evangelism has recruited the Mormon leadership to join the cause in a more overt and intrusive way. The First Presidency letter read over the pulpit a few weeks ago admits as much (i.e. that Mormon leaders were asked to join in a “coalition” with more conservative, openly homophobic churches). I suppose I understand that the First Presidency felt obligated to join the cause; having campaigned aggressively for a similar cause in 2000, they would have looked like traitors to pass on the issue this time around. But what is really surprising to me is that the California branches of the church would have forgotten how extremely alienating their activism on this issue was for certain members of the church, and for certain segments of the larger California population.
Nonetheless, with the First Presidency on board, and an official injunction to give of our “time and means” to Proposition 8, the Mormons in my ward have become politically active in a way that is truly breathtaking. One prominent, wealthy member of the ward who serves in the capacity of Public Relations for the church, and whose email listserve regularly bombards its recipients with editorials expounding the cultural evils of gayness, has become something of a leader in the cause. But he’s hardly alone in my ward. The bishop has testified several times on the issue, and his secretary recently sent out an email (signed by the bishopric) to the entire ward asking that members of the ward volunteer in the “substantial effort to mobilize support for passage of Proposition 8.” The ward has distributed envelopes, asking us to donate money to the cause. Sign-up sheets have been passed around Elder’s Quorum asking us to volunteer to make phone calls, go door-to-door, and distribute anti-gay-marriage propaganda.
For a number of reasons I’ll describe below, I find myself on the opposite side of this political issue. So far, though, I haven’t done much in the way of protest. I’ve been wearing a rainbow ribbon to church, along with my rainbow sandals, and if someone asks me, I’m happy to discuss, very civilly, my political views. But I haven’t born any testimony about it in sacrament meeting. I haven’t started a conversation about it on my own with anyone in church. And I didn’t mention homosexuality in any of my Sunday school lessons (a calling from which I was recently released—though ostensibly not for political reasons….ahem…even though the person they replaced me with is undoubtedly the most conservative, scripturally literalist member of the ward). So when I recently visited Utah and my mother asked me to take off my rainbow ribbon before attending the baby blessing of my niece, I felt a bit uncomfortable. The truth is, I was already uncomfortable wearing the ribbon to church. I don’t particularly want to talk about gay marriage with my mostly-conservative fellow church members. But I wasn’t the one who decided to turn the chapel into an arena for political discussion. This was imposed upon us by a “coalition” of other, less-true churches, and our leaders have decided to go along. So be it. Let’s talk about it. Why would a good Mormon possibly oppose the grand political machinations currently at work in church to pass Proposition 8? Why would I feel compelled to wear a rainbow ribbon to church, even though it makes me and my family feel uncomfortable?
In C.S. Lewis’s classic Screwtape Letters, the senior devil Screwtape comments to his young nephew, Wormwood: “It is funny how mortals always picture us as putting things into their minds: in reality our best work is done by keeping things out.” The idea Screwtape goes on to expound is that if the devil can distract you from some greater good by convincing you to put all of your energies into some other, entirely inconsequential activity, you’ll be so worried about that other thing, you’ll completely ignore the larger good. In church we are told that Proposition 8 is not motivated by disdain for homosexuals, but by a sacred responsibility to protect heterosexual marriage. And it is true, undoubtedly, that marriage in the U.S. is in serious trouble. Divorce has become endemic, and its causes are numerous. However, even the most cursory glance at the statistical information on divorce shows that the legal status of homosexual unions is not a cause of heterosexual divorce (in fact, it’s not on any of the lists of reasons for divorce, anywhere!).
More to the point, financial problems, infidelity, major life trauma, and sexual dysfunction are all major causes of divorce. Consider, for example, how many marriages have been torn apart by the war in Iraq. According to this report, just last year there were more than 10,000 divorces in the U.S. Army. Two years after the war started (and it has gotten worse since), the divorce rate for enlisted personnel was up 28 percent—and for officers it was up 78 percent. And that is not counting the more than 100,000 Iraqi civilian families that have been torn apart by the death of a spouse (death being, of course, an even more devastating way to end a marriage here in mortality). What this means–in the most basic, empirical, totally provable sense–is that if Mormons were to become active in ending the war in Iraq, they would be instrumental in saving tens of thousands of marriages. But instead, they are campaigning for Proposition 8, which does nothing to save any marriages, at all. 100,000+ marriages or 0. You decide which the devil would have you campaign for most aggressively (I’ll be fighting for the 100,000+).
However, in fighting for that symbolic (yet completely inconsequential, for them) gesture, some Mormons have begun spreading deliberate and paranoid lies about what gay marriage would mean for the church and the country. I have heard, for example, that if Prop 8 does not pass, Mormons will be forced to allow gay people to get married in the temple. I’ve heard that teachers at school will be forced to read homosexually-charged literature with their children—and that our young Mormon kids will be consequently confused and drawn into to a gay lifestyle. I’ve heard that orphanages will be forced to hand over their children to sexually abusive gay couples (even though, obviously, a single responsible gay person can already adopt a child and live with that child with their gay partner). All of these are lies, of course. But the larger issue here is that whereas the government has a responsibility not to discriminate among its people, a church is entirely free to go on discriminating however it wants. My own feeling is that the church has every right to decide what counts as a “marriage” in church, but that the government has no right to decide whether a union between two consenting adults is or isn’t a “marriage.” It’s a position Brigham Young would have been very comfortable with.
But of course the use of scare quotes on “marriage” already gives away what it is we’re really arguing about: semantics, definitions, symbolic status. Marriage has been defined as “between a man and a woman” for a long time, right? The majority of the population defines it that way, right? Why should a small minority of people who feel like what they have is “marriage” actually be allowed to call it “marriage” if it actually offends the larger majority? These are certainly interesting questions for Mormons. “We’re Christians!” we like to tell our neighbors. “Just because the larger population of Christians don’t consider us Christians, so what? We’re still Christians!” And of course we’re just arguing semantics, right? Definitions, and symbolic status, right? It’s interesting that we don’t like it when it goes the other way.
