We Can't Abandon Fundamental Moral Laws

Thanks for the post Mr. Otterson. I hope the vitriol spewed above doesn't discourage you. Others are reading besides those who post, and your messages are always thoughtful and on-point. The doctrine is sound, whether you're looking at scriptural sources or modern prophets. If the scriptures are God's Word, then the issue is settled. If prophets today receive revelation, it's settled. If not, there's a discussion. Period.

Observer:

I had intended to post a response to your question as to the "light of reason" vs. that of faith. However, I cannot improve upon James' pithy post regarding the truth claims of sharply divergent religions, all relying on faith and personal discernment to arrive at such distal points. Bravo James!

This is likely my final post on this thread, and I want to extend my appreciation to all those with whom I had the good fortune to interact here.

Best wishes,

Phaedrus.

Prejudice Against Gays Destined for
Dustbin of History

Mayan, you're right.
Simpson's conversion (he has always seemed to me a fair man, especially for a Republican :-) )

is another sign that the
Ignorance, Prejudice, and Fear

that has fueled immoral discrimination against Gays is destined for the Dustbin of History.

Bull Connor vs. Black civil rights,
Great Patriarch vs. women's rights
the Nazis vs the Jews

will be joined by the
Anti Gay fear mongers
who refuse to recognize the basic human goodness
in their Gay Brothers and Sisters.

Ignorance rarely wins in the long run.

Heraclitus:

You, me, Hippocrates. Just a few old Greek curmudgeons hanging out and holding forth. Some things never...uh....sorry.

Anyway, an excerpt from the SLC paper on Neilson's termination from BYU was posted at 7:42am on 5/12.

Phaedrus,

you have an ally. alan k. simpson agrees that this ridiculous "immoral" label is not a basis for making policy. he, like many other americans and people around the world, has managed to change his views. perhaps as has been suggested on this thread, its only a matter of time before the old guard of the lds church does the same.

==================
from former Senater Simpson:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301507.html

"In World War II, a British mathematician named Alan Turing led the effort to crack the Nazis' communication code. He mastered the complex German enciphering machine, helping to save the world, and his work laid the basis for modern computer science. Does it matter that Turing was gay? This week, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said that homosexuality is "immoral" and that the ban on open service should therefore not be changed. Would Pace call Turing "immoral"?

Since 1993, I have had the rich satisfaction of knowing and working with many openly gay and lesbian Americans, and I have come to realize that "gay" is an artificial category when it comes to measuring a man or woman's on-the-job performance or commitment to shared goals. It says little about the person. Our differences and prejudices pale next to our historic challenge. Gen. Pace is entitled, like anyone, to his personal opinion, even if it is completely out of the mainstream of American thinking. But he should know better than to assert this opinion as the basis for policy of a military that represents and serves an entire nation. Let us end "don't ask, don't tell." This policy has become a serious detriment to the readiness of America's forces as they attempt to accomplish what is arguably the most challenging mission in our long and cherished history.

The writer was a Republican senator from Wyoming from 1979 to 1997."

Quickly to Mayan Elephant:

You are generous in your assessment. My wife says "far too generous." But, I appreciate your assessment all the more, as one coming from a fine wordsmith in his own right.

Questioning the Prophet

Did someone recently say that
Mormons are encouraged to
Question the Prophet and the General Authorities?

That's great!!! As I philosopher who loves questions, that makes me very happy.

Can you give me the official sanction source, to make sure I am not sinning if I do so.

I don't want to be excommunicated. Wasn't a guy named Nielson just excommunicated for questioning the general authorities? I must have that wrong then. I even thought it was about these issues that Gay people have.

Weary, you Got a Big thing Wrong

God is a Woman. A Black Woman.

There is No God but Allah, and Allah has no gender.

Gay Sin

Please read the above statement to mean
"Gays who have gay sex are sinful."

My God and Gays

I am a MORMON named CTR, and MY GOD tells me he is the ONLY God, and that Gays are sinful. I KNOW it is true because I have a Burning in my Chest.

I am a MUSLIM named Abdul, and MY GOD tells me he is the ONLY God, and that Gays are sinful. I KNOW it is true because I have a Burning in my Chest. And my God says very different things than the other Gods claimed here.

I am a CATHOLIC named Kevin, and MY GOD tells me he is the ONLY God, and that Gays are sinful. I KNOW it is true because I have a Burning in my Chest. And my God says very different things than the other Gods claimed here.

I am an Episcopalian named Muffy, and MY GOD tells me he is the ONLY God, and that Gays are NOT sinful. I KNOW it is true because I have a Burning in my Chest. And my God says very different things than the other Gods claimed here.

I am a Hindu named Ramesh, and MY GOD tells me he is the ONLY God, and that Gays are sinful. I KNOW it is true because I have a Burning in my Chest. And my God says very different things than the other Gods claimed here.

Does anyone see a problem with the above complex of statements?

Anyone who can claim this:

Man can say all they want with a stamp called "research,"

has absolutely no concept of research. It might even be said that the primary virtue of empirical research is that man "cannot" use it to place a stamp of approval on whatever he wishes. Much has been said of science, and how it is done, on this thread that is simply untrue, but this one was most straightforwardly false. All the poster has done is ascribe the weaknesses of othr forms of inquiry to the scientific one, where it certainly does not belong.

There is more in the above post that demands scrutiny, but I'll get to that later.

Well, I'll have to say I'm very weary after reading so much contention.

First of all, there is a God, he has laws and he hasn't changed! I have had too many witnesses of his reality to deny it.

The prophets are right again: "People can leave the church but they can't leave it alone."

Most of the time they leave because they are breaking one or more of the commandments and leave the church to try and justify their behavior instead of repenting. Ask any of them; if they're truthful they'll admit it, but they'll probably cloke it to their satisfaction by saying they left because they disagree with the doctrine (i.e. the commandment they broke) and have hence lost their testimony. There is a time in my life when I had sexual relations outside of marriage. I could have got angry with the church because of the commandments. I would only have been harming myself. I knew what I did was wrong -- my conscious hollered at me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I didn't feel relief until I had repented, and God showed me his tender and abundant mercy and was only waiting for me to come back to him. My conscious doesn't bother me about it any more. :)

During the pre-existence (before we came to earth) we lived with God and Jesus Christ. We were men or women. We had freedom to make choices. We had strengths and weaknesses. We came to earth as who we were and will leave as who we are. Sin is sin. God did not send us here to fail and wouldn't "create" a person as homosexual because it is against his commandments. Sorry, I would have to say that homosexuality is a weakness that is like any other weakness (alcoholic, clepto, anger, etc.). We all have them! God did not "create" these weaknesses, we do when we give into them and listen to that bad boy scratch: the devil, who is seeking our misery. Entertaining bad thoughts is sin; having bad thoughts (of any kind) and changing them is not.

Man can say all they want with a stamp called "research," but I know there is a God and know following his laws will bring joy and blessings here and in eternity. I'm trying myself to overcome my own weaknesses, so I'm not condemning any of you who have struggled or who are with whatever you struggle with. Some of you will disagree with me no matter what. Oh well, I know you won't listen anyway.

i mean: Is there room for faith in your view of the world?

Phaedrus, very interested and thinking about your post, will write more later. You asked

"If we want to do our own exploration do we use the light of reason, the light of faith, or a combination of the two?"

I think you answered this in the rest of your post but i don't want to jump to conclusions. Could you expound a bit please?

Sister Mary Lisa said:

"Now you made ME smile with your Shakespeare reference. :)"

yes, the Mayan Elephant did certainly smile.

Phaedrus, know that you have been added to my newest list of heroes. i would love nothing more than to have your wisdom and the ability to express myself as well as you do. tell your mother that she should can be very proud.

Grasshopper ~

Your posts always seem to make me smile, and chuckle a bit too.

RTC- Your post has made me smile. :-)

Grasshopper -

Thanks for your words my friend. You have been most kind for an insect who seems to get very little respect.

But I suppose you to be one who might understand why I speak out so boldly here for those who are smaller, much like yourself who might need others to help out when you may not realize what dangers may lay ahead.

So, be careful in the future, as others do not seem to mind where they step.

James:

Brodie, Quinn, DNA, and the Salamander Letter.

"and the walls came tumbling down."

Salud,

As a follow-up to James' central point, and the response from R, I mean Grasshopper, I would like to ask this question:

Would any of the current LDS on the thread like to provide an example of something they openly disagree with the church leadership on?

I must address a statement made by James wherein he states as fact, “Mormons are taught not to question”, which is a gross generalization of error. Mormons are taught, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” An example of that teaching could not be better illustrated then by reading the posts made by RTC.

Ironically, one of the four “Standard Works” of the Church, the Book of Doctrine and Covenants is simply that, questions and the answers that followed.

Phaedrus, Questions, Answers, and the Truth

Phdrus cut himself off so as not to get off the subject of the thread in his kind and generous response to CO above,

BUT
a large part of his story is directly relevent to the question on this thread.

The Official Mormon Church, and Mormons such as RTC, are convinced that
Gay parents are bad for children
Being Gay is a "Lifestyle" that is a choice to live sinfully while expressing one's sexuality.

The Church and RTC
DO NOT
pose these as questions.
In other words,
they DO NOT ask: are these things true
and then attempt in the fairest, most thorough, most intelligent and reasoned way try to find the answers.

They use biased research, invocation of the word of "God", ignorance,and prejudice to promulgate a position on these issues that is
-overwhelmingly contradicted by all the responsible research that has been done on these questions,
AND
here is the tragic part,
they deny equal rights to, ostracise, characterize as sinners, and try to "cure" a class of people who are often traumatized by this barbaric treatment.

That is Morally Contemptible.

Phaedrus finally DID get the answers to his questions. Mormons are taught NOT to Question, to only read Faithful History, to ignore the fact the Joseph didn't mention the first vision for 17 years.

In the process of ignoring the evidence and staying with an archaic version of "morality" based on a medieval text,

the Church, to use Otterson's phrase
ABANDONS FUNDAMENTAL MORAL LAWS.

(stipulating that the church does lots of good things and that most Mormons are very good people, for the 1000th time).

Phaedrus- Your reference has also made me smile.

If it is implied by your post that I be she, then you are mistaken. I could quote another who was accused of that same thing on this blog who put it quite simply, “so in the future if people post something and you don’t like what they have to say....they are not this RTC.” (Contemporary Mormon expounded quite well on this fact, you may wish to reference his post.)

IF in fact you are simply throwing us into the same “vase” I find the fragrance delightful myself, and thank you for the compliment.

Sister Mary:

;-)

P.

To Casual Observer:

Thank you for a thoughtful post. Your observations and questions help me in clarifying some misperceptions based on my attempt to tell a long story in short fashion. Looking back on what I wrote, I think your observations are penetrating. But to further clarify:

You are correct in stating:
"Your main problem with the faith seems to be with the fact that you didn't get answers to your hard questions. I wonder, have you found your answers elsewhere?"

However, what I should have made more clear was that my failure to get answers was true only "initially." The answers did come when I knew how to pursue them independently. Perhaps you are right that these early questions seem basic to me now, but were challenging then. I do not wish to be unfair to those adults in the ward who responded to me in this way. I now believe that they did not have the answers for themselves at that point either, and my asking them touched on their own insecurities with the vagaries of a new dogma. Nonetheless, I could not help but notice then, and I see it still; those who decry reason and the need for evidence when they fear the direction it may point, rush to embrace it when they think that it points their way.

David Hume once observed: "Man turns on reason when he fears that reason has turned on him." I see much evidence of that in this, and similar threads.

CO, I think that man is faced with a daunting situation in life. We seem to be the only species with a consciousness of the ultimate limit of our existence. As a young college freshman I took to referring to this as "the burden of consciousness." We know that we are frighteningly ignorant in a world full of confusing stimuli. And, as a species, we find this cognizance of ignorance unpleasant, and seek to shine the light of knowledge into its dark corners. Some do this with great fearfulness, some with the excitement of endless challenge, and some leave this exploration to others on whom we then rely to tell us what is found there. (And in the end, we know that we die. "No one here gets out alive.")

But a fundamental question is "what is the best light to use" for the purpose? Is the word of others good enough, despite our not knowing what type of light that they used, or if they used a light at all? The world is full of charlatans who pretend to knowledge they do not have, and never pursued. Such people are to be avioded. If we want to do our own exploration do we use the light of reason, the light of faith, or a combination of the two?

I have been told by hundreds of people that I should "learn to have faith," as oxymoronic as this still sounds. But, those hundreds of people were telling me to have faith in a hundred diferent things, each one of them assuring me that "theirs" was the only truth that I would find. All those people telling me to "listen to my heart and I would find truth," and most of them used the exact same method to come to any number of different conclusions! If you have a calculator that gives you 10 different answers when you put in the same equation 10 times, you get a new calculator. The Muslim is as certain of his god-given truth as the catholic is, the Hindi is, the Mormon is......

The Dalai Lama once wrote: "If Buddhism finds itself at odds with scientific understanding, it is Buddhism that must change." These are truly enlightened words in my opinion.

Reason provides the same answer given the same inputs. The questions are "what to input?", and this is where the wonderful questions are still found. We answer one, and are lucky enough to find another, and it is marvelous. Reason remakes the world continuously, while religion remains mired in the 15th century. You ask if I have found what I looked for as a child, and the answer is both yes and no. I will always have questions, and I am lucky in this way. There are always dark corners, but I am confident that I have the light for exploring them. I now know that what I was looking for is to always have things to look for, and ways of finding them.

I should also say that I did not fully describe how I came to reject LDS dogma. It is not true that I did so because I did not get my questions answered. I did so because of the answers I found when I was old enough to know where to find them. But, this is not the subject of this thread, and to recount such things would lead things off in a new direction. Maybe another time for that.

Thank you again for your keen questions and observations.

Phaedrus ~

Now you made ME smile with your Shakespeare reference. :)

Hopper:

You "fortuitous" timing brings to mind the Bard's most famous floral reference.

"Tenacity and stubborness in pursuit of questionable ends are questionable virtues."

Is there not more than one on this blog that exhibit these same qualities?

How is that for "the pot calling the kettle black"?

HM:

Tenacity and stubborness in pursuit of questionable ends are questionable virtues.

Hi everyone,

To echo some of the thoughts of HHHHHH

Been watching this dialogue here and I want to point out that though RTC is tennacious and stubborn to be sure, she did not say that everyone else is choosing Satan or that she does not look to science at all and therefore would not seek a doctor.

It seems that in these instances the most unflattering inferences of RTC's statements have been made.

Phaedrus,

I don't know about Hippocrates' smile, but if I made YOU smile, then that makes my day.

SML

Sister Mary:

Good point that you make there. On another thread a poster was taking secularism and science to task for being amoral, materialistic, etc. He mentioned how many hospitals had been established by religious organizations, as an example of the superior ethos of the religiously-inclined. Of course, the next poster made mention of the fact that the hospitals were only empty buildings. Whatever relief of pain and suffering that would occur within those walls, would be done by that "wicked old materialistic science."

Hippocrates just smiled.

RTC ~

I just caught up on the last couple days' worth of comments. Wow.

You wrote, "For me personally... seeking for TRUTH and leaving God, the creator of me and this world, out of the equation just does not seem like the right formula....So for me I will trust my God and His unchangeable laws and put Him and His ways far above the always changing, never certain and unhappy ways, of the supposed educated and know-it-all men of the world, who are always searching for truth, but can't seem to figure it out..."

I wonder, do you seek the advice of doctors ("supposed educated and know-it-all men of the world") when you or your loved ones have medical problems? Or is your right formula one where you trust fully that your God will provide you with all the answers you seek, since he created this world as well as any medical problems you may have suffered?

Mayan -

You have clearly stated your shock and disgust as to how you feel, insomuch that it seems you may have even lost your sense of humor? It seems you may have even gone beyond a reasonable ability to regard differences that we as Americans are offered through free speech? Which frankly surprises even me. I thought differently of you? My dialogue with you became difficult and I am disappointed, in that I had hopes of learning much from you, as you seem quite intelligent at times.

Now I find what I detect as hate? I do not feel those kinds of feelings toward anyone here, including you, simply because you do not agree with me. Now I certainly don't have a problem telling you or anyone what I think and why. But, it is only what I think and have found to be true. You have the same right.

IF as you say, they have posted the article (of previous posts) on this website (of which you note), of course and we will both agree, it is to point out that... and as we both have said, to make out what awful people those who do not support the cause of those that engage in homosexual behaviors ARE!

We both agree on this, (meaning - you say we are and I have said you say we are) SO, do we not realize this as their intention If they have it posted? It is about intentions, is it not?

This is my question here? I posted it as information to be learned from, let the article stand for itself.

But this was not to be allowed. Motive will always be required. Will it not? That definitely helps make my earlier point anyway.