I’ve really had to ask myself recently, are we Christians? If Christ were alive today, what would he be campaigning for politically? Would it be Prop 8, that merely symbolic, word-based initiative with no real impact on the marriages of the U.S. (except to grant that status to a group of people born slightly different from the majority)? Or would he be wearing a rainbow ribbon to church, loving even people who are different from the majority? Or would he actually have moved beyond such silly political games, and be actively campaigning to end genocide in Darfur? Maybe he would be campaigning to end the war in Iraq. Or to fight the massive starvation that currently faces the 1 billion people on the planet who live on less than a dollar a day. My dear Mormon friends, if we want to be considered Christians, perhaps it’s time we started acting like Christians—real Christians. If we could channel these political energies into something truly Christian, just think of what we could do!
Signed,
Robert John Williams
P.S. to anyone who would like to respond to this post, have the courage to do so with your own name. Anonymous (read: cowardly) responses will not get you points in heaven.
Ah, the wonderful possibilities of “can.”
Eric retorts, “Only problem with your conclusion is that it doesn’t seem to follow the language used by the First Presidency’s letter; it doesn’t provide for such a broad interpretation. They state, “We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.” I have a hard time believing that dissent, whether vocal or otherwise, is all you can do to support the proposed amendment.”
Eric, while the First Presidency letter assumes, much like your posts, that one will support and endorse the proposition, the very language of the letter suggests other potentialities as well (you see I, too, have read some Derrida like our friends John and Douglas). The word “can” implies willingness, capability, desire and it also implies the possibility of negation (if you can then it also is reasonable to assume that you can’t).
The letter is an invitation, not a commandment (don’t for a second think that because they say “required” this makes it a command) and as such we are free to choose the nature of our involvement, the nature of what we can do. Certainly there are, on the part of Church leadership, desired actions and stances, but I don’t think you would find that any of them would actually go so far as to say that you can only choose to support the Proposition. Yet Eric, in all of your comments you seem only able to view and accept one position, one side on this matter (occasionally going so far as to insinuate a lack of faithfulness on those who interpret things differently). You should accept that, like it or not, there are other views on the matter and that’s the nature of healthy political debate. You can disagree and so can I. So can we all.
Christ is living today. He is rescuing people from their prisons. Our responsibility to our children is to steward this country that they may have the unimpeded liberty to stand for God.
Allowing people to use deceptive terms such as “gay marriage” will corrupt the legal system. The thin barrier of invisible words is the contract between the government and its people. If we allow words to be perverted without cause, we risk the very language of limited government and become, ourselves, the agents of deception and tyranny.
Paul writes: “Christ is living today. He is rescuing people from their prisons. Our responsibility to our children is to steward this country that they may have the unimpeded liberty to stand for God.”
RJW: I couldn’t agree more. Religious freedom is paramount to our continued prosperity as Mormons.
Paul also writes: “Allowing people to use deceptive terms such as “gay marriage” will corrupt the legal system.”
RJW: Paul, I’m not sure what you mean by “deceptive terms.” “Gay” refers to homosexuality. I think just about everyone knows that now. In the 1950s, maybe, one could still use the word “gay” and mean “happy,” but nowadays, “gay” has come to mean almost exclusively “homosexual.” Do you think the word “gay” is still deceiving people? Or is it the term “marriage” that you find deceptive. Honestly, not sure how to make heads-or-tails of what you’re saying.
Paul: “The thin barrier of invisible words is the contract between the government and its people.”
RJW: Which exactly are the words that are “invisible”? You refer to “the” thin barrier of invisible words, as though I should know what you mean. Really, though, what are you talking about? (I’m asking not to be rude. I honestly don’t know what you mean).
Paul: “If we allow words to be perverted without cause, we risk the very language of limited government and become, ourselves, the agents of deception and tyranny.”
RJW: Wow. Paul, your words here are completely delirious. I’m not saying *you* are delirious. But what you’ve written here just barely makes sense. You seem to be connecting the idea that the definition of words can evolve to the possibility that we (somehow) become fascists in the process….or something. Honestly, your meaning is *very* opaque here. Sort of ironic for someone who seems to be lamenting the “perversion” of words and meaning.
Perhaps you could expand a bit, in more straightforward language what it is you’re trying to say.
Best,
John.
Marriage is a moral issue defined by God not CA.
Please carefully consider the following words
for they are not mine, but come from the core of
many faiths.
Not those are true husband and wife that with each other
merely consort:
Truly wedded are those that in two frames, are as
one light….Sikism. Adi Granth
Representing heavene and earth, I have created
husband and wife. This is the beginning of the
world……Tenrikyo. Mikagura-uta
The moral man finds the moral law beginning in the
relation between man and woman, but ending in the
vast reaches of the universe….Confucianism
It is not good that the man should be alone; I wil
make him a helper fit for him. This at last is
bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall
be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man..
Therefore, a man leaves his father and his mother
and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.
….Judaism and Christianity. Genesis 2:18-24
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
btween 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 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints
We warn that the disegration of the family will
bring upon individuals, communities, and nations
the calamities fortold by ancient modern prophets.
I’m telling you my friend that I speak from the
powerful and tender feelings of a parent. My kids
are most precious and i’ve sought many hours to
understand what is going on in our society.
Do you think California economy and worst fire year
ever is an accident?
When the people don’t heed the word of the Lord.
He will speak with thunder, lightenings, eathquakes,
tornadoes, floods and famines etc. Do you not see
the signs of the times. I plead with you for
careful consideration of these things that are
true.
As a quick introduction, I am a 21 year old single adult who is active in the church and attends a singles ward. I also deal with same gender attraction (as the church likes to term it), and have PTSD from being abused as a child. Since the reading of the letter in my ward back in June, I have personally witnessed a large rise in the homophobic statements casually thrown around among the membership at church, not only among other YSA’s, but among members of my bishopric and the stake priesthood leadership. I have watched a ward that I loved turn into a hostile environment for my PTSD. While the first presidency has asked for compassion and sensitivity in approaching the subject, they have not emphasized it at all. I would go as far as saying that as the call for compassion and sensitivity isnt even in the letter read to wards, but in a press release aimed at the media, the feelings of members like myself are of little concern and that my membership and life are expendable. Maybe I am being cynical here, but regardless, this is what it feels like. Unfortunately, we as a church have not learned our lessons from the knight initiative and I will be surprised if we dont have another suicide in the vein of Stuart Matis. It makes me wonder what the worse sin is; homosexual relations or suicide.
In regards to the legislation itself, I am firmly against it. Not because I am gay and want to marry another man in the temple or want to marry one period. I dont. But these feelings arent going to go away and just because I have chosen to fight them, does not mean that I should force any aspect of my own personal choice upon the rest of society. This is a civil rights issue and regardless of whether it passes or not, it truly is a fruitless endeavor. Domestic partnerships will keep their legal status, and as pointed out earlier, a homosexual can legally adopt a child as a single parent regardless of whether he has a partner or not. So we really are fighting over semantics, and even so its foolish not to believe that the supreme court on a federal level will overturn these constitutional amendments throughout the various states who have passed them. What I find particularly frightening is our willingness to pass such amendments to constitutions without considering the risks of such legislative actions to our own rights. For example, lets hypothetically say that a group of anti-cult activists decides to define a cult as a group that in their view brainwashes through introducing initiatory doctrines before revealing esoteric ones once an ecclesiastical leader is convinced that the person is ready to believe such doctrines. Such an amendment would outlaw the endowment. And before anyone brings up freedom of speech, were dealing with constitutional amendments. If you are so sure that a court would strike it down as unconstitutional, take for example the laws in various states requiring members of the KKK to march without masks. Though I hate to use this as an analogy, the same idea could be applied to us, the idea of unmasking our doctrines as a whole to the public. And before anyone points out that I am arguing a logical fallacy (slippery slope), the church is doing the same in many of its own arguments.
What I find so scary in all of this is the idea being put forth by members here on the infallibility of the first presidency on this issue. Its kind of hard to defend ourselves from anti-mormon attacks that quote the Journal of Discourses when we act as if our prophet today is infallible. The example of Benson campaigning with Strom Thurmond is an excellent example. What about George Q Cannon’s endorsement of eugenics for perfecting the human race (albeit not so much as a GA)? What about Brigham Young’s belief that a priesthood holder who race mixes with “the seed of cain” should be put to death and that this would always be the case or any other one of his racist views towards those of african descent? How about apostles and prophets referring to blacks as “darkies” in official church publications? They have been wrong before.
Whats also troubling for me is that I see people saying that they arent targeting homosexuals but as you yourself have pointed out, there are other more direct ways of protecting marriages and making them more successful. Also, this is the only moral issue we receive direction on. General authorities have ofter listed a number of vices that were threats to the family and among them, gambling was included. Those of us in CA voted last april on indian gambling compacts and yet the church was silent on the issue. Is gambling not a moral issue? Whats ironic to me is how many mormons I know that have signed up to go door to door for this proposition, that gamble at the indian casinos and on cruises.
On a side note, those of you who do not struggle with this have no clue how difficult it is, and that also goes for those of you who are empathetic towards my situation. I find it particularly troubling when people sit back and talk of the atonement healing me. Was Paul healed from his affliction? Miracles rarely work that way. Why dont blessings heal at a 100% accuracy rate? Obviously God knows what he is doing in testing his own children. Why cant homosexuality be viewed the same way? Why do you think the church created its own twelve step program for addiction? Obviously a simple prayer and a blessing wasnt cutting it. Your understanding of the atonement is lacking in its ability to explain these particular situations.
Thanks for your story, oct. I’m incensed that the Church’s stance on advocating for this problematic proposition has resulted in homophobic comments in your ward. What a travesty. My best to you.
Someone else named “John” writes:
“Do you think California economy and worst fire year ever is an accident?”
RJW:
Do you honestly believe that the economic depression and the fires in California were god’s vengeance for California’s liberal marriage laws? I never say this, but honestly, if you really feel that way, you should join another church. Pat Robertson’s church will be more than happy to have you.
Of course, the saddest thing about my own comment here is that “John” will continue to go to church every week, feeling totally comfortable with his vengeful, hate-filled god, while “oct” (perhaps the most sensitive and thoughtful contributor to this post so far) will continue feeling uncomfortable in church. These are dark days, my friends.
Thanks oct for your comment, it’s been soo insightful.
I have only read a couple of the comments that people have left, but from the few that I have read I find it upsetting that members think they have a right to form their own opinion on this matter. This is no opinion of President Monson, this is the will of God delivered to us through His prophet. I imagine if Christ were living today, he would be just as vocal as He has always been in denouncing sin and upholding righteousness.
We do not know all the repercussions that will result from Prop 8 not passing, and it would be arrogant for us to assume we knew them all. We do know, however, that the voice of God has deemed it necessary to support Prop 8, which tells me there is more to this than meets the eye.
God bless.
Jesse writes:
“I have only read a couple of the comments that people have left, but from the few that I have read I find it upsetting that members think they have a right to form their own opinion on this matter.”
RJW:
Come on, Jesse. Be responsible here. Even members who support Prop 8 (the reasonable ones anyway) believe that people have a *right* to form another opinion on the matter. Don’t waste our time.
You can’t refuse to read any of the comments and then just shoot your mouth off near the end with some blanket assertion that no one has any *right* to any opinion but the one you believe is correct. That’s just totally irresponsible. I’m surprised I’m even responding.
Thanks Caroline!
Robert I’m in Pasadena, so its not an impossibility.