My best to you,
rtc

RTC?

like PHAEDRUS? this will be my FINAL response? to you? as well?

your TWO POWERS shot was the final straw? if i understand you correctly? you chose god? and those opposed chose SATAN? nice? your god is a bully? i suppose he would have no objection to flooding the entire earth, save sasquatch and a few white people? you can have that god? and you can have On Faith ALL to yourself?

RTC,

you are wrong again. here is your little article, same site.

http://www.gayconspiracy.co.uk/page57.html

yep, it is awful. and that is exactly the type of people that are carrying your banner and hosting the sort of article you just posted, again.

all i did was look to see where you got the article. my intentions were simply to show the source of your material.

Dearest Phaedrus,

First and above all else, you are a son of God. I know that as an absolute. Because I know that, I know of your infinite worth Phaedrus.

Those who engage in homosexual behavior are of infinite worth. It is because of this individual infinite worth of each son and daughter of God that we labor so diligently for an atmosphere that will provide for them to develop to their full spiritual potential.

I realize that you have taken through a process of logical reasoning the "truth" that a god does not exist. You have convinced yourself that this has freed you from any laws that could be imposed upon this society by the religious among you.

In fact, scientist are so good at this deductive reasoning and teaching its reasoning skills, that they can even teach one to separate feelings, emotions, actions, etc... to the point that the spiritual experiences of how God communicates to man are reasoned away...

They have lumped THE WAY of seeking all types of knowledge into ONE way of FINDING?

Does this fit into HOW we honestly discover what anything IS?

Are YOU not actually DOING what maybe you are suggesting that I am DOING?

You suggest that I am taking the prophets word only? I submit to you I am not...

That would only be true IF I accepted his word only and considered it "peer reviewed" (such as the twelve say?) Then I call it TRUTH!

IS THIS WHAT YOU SUGGEST? If it is, then you would be very, very wrong my friend.

Do you really believe that I could possibly be this passionate, raise a family of five children who gave me heck, have one son probably your age who is in-active, go through three inactive children -- two returned, only one married in the temple out of three married -- another being sealed in a couple of weeks, husband served as a bishop... I could go on and on....

point is, not easy my friend. This life of living the gospel takes WORK! Taking up the cross and holding it up for 30 years when life gets crappy... can suck at times.

It takes more that just wanting to believe what those sweet prophets say, no matter how much you really, really want to believe it!

Now if it was just scientific facts and things didn't need to get personal along the way... well then, maybe we would never hit the wall, but we do. So, like you I study, study, study, BUT I ALSO prayed, prayed, prayed and fasted, fasted, fasted, more times that I can count, and serve, serve, serve to know, know, know, know for MYSELF!

That's life, so... you have it all wrong Phaedrus.

Besides taking the word of the "end result" of findings (prophets in my case) Have you worked as hard to KNOW FOR YOURSELF if what you know is true, really IS true?

Because Phaedrus,

HEAR THIS ONCE AGAIN, YOU ARE A SON OF GOD AND ARE OF INFINITE WORTH, AND THAT GOD LOVES YOU DEARLY... AND THIS IS FOR ALL OF TIME AND ETERNITY -- THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

So: each one of us are the true "scientist" in our discovery of what IS TRUE as we personally MUST discern for ourselves through that POWER OF COMMUNICATION which inherently is the LIGHT WITHIN EACH ONE OF US to call upon...

There are two POWERS of which we may choose to connect with in order to receive and be enlightened by?

I am anonymous this time! lol I am happy to claim her!

***ALERT***ALERT***

POTENTIAL OFFENSIVE LINK ABOVE

POSTED - Posted March 13, 2007 12:14 AM

PLEASE NOTE: Mayan posted a link suggesting that the pdf document that I had previously posted could be found at a certain link that HE included. For many it would be considered a very offensive site. Could this have been his intention?

This is NOT a site I would recommend and is NOT the site I linked to. My link is ONLY to a pdf document. If the doc is at the site, which I doubt... you would need to search through much to find it!

I would still recommend this article to all. In my opinion, it is nothing like what Mayan has stated, but informative.

http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf

RTC:

This will be my last response to you. I respect your right to believe what you want, and to post whatever you want. I am content to disagree with you on this, and many other, issues, and let the readers determine for themselves which of us is more credible. Those who ascribe to the notion that they either discern the will of God, or follow those who do this for them, will likely agree with your conclusion that homosexuality is an abomination, and homosexuals should be treated accordingly. I accept that, understand the basis for it, and in so doing recognize the face of the opposition.

But, you may be surprised by how many of those samepeople disagree with the "reasoning" that brings you to your conclusion. You posts abound with biased sources, non sequitors, meaningless tautologies, and a great number of logical fallacies. I have pointed more than a few of these out to you. In the end, you must accept that there are rules for having logical discussions with other people, and that not following these rules, for whatever reason(s), renders any discussion absolutely fruitless. To do otherwise is merely to polemicize back and forth. Some people like that sort of thing, I do not. Nothing is ever learned, so time is simply wasted.

Casual Observer, John D., Thankful, Flashlight et al; discussion is possible with them because they understand the importance of behaving rationally, which means observing the rules of logical discourse. You have not seen them posting ad hominems, non-sequitors, citing horrendously biased sources, refusing to acknowledge points that others make, or simply (no other word for it), "ranting." Yelling a thing louder does not make it more true.

I do not wish to insult you. I would be willing to bet that you are a relatively nice person, and I know that you REALLY believe what you say, though this is often not such a good thing. But, your beliefs do not appear to be based on any logic that you can elucidate, and so there is not really anything to discuss. It somes down to these propositions:

1. God exists, and he disapproves of homosexuality.
2. This disapproval requires God's followers to oppose all efforts to make homosexuality more accepted in society.
3. Marital rights are a form of societal acceptance.
4. Therefore, God's followers must oppose homosexual marriage, using almost all means seen as necessary.
5. To fail to do so, is, to some degree, to refuse to be a follower of God.
6. This requirement will only be lifted when the LDS leadership tells you it has been lifted.

All the rest for you is mere commentary.

You also fail or refuse to take note of the efforts of others to make logically consistent statements, and engage those statements in like fashion.

And, since you brought my mother into it, let me say that she would take great issue with your method.

That said, I wish you well.

James -

You indeed are a credible source... you said:

"Magazines like Nature don't have a pro or anti gay agenda."

Here is what I found out about "Nature" Magazine... qualifications for those and perks that come along to those who are fortunate enough to publish in this benign little mag.

Publishing in Nature

Having an article published in Nature is very prestigious, and the articles are often highly cited, leading to promotions, grant funding, and attention from the mainstream media.

Because of these positive feedback effects, competition among scientists to publish in high-level journals like Nature and its closest competitor, Science, can be very fierce.

Nature's impact factor for 2005 was 29.273 (as measured by Thomson ISI).

As with most other professional scientific journals, articles undergo an initial screening by the editor, followed by peer review (in which other scientists, chosen by the editor for expertise with the subject matter but who have no connection to the research under review, will read and critique articles), before publication.

In the case of Nature, they are only sent for review if it is decided that they deal with a topical subject and are sufficiently ground-breaking in that particular field. As a consequence, the majority of submitted articles are rejected without review.

According to Nature's mission statement:

It is intended, FIRST, to place before the general public the grand results of Scientific Work and Scientific Discovery; and to urge the claims of Science to a more general recognition in Education and in Daily Life; and, SECONDLY, to aid Scientific men themselves, by giving early information of all advances made in any branch of Natural knowledge throughout the world, and by affording them an opportunity of discussing the various Scientific questions which arise from time to time.

Me - back to my previous post of thoughts and comments?

To suggest that there is no motives to those who give their reviews, for the scientist of the findings and now we shall introduce the COMPANIES which will benefit when these findings are made public and published?

Shall we continue? Motives are a part of our world and we must acknowledge this in all things!

The question is... what kind of motives are they?

Selfish, financial, evil, pure?

That is the question?

Thank you James.

Phaedrus or Pheadrus? If you can't get it right, how can you expect me to? lol

PHAEDRUS:

Unfortunately, it is just these very advocacy groups that are exposing the agendas of the very so-called "reputable" sources that you adhere to...

It is no wonder that you do not post anything that would associate to them?

Thus the absolute need to discredit them in every possible way on this thread.

Advocacy groups are THE PEOPLE! PEOPLE ARE INTELLIGENT AND THEY HAVE AND DO gather information supporting and the facts regarding that which they advocate.

They are a very VALID and CREDIBLE source for THE PEOPLE.

AND as with any information that any of us acquire WE as an INDIVIDUAL must then DISCERN it for ourselves and decide whether we accept or reject it...

IT IS OUR CHOICE!

There is a reason that I have not cited pro-gay publications on this or any other thread. These organizations put out information defending homosexuality and attacking their detractors, just like the FRC, the ACP, Focus on the Family etc, do on the other side. But, because they have a clear agenda, and their information is inherently biased, they have no place in a reasonable discussion based on reliable sources of information. Nor have I cited left-wing groups like moveon.org, the ACLU etc, because they also have an agenda that colors what they choose to report, and how they report it. So, anyone who cites the American Spectator as an example of responsible journalism either does not know what responsible journalism means, or does not care about being responsible.

That said, the Spectator article is instructive in pointing out another obvious logical fallacy. The article describes the breakup of a relationship, the struggle for custody of a child, and the suspicion that concerns, other than the best interest of the child, are being given greater respect in the dispute.

Now, which of these material dynamics is true ONLY of homosexual relationships? These unfortunate (if you believe the Spectator has not left out key details) circumstances are characteristic of many marital and non-marital dissolutions every day, and have nothing to say about gay marriage at all. To cite these sources and to fail to recognize these fallacies is either simple carelessness or willful intent to deceive.

The American Psychological Association, which is a reputable scientific body, has found NO connection between homosexual parenting and poor developmental outcomes.

To put out this kind of "information" is to show disrespect for other participants to the discussion, in my opinion.

James and Phaedrus,

My apologies for insulting a very valid source (peer reviewed journals) of information that is highly thought of by many, nonethless, there are reasons to be skeptical of even these we must admit?

I think you also miss the point though, in your insisting that when an entire group in this country who oppose your views and upon presentation they then powerfully lay before you evidence that strongly supports their reasons for that opposition.

But IF that evidence does not fall into what YOU deem, judge or categorize as scientifically acceptable, then it is rejected immediately as NOT VALID.

Whether this be a single person, a group of persons with valid personal opinions, testimonies, etc...

How can this be? And you claim to be seekers of TRUTH?

THIS DOES NOT COMPUTE?

How is it that you ONLY deem quality information of that which comes from college files of who knows who scientist? These people may submit anything or findings they like? They can then be reviewed by other "objective" expert scientist who have no "bias" whatsoever?

Now... WHY, would another expert scientist take ALL the time required to review another scientist findings so that it could pass this review or stamp of approval in it's field? And the required time it takes for this review is amazing!

HOW can anyone believe that there is NO motivation to move a cause? That is simply IMPOSSIBLE.

Do you not see how insensitive and not to be disrespectful, but truly ignorant it is to ignore the many, many experiences of individuals and families, as well as the opinions of such a large majority of people in this country who deeply value the traditional institution of marriage between only a man and a woman?

Do you really feel that it serves your cause to back this group into a corner and now make them out to be such a terrible group, even your own mother?

Would you actually end up at this place with HER? I think you would... because she sounds so much like me. Honestly guys... I can't imagine if we were face to face we would want to be at odds as human beings with each other in such a way?

Think of "me" as your mom? No disrespect intended... I bring this up because I believe you have said, at least one of you, that she is a good thinker, but on THIS thing she loses it? lol Don't you find that odd?

Don't you think it should cause you to THINK just a little bit more on this one?

Profile:
generally active nana, raised five somewhat normal children, has six grandchildren, happily married 28.5 years to the same man, active in her chuch, teaches seminary, enjoys techy stuff, reading, travel, music, some say she suddenly lost it on internet blog when discussing same-sex marriage... !!!

So I am thinking if you took her to the wall on this issue, you just might be looking at RTC! lol Have you thought about THAT?

So maybe I am one of your worst nightmares? Therapy time boys? lol

Well anyway... give it a thought my friends.

Me too:-)

RTC
you REALLY do need to take a course in critical thinking and evaluating evidence.

I am impressed by your stubbornness in refusing to realize the basic reasoning mistakes you are making. Our president is a good model for that also.

Of course a Single Source *can* provide true information. But only a child takes the word of one source in making important decisions.

Again, there are millions of sources out there. Magazines like Nature don't have a pro or anti gay agenda.

You don't really need this explained to you, do you? You are being ironic, aren't you?

The results of an "irony-deficient" diet:

"OR better yet, IF it is in a two person "peer reviewed journal", of which of course there is absolutely no bias involved... right?

And we ALL buy that, of course we do."

The denigration of science and the methods by which it is done, while typing madly away on material evidence of the fruits of those methods.

Phaedrus [and others], I am mostly sorry to hear about your experience in the LDS church. I think you got a bum deal on an otherwise, beautiful religion. Your main problem with the faith seems to be with the fact that you didn't get answers to your hard questions. I wonder, have you found your answers elsewhere? (I apologize for asking so personal questions, I'm truly interested). It seems to me that your questions were very specific and VERY HARD. "Why the Curse?" "Why 8 years old?" And they obviously are still very specific and very hard, "Why can't two responsible loving people be married based solely on their gender?" No-one has convinced you based on their secular arguments and the moment someone appeals to a higher authority you bemoan the fact that "[your] appeals to fairness, tolerance, and legal rights mean nothing in the face of supernaturally-derived convictions". I think I understand what you mean by your statement which I have just quoted but please understand our view on it. Imagine if the spiritually (read: supernaturally)-derived convictions are REAL. Meaning there is a higher authority, who is the definition of GOOD, who does reveal his will to people, and not only has he revealed his will to people but he has done it by means of a well-established pattern (prophets) that can be recognized and tested by those who seek to know his will. Then I interpret your statement as "[your] appeals to {the current societal perspective on} fairness, tolerance, and legal rights mean nothing in the face of {God}-derived convictions" Which I'm sure you'll recognize as something no mormon would argue with.

I understand this must be very frustrating for someone who is so logical, because the truths we hold to ARE spiritually, not logically derived (this does NOT make them illogical, I think John D has done very well at arguing that point). In my mind, it comes down to this: the hardest questions have never been answered satisfactorily to me [I won't speak for anyone else] by any of the philosophers which you obviously respect (phaedrus). Why are we here? Is there a reason? Why is there pain in the world? Why are we all different? How can someone know what is REAL and TRUE? These are the questions that our religion in general makes the bold step of answering. Mormonisms answers are unique, sublime beyond description (I think), and they lead to our answers to other questions ("Why can't two responsible loving people be married based solely on their gender?"). If not seen from the perspective of the bigger questions, then I believe you when you say that our arguments seem lacking in terms of legal rights. But IF you look at it from "thankfuls" perspective, that we have a divine purpose and potential, and it's not just to sing in choirs in heaven, but it involves a perfect eternal partnership of man and woman in eternal creation; then you too would disagree with and vote against anything that legitimizes a destruction of that potential, despite arguments for legal rights and tolerance &c.

Phaedrus and james,

I really appreciate you guys giving us a little background, as someone stated earlier, the mormons on this post seem to be at a disadvantage since we seem to be constantly grouped together with respect to our beliefs and the "other team" remain an amorphous group in every respect except their advocating gay marriage (thus allowing me to call them a team :) ). This has been a fascinating discussion, thanks to all. And I have to say that I really have enjoyed and thought about your comments. Bit by bit the amorphism is being stripped away as Sister Mary Lisa, Mayan Elephant, Phaedrus, James (who am I missing?) reveal that they have LDS backgrounds (not that there was much doubt to begin with but we respect your privacy).

The only opposition that appears to make an attempt are flimsy insults, as well as others that hide behide psuedo-psuedos...

Truth is a tough opponent for you, I realize.

Now, if you would seriously like to address an issue as yourselves, (who you normally are here) not rudely, name calling or insulting, just let me know and I would be happy to hear or learn from you in an adult manner as I always have on these threads.

It is interesting how little addressing of RTC's links is being done (well, maybe an allegation against FRC).

It is also interesting to note how much energy is devoted to insulting or belittling RTC. This is behavior is highly interesting, considering that most pro-gay rights advocates count on having substantial evidence on their side.

Probably the weight of 2,000,000 Danes is a little too heavy of a mental burden, and that explains the hit-and-run ad-hominems.

ANONYMOUS AND MAYAN -

Are you kidding me? My response/question back to Phaedrus regarding holocaust survivors was intended to give their ONENESS ABSOLUTE CREDIBILITY! hello?

I would imagine most would have seen this, but AS USUAL you are seeing ONLY THE TWISTED again...

What material that opposes the homosexual agenda would you then find digestible?

Also, it is the one by one, by one, by one, by one accounts of the individual that you are bothered by? Is it the power of truth that frightens you so? Gee, it was just an article.

But IF it works FOR you THEN you are okay with it... right?

OR better yet, IF it is in a two person "peer reviewed journal", of which of course there is absolutely no bias involved... right?

And we ALL buy that, of course we do.

rtc,

i just read that crap you posted. it is hosted here:
http://www.gayconspiracy.co.uk/page7.html

go ahead, read more of their filth. i got the sickest when i read how homosexuality was the foundation for the creation of nazi germany. go figure.

as much as i am beginning to hate everything you say and the very foundation of your faith, i think it very important to say that not all mormons are as terrible as you are being on this thread. in fact, for the most part, they are very good people and would likely do right for others if their leaders would also choose the right. by calling you 'terrible' i mean - harmful and dangerous. i dont think you will ever change. hopefully, the generation that follows you will somehow neutralize your efforts while you carry on in your lunacy.

RTC replied (in response to Phaedrus): "DIDN'T YOU MEAN HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS?"

RTC, You really should stop now. You are hurting yourself and your religious community with such stupidity, bigotry and rottenness. Be done with it. I do not believe there are Holocaust Survivors using the "fallacy of one" argument to support their story. To suggest they are doing so is outrageous. Your suggestion that they are doing so highlights your blind-obedience and denial of reality.

As has been noted above, the ACP was formed to oppose the American Academy of of Pediatrics on issues concerning sexuality and sexual health. The American College of Pediatricians' policies primarily concern:

-Opposing same-sex marriage and same-sex family adoption
-Opposing contraception other than sexual abstinence (including Emergency contraception)
-Opposing abortion access
-Promoting the corporal punishment of children

Their positions are faith-based and are not peer reviewed. Are you not mature enough to agree that any institution that opposes contraception is not one that should be referenced in this or any other dialog? Apparently not. Please do Mr. Otterson a favor and find another hobby.

FACINATING DOCUMENT... HIGHLY RECOMMEND.

The Trojan Couch: How the Mental Health Guilds Allow Medical Diagnostics, Scientific Research and Jurisprudence to be Subverted in Lockstep with the Political Aims of their Gay Sub-Components
Psychology Losing Scientific Credibility, Say APA Insiders

Fairytales remind us of those simple truths that, as adults, we no longer wish to accept. “The
Emperor’s New Robes” shows us that in every generation, on certain matters, a whole society—
its experts, its most admired, respected, and trusted leaders and counselors —will adopt as
authoritative a complete illusion. Some of my psychiatric and psychological colleagues have
woven for themselves their own set of illusory robes of authority, and for the past thirty -five
years have been proclaiming doctrines in the public square that depend upon the authority that
derives from the public’s belief that these robes exist. In particular, they have claimed to the
Supreme Court that the scientific data show that homosexuals form a “class” whose boundaries
are defined by a stable “trait.” This presumption is false, yet the recent Supreme Court decisions
pertaining to same-sex marriage have taken it for granted.

http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf

PHAEDRUS:

DIDN'T YOU MEAN HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS?

Sunday, February 25th, 2007
The following letter appeared in the Centre Daily Times, State College, PA Feb 22, 2007:

Evidence contradicts conclusion

In his past two columns, Leonard Pitts has written at length about why he believes that gay and lesbian couples should not have children.

He couched the issue in terms of his perceived need for the biological father to be present at home.

Last Sunday, he cited research that supposedly shows that children in a home without a biological father were at greater risk for all sorts of problems.

In citing that research, however, he inappropriately conflated two issues: risks to children in single-parent homes and risks to children in two-parent gay and lesbian families. The research on the gay and lesbian families provides a different picture than he provided.

Children who are raised in two-parent gay and lesbian homes do just as well as children who are raised in two-parent heterosexual homes.

The American Psychological Association reports: “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.”

Lisa Stevenson
State College

——————————
A response to this letter from Gary L. Morella follows:

Lisa Stevenson stated that “The American Psychological Association reports: ‘Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.’”

This is not true per The American College of Pediatricians, which is a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents.

In a report entitled Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change?

The ACP said the following.

“Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables. Childrearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent.”
Citing 26 references on the risks of homosexual lifestyle to children, the ACP concludes:

“The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, The American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.”
For the difficulties in blindly referencing the American Psychological Association see the following:

The Trojan Couch: How the Mental Health Guilds Allow Medical Diagnostics, Scientific Research and Jurisprudence to be Subverted in Lockstep with the Political Aims of their Gay Sub-Components
Psychology Losing Scientific Credibility, Say APA Insiders
Gary Morella is a Catholic member of the research faculty of Penn State University, and a father and grandfather who is concerned whether there will be a recognizable faith left to his children and grandchildren.

,

From the FRC to the American Spectator. Not exactly "Nature" or "New England Journal of Medicine" material there.

Arguing from single cases is the "fallacy of the one," as any cause or position can identify single sets of circumstances or phenomena to support any argument. This technique has also been used to some effect by Holocuast deniers.

That is enough far- right merde for one evening. g' night all.

Okay, so truth can only come from your scholarly sources and not from a right-wing, as you say... religous group of people, which you deem not credible? Hmmm?

What about the individuals who gave these those testimonies? Are these children now liars too? What are their words to you? How shall we judge their words that we have before us?

Maybe you would prefer this scenario hot off the press? 

Uncivil Unions
By W. James Antle III
Published 2/12/2007 12:06:33 AM

What harm is there in redefining marriage to include same-sex partnerships? It's a reasonable question. One might begin to answer by looking at the ongoing Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins case, in which a woman may see her biological child taken from her home and placed in the custody of her former lesbian lover.

The protagonists in this heartrending conflict were profiled in last week's Washington Post Magazine. Virginians Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins traveled to Vermont in late 2000 to enter into a civil union.

The following year, Miller was artificially inseminated "with sperm from an anonymous man the two women knew only as donor No. 2309."

On April 16, 2002, baby Isabella was born, and the three relocated to a small Vermont town about 15 miles east of the New York border.

Yet they did not live happily ever after.

While much of what happened next remains in dispute, a few facts are clear...

...a new definition of marriage that does not consider childrearing very important is especially likely to subordinate children's interests to adult desires.

When a woman with a troubled family history enters into a relationship with another woman and conceives a child with a stranger's sperm, potential difficulties are easy to foresee. Yet an increasing number of states want to rewrite the basic assumptions of the family to accommodate such arrangements.

"Anyone who buys detergent should know that 'new' does not always equal 'improved,'" David Frum warned a dozen years ago. "Men ejaculating into little cups and selling lives to women who will attempt to raise them fatherlessly -- that's new, all right, but no improvement."



The cultural drift that made all this imaginable started long before same-sex marriage and civil unions became controversial issues. "At one [recent] debate, I asked the audience if we could at least agree, all other things being equal, that it is best for a child to have both a mom and a dad when possible," Liberty Counsel attorney Rena Lindevaldsen told me. "I couldn't get agreement even on that much."

It is a strange exception to liberalism's importunate claim to do everything "for the children." And, we're likely to discover, an extremely costly one.

read entire article...
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11003


For those who may not knw, the Family Research Council is a right wing Christian organization headed by Gary Bauer, former Republican candidate for President. The group is notorious for its research "methodology" which includes identifying "cases" by pre-selection bias and then spuriously attributing "findings" to social practices that the group finds objectionable. The group's findings are a clasisic example of the "appeal to pseudoscience" and are accepted by no legitimate scientific associations.

RTC, my old friend?

Amending James, you can't really think WE are stupid enough to consider the FRI a credible research organization, can you? This is the description from Wikipedia:

"The Family Research Institute (FRI) is an American non-profit organization based in Colorado Springs, Colorado which states that it has "...one overriding mission: to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality, AIDS, sexual social policy, and drug abuse." [1] FRI is part of a movement of small, often faith-based organizations (sometimes called the Christian Right) which seek to influence the political debate in the United States. They seek "...to restore a world where marriage is upheld and honored, where children are nurtured and protected, and where homosexuality is not taught and accepted, but instead is discouraged and rejected at every level." "

Why would you think that citing a religious right organization that has no credibility in the world of social science would be convincing?

RTC
Are you an Idiot????????

The FRC is a right wing completely biased advocacy organization.

There are eight million legitimate sources you can cite on this subject,
and none of the respectable sources says anything like what FRC says on this issue.

You can't really be this stupid.

All: To read these reports will break your hearts...

Children Of Homosexual Parents Report Childhood Difficulties

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_homokids.html

Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron

Summary: Referenced as both supporting and weakening the case for parenting by homosexuals, 57 life-story narratives of children with homosexual parents published by Rafkin in 1990 and Saffron in 1996 were subjected to content analysis.

Children mentioned one or more problems/concerns in 48 (92%) of 52 families. Of the 213 scored problems, 201 (94%) were attributed to the homosexual parent(s).

Older daughters in at least 8 (27%) of 30 families and older sons in at least 2 (20%) of 10 families described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.

These findings are inconsistent with propositions that children of homosexuals do not differ appreciably from those who live with married parents or that children of homosexuals are not more apt to engage in homosexuality.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_homokids.html

This may be old news, I don't know, but someone sent me this link that contains a letter from Eccles Hardy to Boyd Packer. It portrays the anguish of Mormons who have loved ones harmed by the LDS stance on homosexuality.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/hardy.shtml

Joy -

It is so nice to hear a friendly voice:-) Thank you for popping back in to have your voice heard once again on this topic.

I have reflected on a garden called Eden recently... wherein a serpent beguiled a woman there as I recall... Perhaps you are familiar with this story?

It is told that her God placed she and her beloved companion into this garden also called paradise. There they were married and he commanded them that they should multiply and replenish the earth and that they should have joy and rejoicing in their posterity!

He also told them that they were to enjoy the garden and to take care of it and that they were allowed to eat anything in the garden freely, EXCEPT.... they were NOT to partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But IF they did eat any fruit of that tree, they would definitely DIE!

Now, he did tell them they had AGENCY, which meant they could CHOOSE for themselves what they were going to do, but that HE forbade it!

One problem that they soon realized was, that this having children thing was not happening in the garden?

Now this serpent came along and tried to get the guy to eat the fruit from the tree god told them not to? The guy said "no way"! The serpent thought he would go try the women...

Now the serpent was very persuasive. He curled himself around the woman and came up from behind her in the most smoooooth like fashion one can imagine? In fact, he was so slippery, that she hardly even knew he was right there beside her... when he whispered her name just so as to catch her attention and catch her off guard.

Well, she was surprised and curious at the same time, so vulnerable she was at this point... so she gave him audience to find out what he had to say?

Of course, she could not help but noticed the beautiful fruit that he displayed before her, as he had wrapped it so seductively before her, that it might be most pleasing above all else in the garden.

She was very, very interested to find out all she could about it at this point, more interested in it than anything else for this one moment, as it had "truthfully" caught her attention, for what he was saying about it sounded so logical to her mind?

He said he noticed how intelligent she was and this was certainly most true as well. He recognized her desire to become as the gods... knowing good and evil. He told her that HE knew just HOW this could happen! Oh how she wanted this KNOWLEDGE!!!

AND That she had been tricked by those she trusted? NOW... If she listened to HIM and partook of IT, then she could SURPASS the gods and become HER OWN GOD!

and she partook....

Adam fell that men might be and men are that they might have JOY! (what a beautiful name your parents gave you:-)

It is a profound lesson that we learn from the garden call Eden... that the true god that so many follow of this world is none other than that old serpent from the garden of so long ago.

There are only two forces or powers in this world. If we deny the God of which we declare, then they may call it whatever they will? It has beguiled them as well...

We all have ultimately two choices in this life... Which God do you choose?

Yes, it is that simple.

It is the ultimate TRUTH that our first parents came to KNOW and that each one of us will journey to... it is our DESTINY, not IF, but WHEN....

Best to you Joy. I look forward to many words of wisdom from you in the future, as you always inspire me.
Thank you,
rtc

ps. i always post as myself folks. never embarrassed or ashamed to say what i say... never have been! haven't you noticed?

James:

I absolutely INSIST that I am more ridiculous than you! Stop lobbying Anonymous for the honor!

Anonymous:
Are you propositioning me? Send me a picture.

Joy: that was a nice post to Phaedrus. Your concern is genuine and you believe he is on the wrong path, and you are compassionate. You clearly state your position with no malice.

Phaedrus: too bad you are married, or you and I could satisfy Anonymous by taking up the gay lifestyle. I am actually fond of penguins, but am monogamous.

Your story is more interesting than mine, which is more of an All American Basketball Captain than a long haired drummer. Your creative thinking fits with your creative rebellion history. (see Anan, I must be trying to pick up Phaedrus: you know how those Greeks are).

Part of my reaction to Mormonism was to study morality even more. The blindness of many religious people, who call themselves the Moral Majority for instance, is stunning.

I also have studied and lived Spirituality much more richly since I left the church, and am again amazed by the stance of spiritual superiority people take just because they go to Church and obey their leaders.

Again, most mormons are very good people. Boyd Packer is not, he is the equivalent of an East German communist tyrant.

But the "search for Truth" and assuredness of believers who have had the burning in their chests is unbelievable, given that 2/3rd of the other 6 billion people in the world are JUST as Sure that they have found the truth, and it contradicts the Mormon truth in about 4,000 ways.

Anonymous: give me your number. I'll call you. We can have anonymous s#x.

Anonymous:

Please accept my apology, the last post was for you.

Dr. Phaedrus.

Ann:

Please let James and I know when you come to a conclusion as to which of us is "most ridiculous."

We will await your judgement with due anxiety. :)

Joy:

I know that you mean that as an expression of caring, and I accept it as such.

Reagrds,

Jame & Phaedrus

Can't decide what' more ridiculous

James not including wanting to live a gay life in his logical leave the church equation

or

"Dr." Phaedrus buying it.

Codependent with our clients huh?

a wonderful discourse on seeking the truth

no thanks

Phaedrus,

I was writing my last post while you were posting yours. I know many people whose journey in life leads them to question and seek spiritual answers. It seems your journey has led you to a different place than mine. I hope you take this in the spirit it is written - It makes me sad to see the result of your journey thus far. I say 'thus far' with the hopes that you continue to seek truth and have not totally closed your mind to finding it in spiritual realms.

I thought that I was done with this blog on this thread. :)

I agree with you RTC.

This whole discussion reminds me a group of people who lived a number of years ago. They were told about God's laws by 'prophets'. They didn't like what they heard at all! They were doing things that were expressly against what these 'prophets' said were God's laws. The people became so angry that they spit upon the prophets and insulted them. In some cases they actually threw objects at these horrible prophets. How dare these guys tell THEM what was right and what was wrong!

So instead of listening and trying to find out if what the prophets said was truly God's law, they looked around for other people who would tell them what they wanted to hear. They looked for people who would tell them that it was okay to continue doing the things that the prophets said were wrong. And they found some people who would do just that! They were so excited that they showered these people with gifts and money!

So now I think this story took place a long time ago, no...maybe it was biblical, no... but maybe in scriptures somewhere, no.. maybe it happened in a novel somewhere, no...maybe it...I know where I heard this story! - it was talking about CURRENT events!...no ...hmmm...

James:

Thanks for the clarifications, our paths have been similar in some ways, different in others. Please pardon if this is a bit tedious:

I grew up in the Blueridge Mountains, very working class area, neither of my parents went to college, though both are very bright and have done quite well in their chosen fields. My mother started taking us to the small LDS branch in our town when I was 6. My aunt and Uncle were LDS, Mom joined when I was 7, my father never became a member although he attended sac mtg every week.

Early on it was OK. One of the missionaries was one of those wonderful people you meet as a boy and instantly look up to. He baptised me, and I looked to be on my way towards the whole bit; seminary, mission, BYU.

And then I started to ask some inconvenient questions. Our ward was primarily composed of recent converts, and they had the zeal of the recently converted, without the doctrinal sophistication that comes over time. Most of my questions were actually extremely basic, in retrospect: stuff like "Who decided that 8 yrs old should be the age when you get baptised?" Or, "Why did God tell Nephi to kill Laban, when he could have just forced him to hand over the plates?" Or, "Why do we say that Lamanites were CURSED with a red skin, isn't it a good thing to be an Indian?" These questions would be handled deftly by most Mormon adults, but they were not in our ward at the time, and I was told to be quiet, "after all, YOU aren't the Prophet you know." But, I also noticed that even though I was encouraged to take everything on faith, whenever something came out in the news that could be taken to support Mormonism's claims in any way, the members embraced it with great enthusiam. An example was the Ra Expedition, and the Kon Tiki. When Heyrdahl (sp?) "proved" that a boat made of reeds could sail long distances, they insisted that this "proved" that the Nephites could have sailed to the New World from the Middle East using only those materials and methods that were available to them at the time.