Jesse you seem to be confusing a request with a revelation (among other things). The language of the statements read in my ward and the structure of the Church’s activity suggest that 1) The Church’s position on prop. 8 is not revelation 2) its not official church business. For those reasons alone we have more than enough right to form our own opinions. Second, and this is what really matters, agency only comes alive in situations like this, as far as I know the president of the Church does not have to answer for my actions at the day of Judgement. In other words the famous Nuremberg defense does not apply here either. I can not say to God “I was following orders”, I need to do the work. So when scripture study, personal revelation through prayer, ethics, and conscious are all driving me in a specific direction, there would be no agency if the only correct choice were to obey narrowly made leadership requests at all times. Further, agency is not merely a choice between right an wrong, agency often is a choice between multiple right choices. I suggest that it is right to obey the leaders of the Church but it is also right to obey the spirit, and to obey powerful ethical teaching such as that of hospitality that I mentioned in an earlier comment.
OCT, your ward in not the only one, I have over heard a few negative comments myself (mild, but still there). But from the reports I am hearing, my ward is being extremely low key on the issue as compared to others so I am thankful for that.
Are people speaking out in there wards the same way they are speaking out here? I think its necessary to do so, but as of yet I have not. What about others?
RJW: I suppose I did word that wrong. Everyone does, of course, have a right to form their own opinion.
What I meant to say was this: the Lord has made His opinion known through His prophets, and has asked for our help in this matter. I would not want to be found in the last days disagreeing with the Lord and His servants.
The language of the letter read in sacrament meeting is very official:
“We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.” (italics added) I do not understand how one cannot see that by not complying with these wishes that one would not draw disappointment from the Lord and His servants.
Furthermore, Elder Oaks shares some counsel that can be found on the LDS Newsroom site in relation to this. After referencing the incident with Ake Green in Sweden, and other “trends,” he says this:
“Given these trends, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must take a stand on doctrine and principle. This is more than a social issue-ultimately it may be a test of our most basic religious freedoms to teach what we know our Father in Heaven wants us to teach.”
I hope I do not come across as someone ignorant to the subject just spouting off his opinion. I, too, have close family who are involved in homosexuality. I love and care for them. However, we cannot let our love and sympathy rob us of our morals. We have been called to action by the Lord and His prophets, and we are expected to accept that call.
God bless.
Jessie writes:
The language of the letter read in sacrament meeting is very official:
“We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.” (italics added) I do not understand how one cannot see that by not complying with these wishes that one would not draw disappointment from the Lord and His servants.
RJW:
I’m glad you’ve decided to be civil, although I would encourage you to go back and read through some of these posts, as some of your questions/objections have already been answered by me and others (with, I think, completely legitimate answers that no supporter of Prop 8 has bothered responding to). Let me just briefly recap an argument I’ve been making here. The passage you cite above (and, indeed, all supporters of Prop Eight) makes a connection between the legal *definition* of marriage and the preservation of marriage itself. I confess that I do not see any such logical connection. Do you honestly believe that the biggest threat to heterosexual marriages is the legal/definitional status of other gay couples? Go back up and read my response to the church’s newsroom statement on this assumption. The government could just decide not to define marriage at all (I mean, why even make it a *legal* category anyway? Why not just tell everyone they have a “civil union”?), but I doubt that would make me feel like my own religiously sanctioned marriage was somehow at risk (I’m very happily, heterosexually married, thank you very much). So far, I have seen NO EVIDENCE AT ALL (zero, zip, nada) that shows gay marriage “threatens” my or anyone else’s heterosexual marriage. You look like a newlywed yourself. Are you going to get divorced if gay marriage becomes legal? Of course not.
Now, you’ve obviously decided that the First Presidency letter is more persuasive regarding gay marriage as a *danger* to heterosexual marriages. You’re obviously free to decide that. But you should at least recognize that the main argument coming from that letter, and other supporters of Prop 8 is “we don’t know what this will do to heterosexual marriages.” That’s it. No one has any evidence that it will actually harm heterosexual marriage. “We don’t know”. That’s the whole argument. Period. Of course, you might argue that Pres. Monson’s prophetic calling makes him privy to consequences and potential calamities that we are not aware of. If so, it might be interesting for you (and your beautiful young wife) to find out that very similar arguments were made (and by apostles of the lord) against inter-racial marriage and civil rights legislation.
Walk with me, for a moment, down the path of history, to a meeting of the First Presidency in 1961. Henry D. Moyle (who joined the First Presidency in 1959 after Stephen L. Richards died) brought up the question of Kennedy’s proposed civil rights legislation (desegregating buses, swimming pools, drinking fountains, among other things). Moyle was adamantly against it, arguing that “it is unconstitutional because it takes away a man’s right to contract, and to do business.” Another apostle at the time, Mark E. Petersen explained that it was god’s sacred will that American society be segregated: “I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, ‘what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.’ Only here we have the reverse of the thing—what God hath separated, let not man bring together again.” In 1961, Alvin R. Dyer (who would also be a member of the First Presidency) explained very clearly, “The reason that spirits are born into Negro bodies is because those spirits rejected the Priesthood of God in the Pre-existence. This is the reason we have Negroes on the earth, as a result of the curse placed upon them.”
In the 1960s, when the church was approached about its stance on segregation, President McKay argued, “the Church had better not take sides, especially on the question of segregation.” When the civil rights bill eventually passed, McKay wrote, “The Civil Rights Bill is now passed and it is the law of the land. Some of it is wrong—the Negro will now have to prove himself”. Ezra Taft Benson, of course, was furious. As he would say in his general conference address of 1965: “What are we doing to fight it [i.e. civil rights legislation]? Before I left for Europe I warned how the Communists were using the civil rights movement to promote revolution and eventual takeover of this country. When are we going to wake up? What do you know about the dangerous civil rights agitation in Mississippi? Do you fear the destruction of all vestiges of state government?”
Jesse, what sort of thoughts would you have had during all of this? Would you have agreed with all of these apostles and prophets of the lord? Be honest, now. Is it possible that our good leaders might sometimes overstep their prophetic responsibilities as they get involved in contemporary political debates? Clearly E.T. Benson was wrong. The Civil Rights Bill did not lead to the “destruction” of the power of the state government. It did quite a bit to curtail American racism, though.
***all of the quotations I use above are from Greg Prince’s magisterially-researched book “David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism” (University of Utah Press, 2005), Chapter 4. I bought the book at *Deseret Book*
Nice post and subsequent comments, RJW. Tough to argue with common sense, and yet it is amusing to see some try.
That said, I’m a little surprised that you’ve framed the church’s involvement in Prop 8 in kind of “reluctant, just going along with it” terms. For example: “This was imposed upon us by a ‘coalition’ of other, less-true churches, and our leaders have decided to go along.”
Maybe I’m reading between the lines, but you seem to be suggesting the FP/Q12 don’t feel as strongly about campaigning on behalf of Prop 8 as most church members think. Besides the verbiage in the FP letter, (which could be translated numerous ways), have you heard something that would suggest this?
I have a tough time believing the church would just “go along with” anything, let alone something this politically charged. Furthermore, the church has really jumped into this in a big way, with both of its sizeable feet. Were their feelings about the “coalition” and Prop 8 more reserved, I think they might have just had the letter read one Sunday and left it at that.
But all of the evidence I’ve seen suggests that they have fully embraced the cause, that they are pulling out all of the stops. Of course, I’d love to be proven otherwise…
Hey Matt,
First of all, I *love* the new abbreviation: FP/Q12. It sounds like an episode of the borg or something: I. must. campaign. for. Prop 8. it. is. the. will. of. FP/Q12.
Anyway, you’re probably right. They do seem to be pulling out all the stops. I do wonder, though, how much they would have gotten involved if not for the invitation by these other churches. In any case, it doesn’t really matter now. The will of FP/Q12 has been heard.
It is useless to resist it.
Funny. Yeah, I guess the FP/Q12 is Borg-like in more ways than one. I’ve heard the term “The Morg” bandied around the internet and never put 2 and 2 together, but it is likely a take off on the nefarious Borg.
I too have wondered why homosexual couples cannot benefit from insurance and other “marriage” bonuses and why it is so important for our church to stand against it. I have decided that what it comes down to, is what Heavenly Father has asked us to do. That is what you should really be focusing on. This is said with faith and a testimony of fearing God and NOT man. This is all part of Satan’s plan to twist and confuse members of the church and to ultimately divide our congregations. I’m sure you’ll get all your answers when you face the Lord and Heavenly Father on the other side.
In response to and support of to RJW’s response to Jesse’s most recent post:
Although I’ve twice discussed the wording of the letter here in the comments section I’ll make one more stab at it. It all hinges on the verb “can.” This implies choice, agency if you will. And the Church acknowledges this more than tacitly.
See this, taken from a Newsroom post on the Church website dated 8/13:
“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.”
While this assumes that a Church member will support the proposition, which may or may not be the case in actuality, it very clearly emphasizes that there is no “required” level of participation in any efforts regarding this political issue. The letter is an invitation and, while there is clearly a desire on the part of the FP/Q12 for a certain level of support, must be understood as such. We are not “required” to do anything and anyone telling you anything different is clearly overstepping the bounds established by the very Church leaders they will claim to be supporting.
For a logical and doctrinal refutation of Prop 8 for LDS/Christians, please visit lds4gaymarriage.org
Feedback would be appreciated. Thanks
I was going to scribble a few thoughts about Prop. 8, but I came across this LDS forum and saw many of my thoughts already posted here. This is a very rational and thoughtful post, RJW.
But still, to sum it up, my partner and I have been together 15 years today. I love him more and more each year. Our families have always been fully supportive. Our friends have become mostly other married couples, and the majority of them are heterosexual couples. The town we live in is far left of center. We feel blessed.
We do not feel our relationship is supported by government or religion. We do not need or particularly care about this support. But we also do not feel our relationship is supported by the so-called GLBTI (they just keep adding letters, don’t they?) community. When I pick up a “GLBTI” paper, most of the articles are geared toward young single men. And of course, a large portion of the classifieds deal with seeking out anonymous sex. When we attend urban Pride festivals, again, the festivals are geared mostly toward singles. In large social settings when I tell someone hitting on me that I’m married, it usually makes no difference in their subsequent persistent behavior. And then there are the so-called “open” relationships. Give me a break! If you want to mess around, do not call yourself married. I know of anecdotal cases where this works for the long term, but usually it is a signal that the relationship is over. The point is that if we want the world to recognize and respect our familial relationships, the recognition and respect has to begin within our community.
Yes, I want Prop. 8 defeated. I don’t really care what makes a Prop. 8 supporter tick. We are all on our own paths and hopefully make our decisions based on what we believe to be best for everyone. I honestly cannot flatly state that all Prop. 8 supporters are ignorant wack jobs. Undoubtedly some are, but similar could be said of some Prop. 8 opponents.
In our household, Prop. 8 passage or defeat will barely be noticed. By the way, no, we have not gotten legally married. As far as we’re concerned we did that 15 years ago, by ourselves, exchanging rings while sitting on a cliff at the Presidio overlooking the Golden Gate Bridge and the glittering Pacific Ocean on a warm and sunny August afternoon. No government or church can take that away from us.
What bothers me is that the church, for all its talk about defending and protecting traditional marriage, is engaging in double-talk. It doesn’t believe in traditional marriage, at least as its fellow travellers on this issue, Catholics and Evangelicals, conceive it. Polygamy has not only a historic and hallowed place in the LDS theology of marriage, it is currently still practiced. There are numerous active LDS men right now, including two GA’s, who are sealed not only to a previous and now deceased wife, but to a second wife, “for time and all eternity.” It is utterly irrelevant that these men are not currently living with both women; in the eyes of the church, they are sealed to both women, which makes them polygamous marriages. If the church were truly committed to traditional marriage, i.e., one man and one woman, it would not permit such sealings to occur.