But, when I asked questions that challenged something in the BOM or Bible, suddenly, "evidence was only for those who lacked faith." A false note had crept in by the time I was in my early teens. I never "decided" to seek out more questions, I just could not help myself, I had a drive to "know." I also noticed that the world was full of people who made claims that contradicted Mormonism, and they were just as certain that they were right as the LDS were. I felt as if everyone had something to sell, and I did not particularly care to buy. I became a voracious reader, about history and science and philosophy, although I did not understand much of what I read, I freely admit. (Damn that Kant!)

Over time, the more I learned about how things worked, in ways that could be demonstrated and measured, the less sense "it," theology itself, made. (I was still terrified that I was going to hell though!) When I read Origin of Species, I remember being floored by how Darwin piled on layers of fact just like the layers of rock that told the evolutionary story. I thought, and still think, that it is beautiful in its workings. I found the facts of the natural world far more interesting and beautiful than Genesis ever was.

I had also become the Mormon kid that Mormon parents did not want their kids to be around. A lot of the parents seemed to feel sorry for me, and I knew that I was hugely disappointing my Mother. I was angry about that, and about being told to use my mind for some things, and turn it off for others. I had become a pretty surly character, long hair, loud music, a drummer in a band, and since none of those rules are based on anything solid, I felt I could just make my own. Not a good time. I messed up in school, only wanted to learn what I wanted to learn, and not what YOU wanted me to learn. I got sick of hearing "But, you have so much potential!"

So, I went to a state school, loved psychology, loved to party, and still wondered what God was gonna do with me when the bill came due. I had broken with Mormonism, "No Man Knows My History" finished me off, and with every other organized religion, but had not yet made the final break with God.

That came during my Junior year. I was in a critical thinking course, and realized early on that THIS was what I had needed to know as a kid. THIS was how you determined the rational and true, from the irrational and false. Ideas either stood on their merits, or they did not, independent of who said or wrote or thought them. I had a great professor who is still my friend today, and he became my intellectual mentor. He challenged the hell out me, drove me crazy with questions that seemed so simple, but under the surface they were the great questions, ("And what is the "good" Pheadrus, need we anyone to tell us these things?)

And that is when it all started to come down. When God was exposed as irrational, he became the sum total of every false claim over my whole life to that point. IF we were made in his image, and if rationality itself was the greatest of our abilities, then he would not be refuted by it as easily as he was. At that point I admitted to myself, if not everyone else (that came later), that I was an atheist.

I have changed many things since then. The hair was cut, the substance abuse became distance running, the anger became a tempered intensity (most of the time anyway). I went back to school for a couple of graduate degrees, and now my wife picks on me for being so "conservative." But I am still an atheist, and every day that stance matches the incoming data a little more. I care more about social issues now than I do Kant, and I laugh at the fallacy that only the religious care about morality. I know that truth is what it is, independent of what we may "feel" about it. I just happen to feel good about it more days than not.

Betty and James -

Thank you. You both are an excellent example to those who understand that of which I am speaking about. You have once again displayed it well.

I just said:

"It is when we use ALL sources of obtaining information that we truly can then feel confident that we have understanding and knowledge regarding what is TRUTH."

"FACTS, REASONING, FAITH, PRAYER.... ALL OF IT = TRUTH"

If I chose, which I do not, we could go back and forth and I could allow you to completely distort everything that I made absolutely clear. And no doubt, that between a few of you, that is what you will do? Because that is what you do very well.

My point is well made. It is simply that you once again, have turned attention from you for the moment and TRUTH...

and now ATTEMPT TO TWIST AND CONVOLUTE TRUTH WHEN IT STARES YOU RIGHT IN THE FACE! Choosing only what works FOR you at the time and for the current trend.

I suppose we shall continue to observe this well rehearsed pattern of dialogue.

This is an ABSOLUTE TRUTH as I see it.

RTC

Could you give us one example of an ABSOLUTE Truth?

Esp one that has some implication for how human beings should act?

Come on, RTC.

You Mormons are not the only people who realize that there are many ways of knowing.

Emmanual Kant said we have a "moral law within us" which we understand as our evolutionary heritage (you do believe in evolution, don't you?).

My non Mormon friends have a much more highly developed imagination, and connection to the symbolic meanings in Art, than my Mormon friends and relatives, on average. That's a different way of knowing.

Loving kindness to ones fellows involves compassion and understanding of their suffering, an empathetic way of knowing.

Don't put yourself up as someone who has more and better ways of knowing than your fellows.

You certainly have not demonstrated that with your posts here. Love ya.

RTC

You are so convinced of many “absolute truths” that are clearly NOT absolutely true. Are you a prophet?

You write “it is in the nature of man to want to answer to no authority.”
The Nazi’s proved that, didn’t they. At the MOST your statement is half right., but even granting you that, it is a very misleading generalization that adds Nothing to human understanding. Did God reveal this to you?

No society allows the individual to create his own morality, as you state. If you actually read just a fraction of the reams of research and evidence on this topic you would realize this.

If you totally rely on the word of God to explain the world to you, you would still believe that the world is 6,000 years old (you don’t, do you?).

There are some things that reasonable people have to figure out for themselves: which stocks to buy, who to vote for (the Mormon Church doesn’t tell you to vote Republican, does it).

Since humans have to make decisions based on evidence from time to time, should we not develop our ability to evaluate evidence?

It is incredibly Arrogant for a person to say she knows the Truth because God has revealed it to her (and with NO other evidence).

Intelligent scientists are eternally skeptical of their own knowledge, always testing it.

You are sure you are right because you get a burning in your chest. 6 billion other people in this world get burnings in their chests telling them very different things than yours tells you.

Your standard of truth is: MY God tells me its true (even if it contradicts what all the other Gods say). Yes, that is supremely un-intelligent, allowing that you do not value intelligence as a human quality.

It is the nature of man to want to answer to no authority. Therefore he sets himself up to become his own god. He answers to no one except that society which allows him to create his own acceptable morality... whatever that may be to those he may convince to join him or tolerate the behavior he engages in.

There is no fixed truth, only that which satisfies the current main of society, with whatever the trend may be -- so it goes that those with the slickest access to media, education, financial and political influence, etc... can then convince and lull the masses into somehow believing through some kind of deductive reasoning of twisted logic by which they themselves have discovered TRUTH?

There is no absolute truth in this process. But who can see this? Certainly not those that sell it, for how could they? A true salesman MUST believe in his product whole heartedly in order to convince others. He must fool himself first! He must believe the "fake" truth first. He must believe his lie even in the face of opposing TRUTH!

This is the KEY in detecting what is TRUTH and what is false-truth.

The great lie to the world is that there is only one kind of truth and that is factual truth and that there is only one way of obtaining truth....

But this is such a huge lie that is is almost laughable. In fact it is laughable. For science is based on reasonable theory.... along with some facts.... and much patience.... and a lot of talking heads!

There is much more TRUTH to be discovered by the humble seeker who will come to it through FAITH unto PRAYER as he approaches the one who knows all things.

It is when we use ALL sources of obtaining information that we truly can then feel confident that we have understanding and knowledge regarding what is TRUTH.

FACTS, REASONING, FAITH, PRAYER.... ALL OF IT = TRUTH

L@@K for yourselves at what in this world brings forth that which is good? Oh yes, you can find isolated incidents in all good things to find a black spot to tear down... for imperfect beings are involved. But I challenge you to take that which is GOOD AND OF GOD and tear it down when lived well? I am speaking of the God of the Old and New Testaments.

Jesus Christ teaches that which is good. Those who live what he teaches are a blessing to others in every way. He teaches a pure life which leads to very little conflict other than when taking up the cross, IT can cause a bit of a conflict with those that oppose HIS LAWS... But His laws are fixed as He commands.

Those who would be their own lawmakers and place themselves above the creator of this world are those that will have conflict with TRUTH.

For me personally... seeking for TRUTH and leaving God, the creator of me and this world, out of the equation just does not seem like the right formula.

It is like making the self god. I know God lives and that He created this world and that there are laws that govern it and moral laws that govern His children for our happiness. I believe that the closer society as a whole can live His laws, then He is able to bless us.

So for me I will trust my God and His unchangeable laws and put Him and His ways far above the always changing, never certain and unhappy ways, of the supposed educated and know-it-all men of the world, who are always searching for truth, but can't seem to figure it out...

Contemporary said: "for the rest... other people (lds) do not agree with your pro-homosexual agenda. don't you get it? this is otterson's thread and we are lds. you are speaking in opposition here and of course those of the faith are going to support otterson. what would you expect?"

um, other people dont agree? really? i. am. shocked. i had no clue that there was disagreement. thanks for pointing that out.

this "homosexual agenda" you mention is just loosey goosey language on your part. it means nothing. its as useless and meaningless as saying, "the mormon church is true." i mean, what exactly is true? can bricks and mortar be true? yes, some people are pro-marriage for all people, and some people are not. but to lump everything into a homosexual agenda group, as if everyone that was opposed to discrimination of homosexuals also agreed about everything else, is dumb.

this is NOT otterson's thread. it belongs to newsweek/washington post. there is nothing keeping otterson from starting his own blog, except maybe fear and common sense. please dont be misled, he is a guest on this site, not an owner.

yes, of course those of the faith will support otterson. of course. they will also raise their right arm to the square several times a year to publicly swear to support the brethren. its not a secret to anyone. nor is it a surprise. phaedrus just posted some links and information regarding one person that disagreed with the brethren. no wonder every vote to sustain the brethren as prophets, seers and revelators is unanimous. it is still concerning that so many people will believe the counsel of those old guys without having considered that as recently as last year, oaks admitted to having no inspiration or education on this particular topic. and even more concerning that millions of people will assume a bigotted position and call it obedience to their one true god, one true faith and one true church.

if otterson ever does host his own site, please come back here and point it out to us. same for oaks, hinckley and packer, i am sure there are many that would love to have an open forum with any of those guys.

Phaedrus

Your analysis sounds pretty right.

The Central Problem was the justness/fairness/reasonableness problem.

What Kind of God, in What Kind of Universe

would choose the best candidates for Eternal Progresion based on their bowing to the Authority of a Church whose members were manifestly no more worthy to be chosen, and in many cases were clearly much worse than their non-mormon alternatives.

My skeptical understanding of the limits of 'knowing" also entered into my mind set: i realized that people think they "know" things based on their social conditioning and what they have been taught is the truth, rather than anything approximating "real truth."

Growing up as a Mormon in a town where mine was the only LDS family, I also learned to think for myself rather than always "going along with the crowd." At a certain point that ability enabled me to "go against the Mormon Crowd" that I had grown up with as well.

And the fact that my elder sister had significant moral/justice problems with the church's Gender attitudes awakened me to the fact that "church justice" was not Justice.

I have always been very interested in ethics, fairness, and truth, in the kind of philosophical sense you obviously understand. And I was always inclined, and taught by a scientific father, to verify what I believed for myself after broad examination.

But finally after everything, my deep moral and intellectual sense told me that
"the Church COULD NOT be true."
What the Church taught, that Mormon membership and sacraments were necessary for full salvation/progression, made no moral or intellectual sense. It felt Morally Wrong.

James:

Thanks for that response. It seems that, first of all, you come from a family that is academically inclined, and that "knowing" something probably has a rather specific meaning. (I think you also have questioned the notion of "discernment" in a post or two?) Your siblings had begun to break away before you also. Do you think that this made it easier for you to do so? It also sounds as if your own questions had been circulating in the background for awhile, maybe evaluating what you were learning in science and history class, for example, in juxtaposition to Mormonism's versions of same.

But, the final break for you seems to center around a couple of things, possibly. One, a sense of "fairness" or justice that did not entirely reside within LDS teachings and practices. In other words, part of you held yourself apart and evaluated both the concept and applications of "justice," and the "Mormon concept and applications of justice." I think that this may be key, because, if accurate, it indicates that you had not completely "merged" these concepts and thus, could compare what you were told in the church with what the rest of your experiences were telling you.

The real catalyst though seems to have been when you were confronted with this difference in human form, when your Jewish friend reified the differences between "LDS justice" and "James justice." The Mormon church said that your friend, whom you held in significant esteem, was not worthy of the highest celestial reward, and this seemed unjust to you. This is a powerful thing in many people's lives, such as when they meet their first representative of a denigrated and "demonized" group, and find that they are not at all like the malignant stereotype previously described. Because the resulting cognitive dissonance is difficult to tolerate, the person often rejects the stereotype. In this instance, this started a cascade of realizations that culminated in your final split with LDS dogma.

However, if that prior split, however big or small, between "James's justice" and "Mormon justice" had not existed, things would likely be much different today.

Please pardon these gross oversimplifications, but I did want to capture my initial thoughts here. I will post later on my own "lateral drift."

Dogmatism, Prejudice, and Pediatricians

RTC my ideal seminary teacher:

since the Pediatricians you cited are not Mormons
we are now in the area of evaluating secular info, yes?

You teach your students to evaluate the source of their information, and to get information from more than one source, don't you?

I am surprised that you therefore did not stipulate the bias of your baby doctors when you cited their study. You must know that this issue is so fraught with polemics and distortions that the agenda of any source needs to be understood when evaluating their claims, both for and against.

The official mormon church doesn't cite this Pediatrician group as a reliable source, do they?

thanks for the question phaedrus. and for all your remarkably insightful and humane thoughts on this site.

Indeed my Mormon family goes back to my GG G-father being one of the four in the Jail when Joseph was killed.

my parents both Utahn moved east whne my PHD dhem father got a job at a large university. of the five children, my oldest sister was unable to toloerate the patriarchy by age 18 and left. my older brother and other sister, when they went back to Utah for college/grad, were overwhelmed by the unthinking, morally un-enlightened thought level of the mass of church members, and by the "*#^%$#G$#* of the church leadership.

In my freshman year in collge back east, I had to decide whether I could honestly tell my morally elevated secular Jewish roommate and others like him that in order to be in the same level of heaven as myself (knowing myself to be much less God-like than he) that he would have to join the Mormon Church.

I could not "sell that product" door to door, and the next logical step was that if all the hoopla was not necessary or good for him, it wasn't for me either.

My younger brother is just sending his 3rd child on a mission..

I offer this as an example of the potential costs to the individual for "tolerating the intolerable:"

Subject: "BYU professor let go for questioning LDS leadership"
Date: Jun 13, 2006

Excerpt from SLC Tribune:
BYU professor let go for questioning LDS stand on gay marriage

The Salt Lake Tribune

PROVO - A Brigham Young University adjunct professor who recently called into question the LDS Church's opposition to gay marriage will not be rehired after spring term.

The decision to let Jeffrey Nielsen go was based on an op-ed piece he wrote for the June 4 edition of The Salt Lake Tribune.

"I believe opposing gay marriage and seeking a constitutional amendment against it is immoral," wrote the part-time philosophy professor at the LDS Church-owned school.

In a statement read over pulpits the previous week, leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints urged members to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and asked them to "express themselves on this urgent matter" to U.S. senators.

********

Jeffrey Nielsen, a practicing Latter-day Saint, learned of the school's decision regarding him in a letter dated
June 8 from BYU Department of Philosophy Chairman Daniel Graham.

"In accordance with the order of the church, we do not consider it our responsibility to correct, contradict or dismiss official pronouncements of the church," the letter reads. "Since you have chosen to contradict and oppose the church in an area of great concern to church leaders, and to do so in a public forum, we will not rehire you after the current term is over."

James:

After reading John's latest post, it now is clearer than ever that most of this thread has been an exercise in "begging the question." The very things for which we advocate, require tolerance of something that fundametalist Mormons (and all other Christian fundamentalists) MUST find "intolerable" IF they are to adhere to their rock-ribbed beliefs in the authority of the standard works and their church leadership. To "change their minds" about these things is to part with a crucial piece of their own identity. Though they do secularize some of their argumentation, it is only window-dressing for the theological basis of their position. So, our appeals to fairness, tolerance, and legal rights mean nothing in the face of supernaturally-derived convictions.

I did read a wonderful post by Dave Sigman on a past Otterson thread, in which he described the scandal surrounding the Book of Abraham as being the catalyst for his break with LDS theology. This is a fascinating process I think, and I would love to know more about your own, especially in light of your historical (as well as contemporary) connections with Mormonism.

It is in these major belief-shifts that real promise may lie.

RTC, the American College of Pediatricians is not a research institution. It is an advocacy group of Christianist and conservative physicians. The study that you are citing has not been published in a peer reviewed journal.

The studies about parenting that are published in peer reviewed journals agree that homosexuality is not transmitted socially.

You don't need to believe me. Go to your local university library and check it out.

Hi Everyone,

Donna & Jane brought up individuals with same gender attraction being affectionate with one another ie. holding hands, kissing etc.

Loophole or not? I just wanted to say that for me, such behavors only made it more difficult for me to discipline my thougts and thus kept me from really being able to develop an attraction and relationship with the opposite sex.

I eventually discontinued such behaviors in response to what my conscious had long been telling me and this was very helpful to me in "making room" if you will to develop an attraction to men and also to feeling closer to the Spirit.

In doing this, I felt a lot better about myself -- it gave me a greater sense of control over my thoughts, feelings and the direction I wanted to go.