Robert, I can’t begin to thank you for your article and for the many follow-up responses to the comments it received.
I was born and raised in the Church in an devote LDS family in Salt Lake City. I come from a long heritage of Mormons dating back to Liberty Jail with the Prophet Joseph, to the Hans Mill Massacre, to Navoo, and to the hand-cart pioneers who helped settle Salt Lake City. I was born and raised in Salt Lake in an extremely active LDS family, served a mission, performed with the Mormon Youth Chorus, and worked for 5 years in the Church Administration Building with President Monson and our other Church leaders.
However, at the age of 32, after being faithful and active in every way, I was forced to acknowledge that prayer, fasting, priesthood blessings, and professional therapy would not remove the fact that I too am gay. I was forced at that time to choose between suicide and separation from the family and friends I loved by moving away from UT.
I am grateful for choosing the later, moving to California, and finally acknowledging that I am a Gay Mormon. My life is now filled with love, joy, peace, and the support of my family. I am so happy to still be alive today.
Although I will never be as eloquent as you and many of the posts here, I am grateful that there are intelligent, thoughtful people such as you who recognize Prop 8 as simple hatred and discrimination. I am deeply hurt that my LDS brothers and sisters could be so filled prejudice that they could even consider this proposition. I can’t believe they could hate me this much. I am one of them.
How can an entire faith of people with such a long heritage of being persecuted and subject to discrimination, now find it acceptable to do the same to another group of people? Was it really so long ago that we have forgotten how it feels to be hated and feared? Thank you for posing the question of are we really Christians. What happened to the Christian principles I was taught in Primary of “As I have loved you, love one another?”
I am grateful for intelligent people such as yourself and for my family who have decided that family is the strongest bond on earth and in heaven, that Christ’s gospel was that of love for all mankind even if they are different from us, and that it is more important to do the right thing than it is to bow to political pressure being exerted in our worship services. Thank you for confirming that even I am a Child of God and that my life also has value.
Dale Barton
Accusations of discrimination seems to be one of the often heard arguments from supporters of Prop 8. They say that homosexuals are being discriminated against by members of the LDS Church, and that this isn’t right. Then this will often be backed up by various scriptures where Christ taught to love all, and judge not. It seems as though all the reasoning boils down to believing that God does not discriminate. While it is true that God does not discriminate (for all His judgments are just), He does do something similar: withholding privileges.
One of the more obvious occurrences of this is with the Aaronic Priesthood in ancient times. In those times, in order to hold the Aaronic Priesthood, one had to be a direct descendant of Aaron. Discrimination? Or a wise withholding of privileges by our Lord?
Woman have never been ordained to the priesthood. Young men have to be at least 12 years old to receive the priesthood. One must be worthy to enter the temple. God has always withheld privileges from certain groups of people. Sometimes the reason is obvious, sometimes it is not. Even the gospel itself has been withheld from certain groups of people (Matthew 10:5-6).
This is not a perfect analogy, but I do believe it is right in line with what is happening today. The Lord is once again inspiring His leaders (at the time of the constitution we know of no prophets of His that were on the earth) to establish a constitution built upon the gospel. I only bring up this point because this is a predominantly LDS conversation. If you believe the scriptures and doctrine of the gospel of Jesus Christ as restored through the LDS Church, then I don’t see how you cannot arrive at this conclusion. The Lord inspired the founders of this country (D&C 101:80) to draft a constitution for the people, to protect our rights, according to just and holy principles (D&C 101:77).
It is very saddening to see all this conversation coming from LDS members, who have the restored gospel at their fingertips, and the guidance of living prophets arriving on a constant basis. Might we all strengthen our faith in the Lord and His prophets, whom do His work for Him in these days (D&C 1:38).
God bless.
I will not attempt to delve deeply into your comments, but simply make a few glancing observations. 1: Prop 8 has nothing to do with being homophobic. Yes, we would not required to allow gay marriages in our temples, but to maintain our status as a qualified 501(c) tax-exempt organization we would be required to allow gay marriage ceremonies be performed within our chapels. 2: Your stats on Army divorces is incorrect. Not every enlisted or officer that got divorced was deployed to Iraq. After you obtain that information, please post that. Until that time those stats are extremely skewed. Also, how many people did Hussein kill while in power? Add an exponent to that 100,000 figure you quote. 3: The church runs it’s own adoption program. Through which it has and can decide to only allow a married man and woman adopt a child. We believe that a child should and needs to be raised within a family with a father and a mother. Should this extremist judge ruling stand, the church would be forced to allow any type of married couple adopt children through its agency. It has the power to “discriminate” (I like to call it watching out for the well-being of the child) and not allow unmarried couples adopt children through its agency, but with the courts ruling, they would not be able to stop gay married couples from adopting children. 4: Homosexual tendencies have not been proven either way as “born with these feelings” or acquired over time. Stating that they are “a group of people born slightly different from the majority” is not a fact or solid truth. 5: Christ would preach and teach His correct, true doctrine. He would love everyone, but never would He condone or remotely support any actions or decisions that are contrary to His Plan of Salvation.
It’s been quite some time since I’ve read such high-minded, nuanced, utterly senseless drivel. Some Mormons appear to suffer from a false application of tolerance based on the strange notion that “because we were ‘persecuted,’ no one should ever suffer the just penalties of the law.” Anti-Mormon pogroms, based on aversion to polygamy, should not be used as a pretext for throwing out the law itself. If some child-sacrificing cult in the suburbs were being investigated, would you cry fowl just because your great-grand-pappy had to watch his barn burn down in Kirtland?