I think these kinds of behaviiors are a slippery slope that could lead to regrets and are counterproductive to moving forward.

I felt like I was trying to play both sides of the fence while I continued these types of behaviors and that's never been a very good feeling for me.

I would advise against them

Identical thinking, identical writing style, identical anger, identical defense of your homophobia. You discredit your own thoughts.

whatever? you are welcome to give this rtc credit for all of my post if you want? i really don't care. i just wonder why you let one person have so much power that you would give them all this credit? i just jumped in after reading this thread and answered a couple of people who posted and used a name they basically gave me? so i won't be posting again, at least if i do, it wouldn't be with this name... it will be one i pick. good thing because you would think i was this rtc again?

anyway, you already know we have similar thinking so i really don't care about the comparison and i figure rtc doesn't either? but if i did post again it would be nice to be thought of as a separate individual on this thread... people!

so in the future if people post something and you don't like what they have to say... they are not this RTC! no offense rtc... what you do here is amazing! i have read the thread and you don't hold back. why do these people think you have two names? it doesn't make sense? (or three)

for the rest... other people (lds) do not agree with your pro-homosexual agenda. don't you get it? this is otterson's thread and we are lds. you are speaking in opposition here and of course those of the faith are going to support otterson. what would you expect?

anyway... let people say what they want here and not think they are someone else! you discredit our thoughts. not cool people! that's all.

Heterosexism and Racism

Racism: The belief that One Race is inherently superior to another.
AS OPPOSED TO the belief that Race is neutral in deciding superiority.

Heterosexism: the belief that one Sexual Orientation is inherently superior to another
AS OPPOSED TO the belief that Sexual Orientation is neutral in deciding superiority.

In this fundamental quality,
they are exactly the same.
In both cases as well, the group in the majority has historically greatly reduced the rights and social acceptance of the group in the minority.

Again: equivalence.

Tradition Once More

John D my friend:
you write
"The goal, I suggest, is to draw on principles of love and acceptance within the tradition to keep moral prescriptions from resulting in rejection, hatred, ridicule and isolation.

That is what I mean by "softening tradition."

JD, I think you've got things in REVERSE.

An objective look at the last two millenia shows a TRADITION of
REJECTION, hatred, ridicule, and isolation
based on religion
tribal identity, race,
economic advantage,
fear of subjugation.

In the area of religious belief, tradition has entailed widespread superstitions that have only been partially eradicated (Galileo, Darwin, etc) and frequent (sorry for the word) demonization of groups like Jews.

"Softening Traditions" is one of the saving graces of some modern trends (Civil Rights, Scientific understanding of the universe, many many moral issues (look at 14th Century prisons).

Contemporary:

An RTC by any other name is still a bigot for the Brethren.

Dearest Jane and Donna,

There is no such thing as "Mormonism of the 21st Century" as you would say? Meaning that there is some kind of a change or a new way of looking at morality for those who are more progressive as yourself apparently. I am sure that you know many people who ARE gay that do go to church in your area and in NY and other areas as well, and they do participate in homosexual activity that would be consider a bit borderline.

BUT I also am CERTAIN that they do it quite discreetly so as to HIDE from being detected from those that would have authority to question their membership... while bragging to outsiders such as yourself?

There is no gray area where this is concerned in the church. This is taught very clearly with no misunderstanding.

This council I posted comes from "For The Strength of Youth" pamphlet. It is given to young men and young women when they turn twelve years old and their parents.

Regarding what Donna had to say on masturbation... I am not sure of the statement of President Kimball, but I would imagine it would have something to do with self-gratification? Homosexual behavior falls into this category I believe whereas many believe it is inborn. This is the big debate you know?

If it is believed that it is inborn then those who practice homosexual behavior do not then need to be responsible for so much of the heartache that is the fallout and result of their activity.

You could write books and books on the fallout of homosexual behavior even now.... and yet it is probably still too early to tell the full extent? And so we must be cautious...

If they are called to accountablility for a choice in their behavior, then there is no justifiable excuse for such... than for them to plead guilty for extreme selfishness and acknowledge their weakness and need for help.

Unfortunately, this is not the nature of human beings. And so we seek to justify our behavior at all cost... and even will call it loving if we can convince even "ourselves" alone.

Hi Pheadrus,

It is good for the soul to know you have an influence. It gives me motivation to try harder to act as I know Jesus would have me act, as I have failed to meet that standard various times on this Blog..

As for the topic at hand…

I think this conversation has made clear what is at stake, and what the implications of this policy are. I don't think we disagree completely on that. I think our primary disagreement is on whether the likely results of that policy are desirable or not.

I, for one, am leaving this conversation more convinced that those I sustain as Prophets of God are right on this.

It is a matter of culture and normative moral standards, not just a matter of legal rights.

You said:

"John, you must see how the first condition naturally flows into the second, at least for the vast majority of people who ascribe to the first."

I do think a moral disagreement has great potential to result in prejudice. This is absolutely clear in any case of moral disagreement. As I stated earlier, this could include,

Capitalist: socialist
Catholic: Protestant
Atheist: Theist
Republican: Democrat
Shaker: Oneida Perfectionist

The goal, I suggest, is to draw on principles of love and acceptance within the tradition to keep moral prescriptions from resulting in rejection, hatred, ridicule and isolation.

That is what I mean by "softening tradition."

And yes, I personally know openly gay men who are active in the church with boyfriends in single wards in NY, Orem and San Fransisco. They are celibate but affectionate towards their boyfriends.

Something else that occurs to me:

It is particularly dangerous to state that "homosexual activity is a sin."

What does that mean? The twelfth President of the Church, Spencer W. Kimball, was known to say that masturbation leads to homosexuality and is a grevious sin. Is that "homosexual activity"? If so, every human on this planet is guilty. Define "homosexual activity"...

Hey Contemporary Mormon ;)

The pamphlet you have just quoted is characteristically vague. Mormonism of the 21st century is full of loopholes.

The Brethren consistently state that there is no difference in what is asked of single heterosexuals and single homosexuals are far as sexuality is concerned. And as I have said before, I have personal knowledge of bishops whose definition of "sexuality" does not include holding hands and kissing.

Otherwise, single heterosexuals would be in big trouble for an innocent kiss goodnight...

Jane:

Not sure of your motives here, but here is an official pamphlet from the church put out for the youth of the church.

You will note that it states "homosexual activity is a sin". Some have mentioned that they do not believe this is true.

I seriously doubt that what you state is true as your bishop would clearly be in defiance of the standards of the church if his policy of as long as they don't have "penetrative sex" then anything goes is acceptable?

I would venture to say that this is more likely the "policy" of justification for the young adults that you are attending with???

The standards for moral purity are the same for the youth as adults, both male and female in the church. Where you live makes no difference.

Sexual Purity

36550, For the Strength of Youth, Sexual Purity, 26

“The sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife” (“The Family: A Proclamation to the World”).

Physical intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife. God has commanded that sexual intimacy be reserved for marriage.

When you obey God’s commandment to be sexually pure, you prepare yourself to make and keep sacred covenants in the temple. You prepare yourself to build a strong marriage and to bring children into the world as part of a loving family. You protect yourself from the emotional damage that always comes from sharing physical intimacies with someone outside of marriage.

Do not have any sexual relations before marriage, and be completely faithful to your spouse after marriage. Satan may tempt you to rationalize that sexual intimacy before marriage is acceptable when two people are in love. That is not true. In God’s sight, sexual sins are extremely serious because they defile the power God has given us to create life. The prophet Alma taught that sexual sins are more serious than any other sins except murder or denying the Holy Ghost (see Alma 39:5).

Before marriage, do not do anything to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage. Do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not allow anyone to do that with you. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body.

In cultures where dating or courting is acceptable, always treat your date with respect, never as an object to be used for your lustful desires. Stay in areas of safety where you can easily control your physical feelings. Do not participate in talk or activities that arouse sexual feelings.

Homosexual activity is a serious sin.

If you find yourself struggling with same-gender attraction, seek counsel from your parents and bishop. They will help you.

Victims of rape, incest, or other sexual abuse are not guilty of sin. If you have been a victim of any of these crimes, know that you are innocent and that God loves you. Seek your bishop’s counsel immediately so he can help guide you through the process of emotional healing.

If you are tempted to commit sexual transgressions, seek help from your parents, your bishop, and friends you can trust. Pray to the Lord, who will help you resist temptation and overcome inappropriate thoughts and feelings.

If you have committed sexual transgressions, begin the process of repentance now so you can find inner peace and have the full companionship of the Spirit. Seek the Lord’s forgiveness. Talk with your bishop. He will help you obtain the forgiveness available to those who truly repent.

Genesis 39:1–12; D&C 38:42

Just Keepin the Faith Babe!

To John D:

John, you mention the respect that I have shown you on this thread, and I think that I should speak to that for a second, more for other readers than for you. On a previous thread several weeks ago I posted a snide description of the role of "revelation" in Mormonism thorugh history, comparing it with Islam in this regard. You responded to my sarcasm with an acknowledgement of the legitimate question I was posing beneath my vitriol, and followed up with a thoughtful treatment in a future post. I felt that you showed more consideration than I deserved in that insance, and provided a good example of Hemingway's definition of basic courage: "Grace under pressure." That made an impression, and I have tried to follow your example since then, not always successfully I admit. I am better for that example, and that is why i look for your posts on Otterson's theads, and consider your points of view carefully.

Regards,

P.

Another thing that should be mentioned is that the main problem, for contemporary Mormons, anyway, is the actual sex act.

I have attended singles ward in the Northeast US and in California where gay members come to church, have close friends of the same sex with whom they hold hands, kiss, etc., but are not allowed to have actual sex (penetrative). Their bishops consider them as keeping the law of Chastity as long as they don't "go all the way."

John D:

Thank you for the clarification, as your definitions help me to see your point more clearly. You specify:

"Heterosexism: The belief that heterosexual sex is morally preferred to homosexual sex."

"Sexual Prejudice: a negative attitude toward someone because of her or his sexual orientation."

John, you must see how the first condition naturally flows into the second, at least for the vast majority of people who ascribe to the first. Given your assertion that heterosexual intercourse is "morally preferred," this also means that homosexual sex is "morally not preferred," or immoral. Which is precisely what leads to the 2nd condition. When people talk about the "gay lifestyle," what do you think they are refrerring to? I will assure you that in the majority of cases they are not simply referring to a sex act that they find "morally not preferred." You may have the intelligence, thoughtfulness, and discipline to take a stab at keeping the first from becoming the second in your own life, but you have read this thread. Look at the comments of those who agree with you on number one, and then see the blatant evidence of number 2.

When people choose to cohabitate, in the eyes of many they are engaging in a behavior that is "morally not preferred." But, they are not legally forbidden to do so, considered "unnatural," or made fun of by the Ann Coulters of the world. There is no coresponding "habitationism" vs. "cohabitation-prejudice" discussion there. So what is the difference? I submit that it is one of prejudice against gays, and that the "moral proscription" argument butresses it.

To further clarify: I am not part of any "gay agenda." I do not believe that gays should proselytize in schools, don't particularly care for the antics of some of the fringe homosexual groups, don't like public displays of affection (but that is for either gays or straights, I admit). I am simply a person who has seen a great unfairness, seen the horrible duty imposed on an entire group of people who want the same things as everyone else, but because they want it with a person of their own gender, are not permitted to be legally recognized, and are subjected to myriad other daily cruelties.

I am also not interested in marginalizing Mormons or any other religious group. I am, however, inerested in marginalizing some of their "ideas" that are hurtful to others. The difference, John, is that ideas are "chosen," and can be changed. Sexual identities are not chosen, and are not subject to change. The ideas I mention hurt people. The sexual identities do not.

JD1-

Yes, I agree with you. If your definitions mean the same as I am sure they do.

But don't you see JD that this is there agenda and what they have been working towards all along, which is to be seen as a "race"... so that they may claim "minority" status?!

If they can cry that they are persecuted and that they are being discriminated because of that which meets criteria for racism... they have you right where they want you?

It is called "deductive reasoning"? Eh? It is a slick world we live in don't you think?

Oh, silly me... what do I know?

I'm not sure whether anyone else has mentioned this, but in Mormonspeak, "moral" is most often just a synonym for "sex" or "sexual".

Hence, the original response by Mr. Otterson is "we can't abandon fundamental (laws about sex)."

Mormonism is rooted in its philosophy surrounding sex and marriage. Until and unless there's an overhaul in the theology, institutional Mormonism will remain discriminatory towards gays, both members and non-members.

P-Dogg,

Thank you. You are a sweetheart.

Dear Pheadrus,

You have been very kind to me on this thread and I appreciate it, but your last post has done more to make me fear the gay rights agenda than any amount of inflated Limbaugh could have done. Why? Because you are a fair minded person who seems to be endorsing counter-marginalization. It makes me wonder what people who aren't fair minded are up to.

But first, let me clarify, because perhaps you misunderstood me.

Three terms and their definitions:

Heterosexism: The belief that heterosexual sex is morally preferred to homosexual sex.

Sexual Prejudice: a negative attitude toward someone because of her or his sexual orientation.

Similar to:

Homophobia: fear of, hatred of, or discrimination against homosexuals.

I can see how the latter two definitions can reasonably be equated with racism. The first, however, cannot and should not.

To equate the first with racism, is akin to equating one, like James, who asserts atheism is superior to Mormonism with anti-Mormonism!

Could you clarify what you meant?

Sister Mary Lisa,

You said

“I've asked these theoretical questions many times on this thread, and not one person has actually dared to answer me. Is it because nobody here is willing to actually consider what that may feel like to a gay person? Is it because to do so might cause you to feel uncomfortable, like maybe, just maybe, there's some merit to the gays' feelings of being treated unjustly? Is it that difficult to open your minds a little to see it from the other viewpoint?”

Perhaps this will help

Steve M: “The decision they are faced with--stay in the Church you love but live a life of lonely celibacy, or leave the Church you love so that you can potentially build a relationship with a person you love--is not one I envy in the least. We also have to take into account the familial ramifications of deciding to leave the Church and live an openly gay lifestyle. Individuals who choose this path risk being disowned by their family. So I don't think the decision that LDS gays are forced to make can be boiled down to whether or not they have any self-respect. In light of these considerations, I think we should be supportive of those who choose to stay and understanding of those who choose to leave.”

Joy: “I love these people and admire the good things that they do. Their family members, who happen to be practicing Mormons, love them deeply as well and include them in their extended family lives.”

Joy: “As far as having a son or daughter who has same-gender attraction: I would be very sad for them. I think that their life will be filled with difficulties. Depending on how they chose to approach this attraction, I guess they can make it more or less difficult for themselves. As far as my behavior towards them - I will always love and pray for my children no matter what struggles they encounter in life. And I will always include them in my life, if they let me.”

John D the First: “I am curious to know what ya'll think...
A person carries in their mind and heart various moral prescriptions. That person tries to follow those prescriptions himself and, when given the opportunity, attempts to prusuade others.
Though many individuals disagree, and choose different lifestyles, that person strives to show those who differ an equal degree of respect, tolerence and freindship.
They may hold a personal moral prescription against homosexual behavior but this does not change their regard for practicing homosexuals any more than, say, a prescription against coffee changes their regard for coffee drinkers. Is this person a bigot? “

RTC :“You may choose to follow other moral voices which suit your needs and that is fine as The Eleventh Article of Faith states. I completely respect that and only request the same in return. I have commented on that previously.”

Thankful :“With my experience, I imagined what it would really be like to love someone for a lifetime and then be parted when this life is over. These are the sadest thoughts to me and these thoughts do not escape me as I vote and speak with my conscious that I cannot endorse gay marriage. “

John D the First: “The pluralistic solution: Limit the government to civil unions. Let each individual community decide where and how they will provide a symbol of spiritual legitimacy to a sexual union.
Gay people who are in love could get the same legal rights as everyone else by civil unions, and get the title of marriage from the United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universialists, Episcopalians etc. Heterosexual Mormons can get a civil union from the government, like gays, and get spiritual legitimacy (Marriage) from the Temple Sealer”

Flashlight: “So to your point on the “religious argument,” I say that if the governed wish for rights which are tied to their views on religion, or other feelings-based issues (which one could frame as POH-derived rights) our governmental structure provides for that. As an example: wrong or right, we’ve shown ourselves perfectly capable at times of legislating abortion based on religious views”

Maybe people just don’t want to repeat what they’ve already said?

Pheadrus:

My apologies for mis-spelling your name in previous post.
rtc

dEar eVeRyboDy -

It is really quite simple folks...

LiSten to Nana RTC this timE, as auNtie bEtty jUst didn't quIte cUt it.

Since sOme cAn't speak in enGlish?

oTheRs wiLl nEveR gEt iT!

aNd noBody is comfortable just "saying it straight oUt"!

wHile soMe jUst haVe noThin betTer TA dO toNight...

Lets try a little math equation, but we shall keep it veRy, vEry sImPle... OkAy?

Moral Majority + tally by votes in states

_____ Minority + tally by votes in states

Total At Federal Government Level to maintain United status:

= CURRENT MORAL MAJORITY

(Obviously this can change at any time depending on society and it's ever changing morals???)

lds do not deny our system of government... however it is those who believe they have rights which we say they absolutely do not have. For this reason we exercise our right to speak out just as you do.

I BELIEVE that the Founding Fathers were absolutely aware of the FACT that the GOD who CREATED US and GAVE US this LAND OF LIBERTY WAS and IS PRESERVING IT and US, and FIXED IT'S DESTINY upon thAT very SPECIFIC WORD...

INALIENABLE: ****MEANING**** comes from - [WITHIN]

****CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY OR ALTERED BY MAN, IT IS INHERENT, MADE IN THE FIBERS AND CELLS OF THE INDIVIDUAL, THAT WHICH YOU CANNOT SEE, CANNOT BE GIVEN BECAUSE IT IS REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU DO... AS IS WORTH, IT IS FIXED AND IMMOVABLE, IT IS THE SEED OF DEITY AND CANNOT BE DENIED... FOR IT IS THE DESTINY OF MAN!*****

It is foolishness to think that this WORD was not chosen without pure INSPIRATION from GOD, GIVEN TO these men who FERVENTLY PRAYED CONTINUOUSLY THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS SEEKING "HIS" WISDOM THAT THERE MIGHT BE "HIS" JUSTICE FOR ALL.

THIS IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT THESE MEN SOUGHT HIM OUT IN THESE PROCEEDINGS...

Flashlight:

To be brief: The founders were largely deists, meaning that they did not believe that God played any role in the afairs of men. Thus, although the "creator" started things in motion, endowing men with certain rights, the governing of those rights was entirely in the hands of human beings, without duty to God in any fashion. We see this most clearly in the Constitution, in which God is never mentioned. This is, as a result, an entirely secular government requiring secular reasoning and secular due process. How wise they were.

Do I believe in natural rights? Not if you mean rights that came from a creator (and in fact, there are several scholars who think that Jefferson did not believe this either). I think that the concept of natural rights is helpful in establishing a baseline of common understanding as to what things must be accepted by a government, and the primary bulwark against various forms of tyranny, of which theocracy is one.

As for your argument that God takes a position on gender preference, I see this as the basis for what John D refers to as "heterosexism." Otherwise, I see no reason to burden readers with restatements of what i have already written.

Regards,

John:

"Racism entails the belief that an entire social/folk biological group is inferior to another.Heterosexism is not necessarily a belief in the generalized inferiority of an entire group of people, but belief in the superiority of one sex act over another."

John, homo and heterosexual status is clearly more than a sex act. It is a core aspect of identity, one that is not chosen, and for which one is either seen as "natural," or "unnatural." You must recognize the language of bigotry when you hear it. And if you do not think that the supposed "inferiority" gets generalized to the "entire group of people," then how would you explain the posts of those on this very thread who make claims based on precisely this mindset? I think that you have reason to be concerned about the equating of racism with "heterosexism." It is not difficult to equate them. And heterosexism will indeed be seen in the same light as racism in the future.

Flashlight ~

You wrote, "I can’t say this is a fact, but you’ll agree that it’s at least plausible that it’s worse for society if more persons embrace homosexuality. Well that’s my opinion: that society is worse off, at least in terms of human misery, if there are more homosexuals. I say misery, not because I’m more miserable (my friends and family members who are homosexual have the same warmth, humor, intelligence and portion of my love that their heterosexual equivalents have), but because I believe those individuals are less happy.

And so in order to protect the right of individuals to the pursuit of happiness: if enough people share that opinion, it’s ok to base legislation on that."

You say you want to protect the right of individuals in their pursuit of happiness. But apparently you want to protect the rights of only SOME individuals. You totally disregard the right of the GAY individuals in THEIR pursuit of happiness. Can you see how wrong this is?

You feel like giving gay people the right to marry will increase society's misery. What?? This is weak, in my opinion. It makes no sense. It's just your BELIEF that gay people are miserable. You have no idea if this is true or not.

I wonder why it is so hard for some people who post here to actually think just a little and put yourself in the shoes of the homosexual for a moment. (I'm not talking thinking about the sexual practices you find disgusting, either)

How would you feel, Flashlight, if there was a majority of gay people in our society, and they lobbied hard to deny you as a heterosexual person the right to marry your spouse of choice. How would you feel if they used the argument that if the majority feel it's for the best, then it's obviously for the best. And how would you feel if they told you that they think you're MISERABLE as a heterosexual person and that if more heterosexual people were allowed to marry, it would mean an increase in society's misery?

I've asked these theoretical questions many times on this thread, and not one person has actually dared to answer me. Is it because nobody here is willing to actually consider what that may feel like to a gay person? Is it because to do so might cause you to feel uncomfortable, like maybe, just maybe, there's some merit to the gays' feelings of being treated unjustly? Is it that difficult to open your minds a little to see it from the other viewpoint?

Thanks for your response, Phaedrus.

Where do natural rights come from? Are they inventions of political philosphers? If so they can be enhanced, deleted, or otherwise modified according to the will of the people, right? Same thing if they're distilled from the collective understanding of the temperature of the people.

Are they constant and unchanging? If so, where do they come from? From some being or force more advanced than ourselves? God maybe?

I do believe in natural rights--no question. I also believe in natural duties. I can't imagine one without the other, given the source. If some being/force/whatever can dictate that our duty is to "not kill" in order to enable the right "you shan't be killed" then why can't the same force dictate: "thou shan't have sex with your same gender?"

I believe that that force does dictate stuff like that. Since we do not live in a theocracy then religious people consider it their duty to help bring the codified natural rights & duties into law.

If you put yourself in the shoes of a believer, what's wrong with that course of action?

Mayan Elephant,

To answer your question…

To prevent this from turning into another book I’ll give the short version.

For the sake of argument, I’ll define sexual morality as a complex of dos and don’ts.

By giving ancient symbolic sanction (marriage) to the don’ts of one sexual morality, you undermine it.

This is due to the likely trickle down effect through changing our idiom and categories of thought, not to mention indoctrination into the new morality through the public school system.

I also am worried by the moral equivalency many make between heterosexism and racism.

Think about how marginalized the racist is in society today. I don’t think this is bad thing, but if heterosexists become as marginalized as racists I think it will be a bad thing. (Mormons=KKK for example)

Racism entails the belief that an entire social/folk biological group is inferior to another.

Heterosexism is not necessarily a belief in the generalized inferiority of an entire group of people, but belief in the superiority of one sex act over another.

This does not have to translate into perceived *general* inferiority as evidenced in the economic, educational and social benefits enjoyed by homosexuals today (in contrast to the black community, for example).

Ultimately the Gay Marriage issue is not just an issue of rights, but of cultural currents and the likely effects of the institution (marriage )on general conceptions of right and wrong.

This is recognized by people on both sides of the issue.

Because it is a cultural issue, MARRIAGE must be defined by the voter, not the judicial system.

The judicial system may bestow civil unions if it decides legal rights are to be distributed equally in this case, as has been done in the UK.

P.S. I have much more I want to say about this issue, and responses I want to make to comments by Pheardrus, and James but alas, there is more to life than this Blog and I do not know when I'll be able to return. Maybe tonight, who knows!! Now I will tentatively sign off.

Flashlight:

Thank you for a substantive post. I am glad that you are not Socrates, as he took my namesake apart in the Platonic dialogue that bears my name.

You start off by pointing out that you do not buy into the concept of "natural rights," that all rights are limited to what the state will allow. The founders disagreed with you on this, as they were steeped in the British Empiricists views that some rights are sacrosanct, or as Jefferson put it, "inalienable." This is a crucial point I think, because inalienable rights exist independent of whether they are granted or not. They are not subject to the will of the king, or the will of the people, (or what some of the people think is the will of God).

Now, it is true that they may or may not be "granted," and some would say that an un-granted right is simply a wish. The founders took a very different view, and this is codified in their official writings. In their eyes, the right of blacks to be free was a "natural" one, despite its not being recognized until 1863. The story of American civil rights progress is one of recognizing rights reflected in our framing documents, and I submit that gay marriage is just such a right, and will inevitably be recognized as well.

The point of this, and in so saying I am expressing disagreement with one of your central premises,is that it is not necesarily the right of the majority to impose its will on the minority, given the emphasis the founders placed on the natural rights of the individual. So I strongly disagree with your statement:

"t the most base level, a community can pick whatever rights it wants for whatever reason it wants—even in our government."

I also think that you err in your understanding of how "rights" are determined, and this relates back to the previous point. If it were true that "rights" were derived from majority insistence alone, then there would never be an unpopular Supreme Court decision.

I am glad that you brought up abortion. It is true that most of the opposition to Roe comes from the religious sector. However, if you examine the argument made against abortion, it is entirely secular, having to do with the right to life being held inalienable. Thus, that issue eventually comes down to the very secular and logical question of determining the point where "life" actually begins. In other words, at what point is a fetus covered by the Declaration's and Constitutional mandates. Although religion is surely a force behind the argument, it is not permitted to become the argument.

We see this same thing in the Intelligent Design debate. The PA courts struck down the Dover School Board's mandate to even mention ID as a competing theory to evolution, because it was simply religion attempting to masquerade as science. To have decided otherwise would have violated the establishment clause, which relates back to rights,and the duties on which they are founded, remaining invariably secular.

And, of course, we see the exact same thing in the gay marriage question. Although everyone knows that fundamentalist religion is the primary roadblock to the recognition of this right, the arguments against it are entirely secular. The Pandora's box argument being a prime example, as well as the very nebulous notion of the weakening of heterosexual marriage in some fashion should gays be able to have their relationships recognized by the law.

Both, in my view are actually red herrings to attempt to secularize the arguments for the sake of legislative and judicial consideration. But, this is also their prime weakness, because these "reasons" are nearly as contrived as the Intelligent Design argument. The religious sector has good reason to be wary of judicial involvement in this debate, because the secualar arguments made by the "pro" side, are inherently stronger than the "con" side. It could not be otherwise, given the religious underpinnings of the latter position.

As for the rest of your post, while questions as to whether gays would be happier in the closet than out, may be interesting (although it is probably more than a little insulting), it is no more than a side issue. The fact is, neither you, nor I, nor any other individual gest to restrict another's right because we think that they will be happier if they do things our way.

Likewise, the observation that some gays seem to be able to shift to heterosexual orientations does not bear upon the legal argument that those who dont,should not have to. The argument that it is always better for homosexuals to become heterosexuals is breathtakingly narrow-minded and tremendously presumptuous. I simply counter that people should be allowed to be what and who they are, as long as they do not hurt others in the meantime.

Those who continue to wring their hands about what their legal "duties" as heterosexuals and religious believers will be when gays are permitted to legally marry, might benefit from stopping for a bit to consider the "duties" currently being imposed on homosexuals by your "right" to not be offended or have your traditions "softened."

I will close with another quote from your post:

"So is it wrong to pressure a politician to help you form a culture you want, whatever your motivation? Hardly."

If you are pressuring someone to continue to do an unjust thing, you are an accessory to the injustice.

Flashlight -

This should be the in quotes in my previous post from Phaedrus:

"For this reason the cause that continues to be put forth by those who clamor for the "fake" rights of which they do not have a right to, and demand that it is our "duty" to give them continues to fail.

Until your cause recognizes that which others hold dear and true, which are their rights, of which are the majority, they will find themselves in opposition to the whole.

As long as society as a whole will continue to maintain a moral majority, it appears as though, God will prevail. If and when that changes, then your formula may rule?

This was the intent of our founding fathers and should be the rule of law."

Flashlight -

It is good to hear from you and have your "spot -- on" this topic.

I appreciate your comments more than you know. Previously in this thread I also spoke to the very point you shine your light on.

When posting to Phaedrus...

I said:

For this reason the cause that continues to be put forth by those who clamor for the "fake" rights of which they do not have a right to, and demand that it is our "duty" to give them continues to fail.

Until your cause recognizes that which others hold dear and true, which are their rights, of which are the majority, they will find themselves in opposition to the whole.

As long as society as a whole will continue to maintain a moral majority, it appears as though, God will prevail. If and when that changes, then your formula may rule?

This was the intent of our founding fathers and should be the rule of law.

This, as you have well stated was and still is the intent of our founding fathers. I agree with you in that I recognize that it is the majority rules that will prevail... and in that reality it is imperative that those who maintain the "moral majority" hold fast and true to that which we hold dear.

I believe we are on the same page?

Although, when it is thought that God is left out of it, I must say that I feel that the God I believe in would want it just as it is and DID inspired this free country to be just that... "America the Home of the Free and the Brave".

Many feel that His dealings with His children as recorded in the Bible were of a vengeful God, however, His ultimate purposes were always to preserve them.

As with our own children we will ultimately find that it is in the use of their own individual agency and it's affect on themselves AND others that THEY develop and grow to their FULL potential as human beings and ultimately become "Christlike".

Phaedrus summarized with fairly accurate thoughts in his closing statement with little I disagreed with other than that of which you brought back to the front of the discussion.

As many thoughts come to my mind that have been spoken regarding those of us who hold dear to the words of The God of Israel and His living prophets in these last days... they would make us out as pathetic, lonely, ignorant, uneducated, sinners, bigots, not compassionate, hateful, inhumane, cultist, prejudice, racist, etc... for keeping God's LAWS.

The light of truth will eventually prevail for which I am most grateful and confident.

Although, I am certain that there will be days ahead that doubt will settle in for many, for this has been foretold. Yet I know that there will still be those bold souls, still willing to raise their voices for that which is morally right, not fearing what man can and unfortunately, unkindly says.

I am honored to stand with all of those who are unafraid to be considered these things, by those that oppose Him.

Again, thank you.

Of all the ones who explained that homosexuals do not cause any harm to one, could eat their words just by reasoning from these comments on this thread and the many others that frequent the net. They haven't bothered anyone as far as their sexuality is concerned, except for the ones HIV positive (Yes Aids is still more prevelant within the gay community)!
They have however, caused great division among the populations of the North American continent and to other countries that have given them special status. Special status, like gay day parades, adopting kids and such as in Canada, passed same sex marriages without a referedum from the Canadian public. I guess minority groups dictate to the majority. The United States of America is the only free industrial nation that stays firm on its morality policy, and I admired America for that, but I see even the greatest nation on earth is beginning to succumb to the homosexual plague.
In the past, I tolerated them, even supported my country wholeheartily when they introduced protection for them under The Canadian Constitutional Ammendment Act in the early 70's.
But now, insulting God's traditional marriage definition of a man and woman, I hate them.
There is no law or regulation that will ever change my mind and one day they'll find that God has not changed his mind about his disapproval of them. I pray that day comes sooner, even though it means my own destruction and just as the days of Noah, this day will also take its toll of rebellous humans.

Anonymous

You'll notice that I mentioned that homosexuals are evidently depressed "whatever the reason." I think it's certainly partially because homosexuals are engaging in activity that is counter to our culture (you can blame the culture or you can blame the individual). Will that change if marriage is legalized? No. The guilt/depression may go down to some extent, but this goes to my point of whether it will go down enough to compensate for the increased number of people who will come out of the closet.

This all of course pre-supposes that homosexuals who refuse to give in and embrace their homosexuality aren't as depressed/unhappy as those who do so. There's no way to know that. I gave a few of my anecdotal (Indian facing north) examples, but who really knows either way.

I have an opinion. I don't know if it's right. But I think it is.

Flashlight,

You concluded with the following, "And so in order to protect the right of individuals to the pursuit of happiness: if enough people share that opinion, it’s ok to base legislation on that."

Having 'Enough' people share an opinion, especially an opinion as subjective as "I believe those individuals are less happy," is not a qualified reason to discriminate against someone.

You are confusing the causes with effects. Homosexuals may be depressed, but it is not because they are homosexual, it is because people like you and others box them in and make them feel as if they are disappointing you and themselves. And in the Mormon Church, they are also disappointing God and Family.

Discriminating against Homosexuals further will not alleviate the pain for them. It will complicate their lives and increase their internal conflicts. You will need more caskets with the continuation of current standards.

Phaedrus

I’d love to jump in here, but you won’t be dealing with Socrates. I would have to look up concomitant to even know what it means. 

I'll start by saying that I'm a mormon through and through. I'll also freely confess that I'm conflicted on the issue of gay marriage.

That said...

Most of the rights enumerated in the Constitution are not human rights--not inherited from "the good," or given from God, or decreed from our ancestors on ZX 432, or whatever. They are agreed upon by legislators. In our democratic republic, the federal legislature is in business to create laws which approximate the will of the people either explicitly or via interpretation, although some structures are built in to temper societal mood swings. Religion only enters into this to the extent that the people the legislatures represent believe and desire what they divine as his will for the community at large.