And don’t talk about this ruling of the California Supreme Court being deeply “American.” The establishment clause was intended to keep government out of the church, not Judeo-Christianity out of Government. The Aztecs and the Druids believed in human sacrifice. Pete Singer of Princeton is calling for the right to kill unwanted children under two years old. What argues against this sort of barbarity? Christianity! You better hope Christianity influences the state or you will get the sort of secular humanism that allowed the worst outrages of the 20th century to take place under Bolshevism and Maoism.
I have a copy of a New Hampshire Justice of the Peace Manual on my shelf–for 1830. Among other things, it plainly states that an atheist should not be allowed to testify in court, since he had nothing to “bind his conscience.” You should all read the record, the historic record, before you post such incredibly uninformed observations. Most of you are a discredit to your faith.
On Aug 12, RJW writes regarding incestual marriage:
“From a strictly legal perspective, I am okay with that. If they are consenting adults. Granted, I think it’s sick and immoral.”
This is very telling as this aversion (your words: “sick and immoral”) was precisely the majority sentiment regarding homosexual marriage 30 years ago. Now the homosexual orientation enjoys a type of saintly martyr status: “the poor wayfaring persecuted class that we must defend.”
Poppycock. Ancient sexual taboos exist because they have social utility, unless you believe the nation should be burdened with the sort of severe deformities that can result from incestual reproduction. As for homosexuality, according to a 1988 Copenhagen study, “Amoebiasis and giardiasis were found respectively in 31.9% and 13.8% of homosexuals. None of the heterosexuals had pathologic protozoa..” Homosexual men also have a higher incidence of anal cancer. (http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Holsinger_on_Homosexuality.pdf) The embracing of “homosexual marriage” as a respected choice, with the full approval of the law, is a perverse nod to the notion that human populations must be managed. Whenever man attempts to manage “human populations,” you wind up with all kinds of havoc, ranging from Hitler’s eugenics to the fiscal crises that may bankrupt the nation soon. Enshrining homosexuality gives you less children and more anal cancer. Equally offensive to God are the ‘saints’ who practice planned parenthood, so, yes, if it tends to less children it doesn’t have God’s blessing and may get his cursing.
And in another 30 years, will we be ignoring other ancient taboos that have had social utility? If your “consenting adults” standard gets argued down to 12 or 14, as some have tried in Britain, will you have no defense against pederasts? If the “consent” of animals is measured by their compliance, are you ready for the sort of epidemics that can result from beastiality? Your impulses “sick and immoral” are there for a reason and who are you to claim that this represents “scare tactics” when your own words prove otherwise, it is a reasonable and logical conclusion of what will occur. “I am okay with that” is honest on your part, but evidence of why we are ripe for destruction. God is not ok with it, nor any other sexual deviancies and, looking through the long lens, it may not be in our life times, but it will come, rest assured. God is the author of the very science that makes His taboos worth honoring.
This remonstrance comes from someone who expects the Proposition to fail as the majority of the Voice of the People (at least in California) has turned from righteousness. We have accepted your demented logic for quite some time now and have embraced the Adversary for too long. The chorus of misplaced tolerance has become so stifling that “ears no longer hear” and “eyes no longer see” the plain evil of what is being proposed. Sodomy is a sin that ranks with adultery, abuse, fornication, and all the rest. And, no, it is not akin to miscegenation. Nowhere in the scriptures does race mixing compare to the homosexual act, an “abomination” for which cities were burned.
Do we have to pray there be five righteous left?
M
Wow. A triple assault in just a few days. I stop watching the blog and look what happens! I’ll try to respond to all of this.
Seth writes:
“to maintain our status as a qualified 501(c) tax-exempt organization we would be required to allow gay marriage ceremonies be performed within our chapels.”
RJW: Two things:
1) The fancy “501(c)” in your sentence sure sounds official. Unfortunately, what you are saying is entirely false. A complete lie. Or maybe you’ve just deliberately decided not to think about the issue. Either way, shame on you. You know already that the church is under no legal obligation today to let just any heterosexual couple that wants to get married in our chapels. Think about it, if a bunch of hell’s angels wanted to have a good ol’ heterosexual wedding ceremony in our chapel, is the church legally obligated to let them? Of course not. Why would that all of a sudden change with the legalization of homosexual marriage? What you have here is a classic *scare* tactic.
2) Let’s assume what you’re saying is true (even though it’s a deliberate lie). So what? Does the church only stand by its principles as long as they are inexpensive? I personally don’t care if the church pays taxes or not. Why should the church’s *financial* status have any bearing on this?
Seth also writes:
“Your stats on Army divorces is incorrect.”
RJW: they *are* not my stats. If you had read the report I linked to, or any of the reports, you’d notice that they are the *army’s* stats. Do you honestly believe that the war has not had an impact on the marriages of enlisted soldiers? If so, then shame on you. You need to get to know a few more soldiers and learn about what they are currently suffering. It’s not pretty.
Seth also writes:
If Prop 8 passes, “the church would be forced to allow any type of married couple adopt children through its agency.”
RJW: again, Seth, you are either deliberately lying or else deliberately uninformed. The church has *very* rigorous rules about who can adopt through its adoption agency, and none of these would be at all affected by Prop 8. Consider for example, that it’s currently legal (in non-Mormon adoption agencies) for heterosexual couples who drink alcohol to adopt a child. The church’s adoption agency, however, has a strict policy about alcohol in the homes of its adopting families. Just because something is *legal* does not mean that the church has to accept it as *moral*. Just because non-Kosher meat is legal doesn’t mean your local synagogue has to serve it. To argue otherwise is to be guilty of deliberate misinformation and *lies*.
Seth again:
“Homosexual tendencies have not been proven either way as “born with these feelings” or acquired over time.”
RJW: Seth, even the church’s own psychologists and therapists agree that homosexuality is a combination of nature and nurture. To argue that one’s biological proclivities have nothing to do with it is (*sigh*) again to be deliberately lying or else going out of one’s way not to find out the truth.