So is it wrong to pressure a politician to help you form a culture you want, whatever your motivation? Hardly.

If you believe everyone should walk around with funny hats on their heads and can convince enough of the people and the politicians, then by gum, congratulations: it's a right! Popular government is based on the premise that the governed choose what “rights” are important to them. The line between POH-derived rights (pursuit of happiness) and human rights is somewhat arbitrary, being distinguished by inclusion or lack of inclusion in the declaration of independence. At the end of the day, it’s irrelevant, I guess. The point I’m trying to make is that, at the most base level, a community can pick whatever rights it wants for whatever reason it wants—even in our government.

I realize the risk here. What if everyone believed that God told them that mormons should be exterminated? I think they're wrong, but if the vast majority think that and aren't swayed by a special interest plea to their collective conscience (which is provided for and structurally encouraged in our government) then the laws of the land will probably reflect that and I'm looking for a new home.

So to your point on the “religious argument,” I say that if the governed wish for rights which are tied to their views on religion, or other feelings-based issues (which one could frame as POH-derived rights) our governmental structure provides for that. As an example: wrong or right, we’ve shown ourselves perfectly capable at times of legislating abortion based on religious views. Similarly we create environmental laws which seemingly defy logic and even encroach on other, more logical, rights or laws.

Regarding the Pandora argument, evidence may, as you indicate, suggest that aggressiveness or "in-your-face-ness" subsides over time. Evidence also suggests that it does not do so. Neither one of us presents any evidence, but I'm sure we could both go dig up studies or empirical examples. If there are cases then where "in-you-face-ness" increases, or stays the same, or even decreases slightly when a faction wins a small battle, then the slippery slope, or Pandora, argument holds at least some water. So what would be at the end of that slippery slope? The research I’ve read, while not categorically conclusive, indicates more often that not that there are higher incidences of depression and suicide attempts in the “admitted” gay populace. I’ve read no such research on the other 10% of the population who, according to some people, have gay tendencies but refuse to embrace them.

A thoughtful person would say, “well then let’s legalize gay marriage and make being gay more bearable.” Heaven forbid I hearken to macro-econ, but if aggregate misery (M) goes down (caused by some people feeling somewhat better about themselves) by more than M goes up (cause by more people coming out of the closet because it’s more acceptable to do so) then that might be a good thing to do. But I’m not so sure. My personal feeling, distinguishable from the personal feelings of many on this thread only because its mine, is that more people ought not to come out—that it’s worse off for them and for society.

I saw an Indian facing North once and therefore all Indians face North. I’ve also known several men and women who had tendencies when they were young (and perhaps who still do) who are now happily married, with kids. I’ve no idea how pervasive that is, but I know it’s at least possible. I’m positive I sound insensitive as I’m not attracted to my gender and I’m speaking as if I really understand what I’m talking about. But, when it gets down to it, I just feel like being gay is wrong. I believe it’s bad for an individual’s spirituality and it’s bad for society. And I think embracing homosexuality generally makes people more depressed—for whatever reason. That’s somewhat empirical, considering the correlation between admitted homosexuals and depression/suicide.

Making marriage legal will legitimize homosexuality, causing more people to openly embrace it. Seems like that’s not really a point people would argue.

I can’t say this is a fact, but you’ll agree that it’s at least plausible that it’s worse for society if more persons embrace homosexuality. Well that’s my opinion: that society is worse off, at least in terms of human misery, if there are more homosexuals. I say misery, not because I’m more miserable (my friends and family members who are homosexual have the same warmth, humor, intelligence and portion of my love that their heterosexual equivalents have), but because I believe those individuals are less happy.

And so in order to protect the right of individuals to the pursuit of happiness: if enough people share that opinion, it’s ok to base legislation on that.

Sorry that was so long.

John D:

"That's all I have to say on such comments. should have ignored this one."

You should have ignored it, because you seem to have nothing to say. All you did was attack someone who's not here to defend himself. As it happens, I've read other books by Krakauer, and he's neither a slanderer nor a propagandist. He's a meticulous reporter.

In point of fact there are villages of men who use the LDS religion to justify forcible multiple marriage to young girls ranging from the canyons of Utah clear up into Canada. Go to this site: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/29/national/main1945344.shtml to read about the arrest of the head rapist by the FBI.

And it's true that all organized religions carry out "infamous acts." Isn't this a clue? Doesn't it follow that if all organized religions do evil, then organized religion is evil?

The Christian religion has a horrible record of infamous acts, but consider this: Christians now repudiate the Inquisition. Most Christians repudiate the persecution of the Jews. Does the Mormon Church repudiate the evil it's done in the past? Does it even admit it has ever done evil?

Isn't it true that Mormons are quick to argue that Warren Jeffs (head rapist, above) isn't even a Mormon?

Mayan Elephant,

I laughed out loud reading the “Bigfoot in Sand” poem - thank you & RTC for the comic relief.
Never read the carol lynn pearson book - I never “came out” you see - this conversation’s made me curious too…
I’d like to add my personal thoughts on what I think is helpful for LDS parents and people in general to do at some point here -- unfortunately my time is limited so we shall see…

OH JESUS PLEEZE TOGETHER THESE 2 DUDES HAD 88 WIVES!!

Joseph Smith, who founded the Mormon church in 1830, quietly introduced polygamy. He believed it had roots in the Old Testament and was necessary to reach the highest salvation in heaven. Smith is believed to have had 33 wives.

Brigham Young expanded the practice after the church's migration from the Midwest to Utah, which began in 1846. He is said to have had 55 wives. Historical texts show Young also asked Orson Pratt to publicly proclaim the church's belief in polygamy in 1852.

its show us once more that religion is the problem and not at all the answer!!

Phaedrus,

Thank you again for your response and kind words. Though I have thought on these questions before, I have really enjoyed thinking on them again in light of this discussion. They seem to raise the overall questions surrounding assumptions of how/if those with same gender attraction are able to develop a sexual attraction to the opposite sex and/or cope if / while they cannot.

I think there are 3 separate issues you have raised

1) the possibility of developing sexual attraction to the opposite sex

2) if so, maintaining a heterosexual marriage

3) if not, coping while and if one cannot develop a sexual attraction to the opposite sex ( the celibate life)

I’ll reserve my albeit random thoughts right now to the first two issues and address the other later (which I am obviously less qualified on) but I’d like to first address your comment --

“However, it seems that you did not make a "choice" to be attracted to your female friend, nor did you make a "choice" to be attracted to your husband. Your orientation could be described as non-exclusive in terms of your sexual orientation.”

For the sake of “full disclosure”, I’ve never taken any sort of psychological test to determine where I would have/would now fall on any sort of continuum. This conversation has definitely perked my curiosity to at some point do so.

Though I’ve been pretty candid here (even surprising myself in my degree), I have also been very careful about my boundaries in what I share and how I speak of this experience and I’ve decided I’m really not comfortable getting into all the personal whys of my hesitation to agree with your assessment. As I’ve said similarly to Sister Mary Lisa, I’ve offered bits and pieces here where I’ve been comfortable and want to make a point.

I recognize some sort of psychological assessment would be helpful to how my experience is interpreted and others may be more curious than what I want to share but I hope this forum can also appreciate and respect me drawing a line in sharing or not sharing certain things.

In a general way I can say that my attraction to women was just natural to me and believe an attraction to men has been learned.

Moving on…

…I offer now two of my own very general assumptions - women are more likely to be able to develop attraction to the opposite sex and be able to cope when/while they cannot -- men are the inverse. Also, Differences in male/female sexual response translates into some qualitative differences in how each sex experiences same gender attraction. I would be curious to hear other’s thoughts on this?

Such differences have rarely been touched on in this forum. I myself am no expert but think they are important parts of understanding this issue overall.

Before I go on with some other thoughts, I have some rhetorical questions for this audience as well:

Is there any institution that emphasizes keeping one’s thoughts pure more than the LDS church? That requires it’s members to avoid/ leave/turn off television shows, movies and even commercials that are sexually provocative? That teaches to avert one’s eyes from the revealing billboards and magazines? That emphasizes dressing modestly and not to stare at and objectify those who don’t? That “cracks down” as much on pornography or “anything like unto it” ? That teaches again and again not to entertain sexual thoughts/urges/ fantasies -- to reserve sexual thoughts for their spouse? That teaches not to sexually stimulate oneself? That teaches this is necessary to worthily partake of the sacrament and attend the temple as additional reminders and incentives to do so -- to stand worthily before God?

I believe these are the basic skills and habits every covenant keeping LDS must develop and use daily to keep the “law of chastity” before and even after one is married -- and much more so within a society with sexual norms and media that is largely antagonistic.

One important purpose of these LDS teachings is for one to practice these skills/habits to essentially keep their sexuality in reserve to eventually use to “condition”/bind them to cleave exclusively to their spouse and to be an ongoing binding feature in a marriage.

The LDS church advocates against those with same gender attraction entering into a heterosexual marriage relationship as some sort of “cure” however those like myself who are able to develop an attraction to someone of the opposite sex obviously may do so.

In my marriage, I reserve sexual thoughts and expression for my husband as a beautiful and integral part of our relationship and commitment to each other.

I am responsible about maintaining the habits/skills I have outlined and I believe this is an important key to the success of my marriage.

I believe that for me not to maintain such habits (which habits are now quite natural ), I would potentially make my situation very difficult or as you have suggested, is often heard of in recants of such marriages “failed” -- they eventually unravel and everybody looses. There’s not a lot of responsibility taking in that description, would you agree?

I would be very curious to know how many such marriages (which began similarly to mine) in general maintain the sorts of boundaries and skills I have been taught to have by my faith that facilitates and upholds the “binding” of one to their spouse?

My guess is not many and even a person of the opposite sex who one is sexually attracted to will never remotely fit an ongoing same gender fantasy. In my opinion that is a recipe for marital disaster. I’m sure similar things could be said about pornography addiction and the like

Just some of my thoughts I throw out here. I’ll probably add some more on the issues you’ve raised in the future.

And possibly spelling lessons? Status lol

With such persecution exhibited do you think that "grasshoppers" may now lobby for minority statis?

Grasshoppers exist only for "pure self gratification"

My gay and straight friends who have sexual relations with their partners do so for the same range of spiritual/physical/loving reasons.

Grasshoppers have no ability to imagine the reality of others, no ability to transcend their ignorance and prejudice.

Grasshopper ~

You really hate it when I disagree with RTC. Why?

You wrote, "Could it then be reasoned that an attitude of “whatever behavior two consenting adults engage in is appropriate behavior because it is not hurting anyone else” be viewed as somewhat self indulgent and uncharitable? Is there ever an action that anyone performs in this vast society of ours that affects no one other than the performer?

With the claim that one’s homosexual behavior is not hurting someone else... the question is posed, could “their choice” have affected their family in some way or another?"

It doesn't harm a gay person's family to be married. How could it? It may make some people like you or RTC UNCOMFORTABLE, but there is no harm. There is even no provable harm to children being raised by gay couples.

However, the issue being debated on this thread is WHETHER OR NOT GAY COUPLES SHOULD MARRY. That is the issue. In marrying each other, I can see no harm being done to anyone else or society at large.

SML said “I has already been discussed here but I shall point it out again: There is a world of difference between PEDOPHILES and HOMOSEXUALS. You cannot compare the two, because pedophiles engage in practices which HURT OTHERS, further, they are hurting children who cannot defend themselves.

Homosexuals marrying each other or having sex with one another is not hurting someone else. It is consenting adults choosing to be in a loving relationship.”

RTC quoted from researched findings, “Whatever ingredients determine a person’s sexual preferences and marital choices,” conclude the study’s authors, “our population-based study shows that parental interactions are important.”

Could it then be reasoned that an attitude of “whatever behavior two consenting adults engage in is appropriate behavior because it is not hurting anyone else” be viewed as somewhat self indulgent and uncharitable? Is there ever an action that anyone performs in this vast society of ours that affects no one other than the performer?

With the claim that one’s homosexual behavior is not hurting someone else... the question is posed, could “their choice” have affected their family in some way or another?

Thankful has been given accolades by everyone on both sides, could it possibly be the recognition of the selfless behavior that was exhibited that is truly being praised?

Shall we make the comparison that the marital relation between a man and a woman is an act of procreation while those that engage in homosexual relations be that of “no-creation” but pure self gratification.

I second Phaedras' comments. Well said.

RTC (as Anonymous) ~

You wrote, "Tell me, I am curious... What is it about JD1 that is much easier for you to accept? He is a mormon as well you know? Please tell me for I am truly curious about this?"

It is easier to accept JD1 because he is reasonable in his arguments and defenses. Others are not so reasonable, and it is very difficult to have rational discussion with such fundamentalist people who can only see and preach their point of view and who cannot or will not budge one inch toward seeing the picture from outside the viewpoint of their particular religion.

Phaedras -

Tell me, I am curious... What is it about JD1 that is much easier for you to accept? He is a mormon as well you know?

Please tell me for I am truly curious about this?

You said:

"I sense John's dilemma. He is, at the same time, a thinking person who values knowledge, and a religious person who values the collective traditions of his faith. What to do when these things conflict? Just about any thinking person recognizes that discrimination based on non-victimizing personal identity or behavior is not just. However, granting gays the right to marry is founded upon the duty for much of religious society to "allow" official recognition of something that God tells them is an abomination. I understand the dilemma, and the resulting discomfort. I sense this clearly in John's posts, as he is not a fundamentalist in his "heart of hearts."

Is it this assumption of JD1 along with his logical reasoning skills that you let him "off the hook" of other Mormons as fundamentalist?

After so much dialogue between the two of you gentlemen... why the need for the assumption?

Why do you not just ask him?

Otterson and On Faith Moderators,

Despite the great response from Sister Mary Lisa, I think Craigs comments, along with the response from RTC should be removed from the thread for obvious reasons.

Craig and RTC, go straight to Hell. you make me sick. Otterson should look you up RTC and make sure YOU are not allowed around those seminary students any longer, this sort of thinking is harmful for them.

Folks, this has been an interesting "conversation," and I have learned more than little about the various facets of the dispute between religion, ethics, and the law as played out in the gay marriage debate.

I do not have anything further to add by way of argument for gays to have legally recognized marital rights. I have "said my piece" as they say in the south.I do have a few summary comments though.

I sense John's dilemma. He is, at the same time, a thinking person who values knowledge, and a religious person who values the collective traditions of his faith. What to do when these things conflict? Just about any thinking person recognizes that discrimination based on non-victimizing personal identity or behavior is not just. However, granting gays the right to marry is founded upon the duty for much of religious society to "allow" official recognition of something that God tells them is an abomination. I understand the dilemma, and the resulting discomfort. I sense this clearly in John's posts, as he is not a fundamentalist in his "heart of hearts." Others on this thread are equally clearly bound to the appeal of religious authority, and, under the pretense of thinking, are actually only rearranging (slightly) their prejudices. This is fundamentalism, and I hold that such thinking represents a persistent threat around the world.

I am not bound up in John's dilemma because I recognize no moral authority outside of what I perceive to be mankind's finest thinking on this and related topics. I do not think that religious organizations should have to perform gay weddings, or even alter their dictates at all. I am speaking to the "legal" right to wed, be it civil unions or something similar. I defend the right of the religious to believe as they wish, though I have, and will continue to challenge them in their thinking. But, the religious do not have the right to impose their prohibitions on everyone else in a non-theocratic nation state.

I am passionate about this, prtially because I feel no conflict in pursuing what I see as the clearly ethical path. Some on this and other threads take the preceding statement to represent an a priori disqualification of anything that I might have to say. But, these are fundamentalists, and you can't really "talk" to them anyway. They have a robust intellectual immune system, and repel anything that does not fit into the narrow range of prescribed notions, all of them generated by "authority" figures. But, like any overly acive immune system, eventually they threaten the host by attacking healthy ideas, thus retarding the organism's ability to adapt in a changing world.

But, as Heraclitus told us so long ago, change is constant, and the appearance of a static state is illusory. Western religions represent less of a threat to the world today because they have been forced to adapt by secular forces, thus no more heresy trials,executions etc. Islam has resisted this pressure moreso, and we see the result. Christianity will remain under pressure to adapt in the face of scientific progress, and the gradual recognition of historical and present day injustices.

Gay marriage will happen, it is only a matter of time. If a non-attorney like me can lay out a compelling case, then anyone can, and more and more people will. The younger generations already accept homosexuality far more than their parents and grandparents did, and this will continue. The continued "softening" of religious dogma will also continue, and many will leave churches as they try to hold their rigid lines according to their holy texts and traditions.

In the marketplace of ideas, it is necessary to continue to show relevance in the face of evolving knowledge and sensibilities in order to survive. There will of course always be the fundamentalists, but more and more they will see only their own likenesses, and hear only their own thoughts in their meeting houses. It is the John D's of the world, those good, thinking, caring people, who will bear most of the emotional brunt here. John, you have my appreciation and respect.