Jim Riley writes:
“It’s been quite some time since I’ve read such high-minded, nuanced, utterly senseless drivel.”
RJW: I’m glad you thought it was nuanced.
Jim also writes:
“If some child-sacrificing cult in the suburbs were being investigated, would you cry fowl just because your great-grand-pappy had to watch his barn burn down in Kirtland?”
RJW: Jim, I feel great pains in my soul that it is even necessary to point this out, but there is a *huge* difference between a child-sacrificing cult and a homosexual union. Consider just a few (so-totally-obvious-I-can’t-believe-I’m-writing-this) differences:
Child-sacrificing cult: kills people
Homosexual union: doesn’t kill people
Child-sacrificing cult: wants to hurt children
Homosexual union: doesn’t want to hurt children
Child-sacrificing cult: is anti-human, based on hate (or else vindictive insanity)
Homosexual union: is completely human, based on love
Oh, and did I mention that the one actually *kills* children?
Jim writes:
“What argues against this sort of barbarity? Christianity! You better hope Christianity influences the state or you will get the sort of secular humanism that allowed the worst outrages of the 20th century to take place under Bolshevism and Maoism.”
RJW: I don’t see why one has to be a Christian to argue against human sacrifice or even abortion. You can certainly believe that life is precious and that people should have basic human rights without necessarily believing in Christ. Why does one need Christ to believe those things? Certainly you can’t argue that Christians have been less violent and intolerant than other people throughout history! There have been violent and terrible people of all kinds, Christian and non-Christian. It’s an attractive fiction to believe Christian societies have been inherently more tolerant and non-violent over the years than other societies. It’s not true, but it’s fetching.
Jim:
“I have a copy of a New Hampshire Justice of the Peace Manual on my shelf–for 1830. Among other things, it plainly states that an atheist should not be allowed to testify in court, since he had nothing to “bind his conscience.” You should all read the record, the historic record, before you post such incredibly uninformed observations. Most of you are a discredit to your faith.”
RJW: Perhaps you could explain what possible relevance the New Hampshire Justice of the Peace Manual from 1830 possible has for the discussion at hand. Am I to believe that because a New Hampshire governmental manual said something in 1830, I should believe it? And I’m even a little confused by what you seem to be implying. Do you also believe that atheists should not be allowed to testify in court? If so, then wow. That’s really bad. I mean really, really bad. In your world, in a dark alley, a Christian could come upon two atheists, murder one of them, let the other one survive, and there’d be no one to testify against him (except that I’m starting to wonder if in your world the other one would survive at all). Perhaps you should consult that other “Peace Manual” (the bible) about that one.
Melanctha writes:
“Ancient sexual taboos exist because they have social utility, unless you believe the nation should be burdened with the sort of severe deformities that can result from incestual reproduction.”
RJW:
As much as I hate the thought of incest between consenting adults, you cannot *legally* restrict it simply because the reproductive possibilities include potential birth defects. Of course, you could require in all instances of incest-marriage that the couple get sterilized. Just like Hitler did with the mentally handicapped. Maybe we should make it a law that anyone who might have children with birth defects has to get sterilized?
But of course, it’s just another wonderful scare tactic to talk about gay marriage as if it were going to open the floodgates of incest, as if people were just *dying* to marry their siblings and the only thing stopping them is the law. Please.
Melanctha:
“Homosexual men also have a higher incidence of anal cancer.”
RJW: And I can see that your support of Prop 8 is motivated by a deep concern about how many gay people get cancer. We can really feel the love here.
Melanctha:
“The embracing of “homosexual marriage” as a respected choice, with the full approval of the law, is a perverse nod to the notion that human populations must be managed. Whenever man attempts to manage ‘human populations,’ you wind up with all kinds of havoc, ranging from Hitler’s eugenics to the fiscal crises that may bankrupt the nation soon.”
RJW: This is my favorite part of your post. Let’s just map out the logic of your comment: 1) embracing homosexual marriage leads to 2) the idea that human populations must be managed, and therefore 3) we “wind up with all kinds of havoc” like Hitler. Melanctha, this is laughable. First of all, which position is it, exactly, that is trying to “manage” the human population? The one that *restricts* marriage to heterosexuality or the one that does *not* restrict marriage to heterosexuality? How is allowing more consenting adults to decide what they want to count as “marriage” at all, in any universe, a “managing” of human populations? Who exactly is doing the managing here? No, my dear Melanctha. Prop 8 is exactly an attempt to “manage” what is acceptable among a given human population, and you know it.
Melanctha writes,
“And in another 30 years, will we be ignoring other ancient taboos that have had social utility? If your ‘consenting adults’ standard gets argued down to 12 or 14, as some have tried in Britain, will you have no defense against pederasts? If the “consent” of animals is measured by their compliance, are you ready for the sort of epidemics that can result from beastiality?”
RJW: this is known as the “slippery slope” logical fallacy. You can Wikipedia it for an explanation, but here it is in a nutshell: “In debate or rhetoric, the slippery slope is one of the classical informal fallacies. It suggests that an action will initiate a chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later without establishing or quantifying the relevant contingencies.” That is, if you allow gay marriage, people will be marrying children, animals, toasters, etc. etc. It’s yet again another scare tactic. Man, I tell you, people can do (and say apparently) horrible things when they are filled with fear. Logic is usually the first thing out the window. (An interesting side note here: in some of the literature distributed to me and my fellow ward members, one of the ten “talking points” about Prop 8 was actually called “Slippery Slope” ha ha).
Melanctha:
“God is not ok with it, nor any other sexual deviancies and, looking through the long lens, it may not be in our life times, but it will come, rest assured.” And homosexuality is “an ‘abomination’ for which cities were burned.”
RJW: Ultimately, this is your only argument: *God says I’m right.* Unfortunately, for you, this is not a logical argument. Fortunately, for me and other opponents of Prop 8, illogical arguments like this have no legal standing.
Pingback: Connor’s Conundrums » On Claims of Alienation