ME, "Sinister" Sister Mary, and James: Thanks for the kind words, keen thoughts, and your amazing level of perseverance! Faithful, thanks for having the courage to be so personally revealing. Thanks to the others for forcing me to think harder, always a good thing.

Tradition and Gay Marriage

John D:
You cite Vatican II as an example where change in traditions led to a weakening of the church. Analytical Problem here: you don’t know if it would have been worse had the changes NOT been made.
Most of my Catholic friends who have problems with the church do NOT miss Fish on Friday. They abhor the cover up of sexual molestation, they think the church’s stand on divorce and contraception is bad, etc. Ie: not TOO much change, but not enough. More general surveys of Catholic members’ attitudes to the church bear this out.

I don’t believe the Mormon church can be, or should be, FORCED to endorse gay marriage. That is for Monmons to decide.

In the public sphere, I think we should examine the solution you hint at:
Make every legal coupling a Civil Uniion, with the same rights available to any couple (excluding penguins) who enter into it.

Let Marriage be something that you do in a church.

Then a man and a woman who have been joined in a civil union are free to describe themselves as married. Who cares?

And a woman and a woman who are married with children are free to describe themselves as married, whether or not they have had a church ceremony.

I can describe myself as a Catholic if I choose, even if I never go to the Catholic Church. And that would suit your postmodern pluralism, John.

And any church that wished would still be free to say that they do not perform Gay Marriages.

But there would be equal protection under the law in the non-church world.

M.E.,

Thanks for the question. I made that claim without outlining exactly how. I thought my
post(s) was long enough as it is.

I'll get to it tonigth.

RTC ~

Keep up the good work. Otterson is very thankful for your help, I'm sure.

Craig -

Thank you. We shall see if anyone can see your logical reasoning here?

Do you think they should put on job applications along side of other options for race:

pedophile ?

homosexual ?

rapist?

obsessive/compusive ?

shopoholic ?

gambler ?

How do you think this would further their cause?

Where would it end if this were the criteria to begin a new "fake" race for minority status in this country?

Is this offensive to those true minorities that have been persecuted for true injustice and not for behavior which the general population find morally unacceptable?

I would imagine it would be.

The human mind is the most magnificent of all of God's creations in that it has the abillity to make conscience choice over it's physical makeup. The physical is driven by the spiritual.

But then that is called... personal accountability. A thing many people today are unwilling to take hold of ???

Craig ~

You wrote, "Did God make a mistake when he made pedophiles? Are pedophiles born that way or is it a result of how they are raised or other influences? Do peophiles have a right to enjoy sex with whomever they're attracted to, just like heterosexuals? Does the continued anti-pedophile rehetoric from the Mormon church oppress peodphiles?"

I has already been discussed here but I shall point it out again: There is a world of difference between PEDOPHILES and HOMOSEXUALS. You cannot compare the two, because pedophiles engage in practices which HURT OTHERS, further, they are hurting children who cannot defend themselves.

Homosexuals marrying each other or having sex with one another is not hurting someone else. It is consenting adults choosing to be in a loving relationship.

Big difference. Your example should have never entered this discussion.

Apparently the Mormons are not familiar with 1 Corinthians 7: 2-4 about a husband having only one wife. Compare Proverbs 18: 22 and 1 Timothy 3: 2.
Revealing discrepancies in religion that labels them as false is so easy!

Pedophiles were born with or developed a sexual attraction to people who are under the age determined as acceptible by society for engaging in intercourse. They are required to not act on their urges or impulses---even if they were born with them. If they do act on their ingrained desires, they are punished and expected to change their behavior. In effect, society discriminates against pedophiles. Whether they were born with their desire for young partners or whether it was developed through their upbringing doesn't matter, society discriminates against them.

Did God make a mistake when he made pedophiles? Are pedophiles born that way or is it a result of how they are raised or other influences? Do peophiles have a right to enjoy sex with whomever they're attracted to, just like heterosexuals? Does the continued anti-pedophile rehetoric from the Mormon church oppress peodphiles?

Is pedophilia being preached as a sin and unacceptable to God judgemental behavior? Does judgemental behavior like this seem like something Christ would support?

Acting on same-gender attraction is a behavior. It is not a physical characteristic like skin color or gender. We as humans determine our own behaviors---we are not programmed robots or animals with no self awareness. When we receive a stimulus (a thought, an impulse, a desire) we can choose our response. We can even determine our responses to our strongest, most basic urges such as eating and sleeping. This is scientifically proven.

The Mormon church's views on same-gender attraction make complete sense. They just go against certain vocal aspects of popular culture.

OH JESUS PLEEZE TOGETHER THESE 2 DUDES HAD 88 WIVES!!

Joseph Smith, who founded the Mormon church in 1830, quietly introduced polygamy. He believed it had roots in the Old Testament and was necessary to reach the highest salvation in heaven. Smith is believed to have had 33 wives.

Brigham Young expanded the practice after the church's migration from the Midwest to Utah, which began in 1846. He is said to have had 55 wives. Historical texts show Young also asked Orson Pratt to publicly proclaim the church's belief in polygamy in 1852.

Thankful ~

I greatly appreciate your answer to my question. I wasn't sure if you'd trust that I sincerely wanted to know more about your situation, and that I wasn't looking for ways to shoot down your life choices. I commend you for being open like you are.

Phaedrus ~

Wow, Phaedrus! I like you more and more. You are an impressive writer and you have an amazing intellect. I love your conclusion:

"Thus, it is my contention that there is no reasonable and legal justification for denying homosexuals marital rights, as the duties attached either pale in comparison to the value placed on individual liberties in our founding documents and hundreds of years of legal tradition, or rest on a religious foundation which cannot be permitted to enter the argument at all."

RTC ~

Seriously, girl! Seriously. How could you not see Phaedrus' logic in his writing? Unless you really are still on the "religion uber alles" tack (which means "religion over everything else" in case you didn't know)...I just can't believe you tried to rake Phaedrus over the coals after he wrote that, when I'd wager that most everyone else reading here saw his wisdom and his logic clearly and could see how his thoughts make perfect sense in this debate.

And do you really mean to put question marks after posing statements that aren't really questions? It confuses your meaning at times, I think, and often causes you to look like you are unsure of yourself.

You also posted this comment: "Lets get one thing perfectly clear... Homosexuals are not a minority." Are you serious?

jd, you said, "If the symbol is given to individuals who fall outside of it, traditional Judeo-Christian morality will be undermined, while Liberal sexual morality will be fostered over traditional sexual morality."

can you elaborate on why you included this as part of your I.E?

do you agree that the sharing (read adoption) of the symbol could really undermine anyones morality? do you see how it appears to be very elitist?

Solutions? Are there any????? Not an easy one……

In the ideational world of formal logic political solutions can be clear cut

The real world is messier, with countless unintended consequences (See the book Freakenomics) .
On this subject I have two ideals in my ideational brain: The Pluralistic and the Traditionalist.

The pluralistic solution: Limit the government to civil unions. Let each individual community decide where and how they will provide a symbol of spiritual legitimacy to a sexual union.

Gay people who are in love could get the same legal rights as everyone else by civil unions, and get the title of marriage from the United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universialists, Episcopalians etc. Heterosexual Mormons can get a civil union from the government, like gays, and get spiritual legitimacy (Marriage) from the Temple Sealer.

The Traditionalist Solution:

Since the choice seems to be between My Tradition being undermined or their tradition being undermined, I will act in the interest of my own. No Gay Marriage, only heterosexual marriage.

I fear that taking marriage from the public sphere might have the unintended consequence of undermining marriage all together (which I do not want).

So what am I left with…

I don’t have an easy answer, but I will not vote for my tradition and my community to be undermined.

I find a good compromise in communitarian thought.

Communitarian political philosophy advocates for a balance between individual and community rights. This to me, is the most reasonable, realistic and practical political approach. It avoids extremes and encourages compromise. Here is an article to a communitarian argument for civil unions, but not gay marriage.

http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/etzioni/civilunions.pdf

Pluralism, Mormons and Gay Marriage…

I remember discussing Gay marriage with fellow anthropology students at a Café in London. Knowing that I was Mormon they anxiously asked my opinion on this issue. I shared my internal conflicts and why, as a matter of conscience, I had difficulty with the proposed institution. An English classmate of mine said, “Because of the separation of church and state, I think that Mormons should not be forced to perform Gay marriages but…”

I interrupted, “You see, if it was a purely legal thing, I would have no problem with it, but historically and culturally the symbol of marriage has been understood to spiritually legitimize a sexual relationship.”

Another classmate piped in and said “Your right, the government shouldn’t even be involved in marriage. If people want marriage, they should go to a church.”

That is when I realized why Gay MARRIAGE was such a hot button for the church, while other issues on the gay rights agenda are not actively opposed by LDS Prophets (e.g. affirmative action, adoption, civil unions, hate crime legislation).

I.E.,

The government is already engaging in a religious activity by performing marriages.

The government is the guardian and dispenser of a sacred religious symbol, one cannot expect religious people to not be concerned with how it is dispensed.

Traditional Judeo-Christian sexual morality is currently fostered over other configurations of sexual morality.

If the symbol is given to individuals who fall outside of it, traditional Judeo-Christian morality will be undermined, while Liberal sexual morality will be fostered over traditional sexual morality.

Policy and Pluralism…

An example of how a vibrant tradition might be undermined by policy:

The Native American Church and Peyote.

Peyote ingestion is a central component of worship for the Native American Church. Since the infamous genocide and colonization that we are all too familiar with, Native Americans have struggled to re-root themselves in an authoritative, vibrant tradition. The Native American Church has provided many with a sense of dignity and helped communities and individuals kick social problems, like alcoholism.

Peyote ingestion roots members of this church in the authority of the past, which is a necessary component of any vibrant tradition. To ban Peyote use, would be to castrate the community. I support the legislation which made an exception to the drug policy (peyote is illegal for everyone else) for the Native American Church.

How does this relate to liberalism? (I know the policy above mentioned is a liberal policy).

Conservative hegemony and Liberal hegemony both have a history of undermining tradition and community.

Liberal example:

Let me first provide my caricatured, limited definition of liberalism: An ideology that promotes individual rights and equality above all else.

This is a laudable ideology, which ideals I embrace and support. Sometimes, however, it is promulgated with such un-reflected evangelical zeal that effects on the ground are ignored. Anthropological critiques on international development and human rights agenda demonstrate the disastrous effect well intended crusaders can have on communities. Traditional communities have been undermined to be given “rights” and “equality” but left with nothing but directionless “freedom” and disconnection.

How does this apply to the U.S.?

A maxim adapted from a certain document:

Congress should not enact any laws which foster or *undermine* one tradition over another (given this tradition does not violate the rights of others via violence or other illegal measure).

I think it would be good for the government to foster legitimate traditional communitieS. The U.S. is a better place for *individuals* if we have strong Muslim, Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, Buddhist, Taoist and Hindu communities. (I would like to include non-theists here, but I know non-theists consider themselves a diverse group, only grouped together by a negative).

Thanks Pheadrus. I’m honored that my post provoked such a thoughtful response. I can tell this is a subject you are passionate about. I also respect your progressive spirit. Ingenuity and boundary pushing is a virtue and tradition I laude you for. Perhaps our difference is not in principle but application.

I was planning on writing a post about pluralism tonight. Perhaps it is not clear from my post that I am a pluralist. I do not believe the people of this nation are best served by one hegemonic tradition.

I believe that vibrant traditions, and dynamic tradition bound communities, are best fostered in a religious free market. I say this because a truly vibrant tradition must be recognized by adherents as legitimately authoritative. In the modern world, this can best be achieved where individuals can choose the traditions they actually buy into.

First, my limited definition of tradition that I should have clarified: Knowledge and mores received from a transcendent source, which provide unambiguous and authoritative moral prescriptions for private morality (this is an operational definition for the sake of argument, not the dictionary definition).

I give this definition because this type of tradition is the one associated with the psychological benefits I outlined. (See Happiness Hypothesis).

What I think is important for the survival of these types of traditions is not so much what form the morality takes, but the perceived authority of the transcendent source of morality.

If the legitimized moral authority says such and such act is right, and to do such and such is wrong, but then changes that prescription to accommodate what is perceived as a lower authority, it looses its legitimacy.

Example…The Vatican II counsel did great violence to the vitality of the Catholic Community. Following the changes of this council, there were astounding numbers of Catholic losses to Protestantism, and increasingly lower numbers of Catholics taking papal authority seriously, and decreased activity rates in Catholic congregations “ “.

What did the Vatican II Counsel entail? Increased ecumenicism, more egalitarian relations between Priests and laymen, stopped the recital of the liturgy in Latin, and ceased the prohibition of meat on Fridays. To an outsider they all seemed like enlightened, even liberal, steps, but it had the effect of undermining the moral authority of the Catholic church and the vitality of Catholic communities.

Finke and Stark demonstrate this trend occurring with congregation after congregation that gives into secular ethos (See Churching of America).

"Men and women with "unknown fathers" were significantly less likely to marry a person of the opposite sex than were their peers with known fathers."

That explains Jesus Christ's homosexuality. Thanks RTC.

I know how much you ALL like EVIDENCE...

So DO I :-)

New Evidence Found for Childhood Family Factors Influencing Sexual Orientation

by Linda Ames Nicolosi
("Childhood Family Correlates of Heterosexual and Homosexual Marriages: A National Cohort Study of Two Million Danes," by Morten Frisch and Anders Hviid, Archives of Sexual Behavior Oct 13, 2006; [E-publication ahead of print])

A major study is about to be published in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal, Archives of Sexual Behavior, which provides striking new evidence for the influence of childhood family factors on sexual-orientation development.

The study used a population-based sample of 2,000,355 native-born Danes between the ages of 18 and 49. Denmark -- a country noted for its tolerance of a wide variety of alternative lifestyles, including homosexual partnerships, and the first country to legalize gay marriage.

With access to the "virtually complete registry coverage of the entire Danish population," the study sample therefore lacked the problematic selection bias that has plagued many previous studies on sexual orientation.

Parental Influences on Sexual Orientation Development

The authors conclude: "Our study provides population-based, prospective evidence that childhood family experiences are important determinants of heterosexual and homosexual marriage decisions in adulthood."

Assuming that people who marry heterosexually are almost always heterosexual -- especially in a country where homosexuality carries little stigma, and gay marriage is legal -- and people who marry homosexually can be presumed to be homosexual, the study's findings offer intriguing evidence about family factors separating homosexual from heterosexual persons.

The following are findings from this new data:

Men who marry homosexually are more likely to have been raised in a family with unstable parental relationships -- particularly, absent or unknown fathers and divorced parents.

Findings on women who marry homosexually were less pronounced, but were still associated with a childhood marked by a broken family. The rates of same-sex marriage "were elevated among women who experienced maternal death during adolescence, women with short duration of parental marriage, and women with long duration of mother-absent cohabitation with father."

Men and women with "unknown fathers" were significantly less likely to marry a person of the opposite sex than were their peers with known fathers.

Men who experienced parental death during childhood or adolescence "had significantly lower heterosexual marriage rates than peers whose parents were both alive on their 18th birthday.

The younger the age of the father's death, the lower was the likelihood of heterosexual marriage."
"The shorter the duration of parental marriage, the higher was the likelihood of homosexual marriage...homosexual marriage rates were 36% and 26% higher among men and women, respectively, who experienced parental divorce after less than six years of marriage, than among peers whose parents remained married for all 18 years of childhood and adolescence."

"Men whose parents divorced before their 6th birthday were 39% more likely to marry homosexually than peers from intact parental marriages."

"Men whose cohabitation with both parents ended before age 18 years had significantly (55% -76%) higher rates of homosexual marriage than men who cohabited with both parents until 18 years."

The mother's age was directly linked to the likelihood of homosexual marriage among men -- the older the mother, the more likely her son was to marry another man. Also, "only children" were more likely to be homosexual.

Persons born in large cities were significantly more likely to marry a same-sex partner -- suggesting that cultural factors might also affect the development of sexual orientation.

"Whatever ingredients determine a person's sexual preferences and marital choices," conclude the study's authors, "our population-based study shows that parental interactions are important."

Perhaps, Perhaps James...

I may be deluded, I would not be first : )

My intellectual tradition is qualitative, context focused, so I claim no authority on the scientific method as practiced in the hard sciences. Literary deconstruction has a heavy influence on the field of cultural anthropology (even though my sub-field is friendlier to scientific rationalism), so I am tainted by constructionism.

I do think there are better ways to evaluate evidence than others, but even the best interpretations depend on post-suppositions and presuppositions which are unverifiable, dependent on ideology. (See Thomas Kuhn)

I trust most seasoned scientists, who are not scientistic ideologues, will affirm that ideology, even dogmatism, permeates the scientific community.

You may have the last word on this, as I would like to discuss the topic of this thread (I am about to post a response to Pheadrus).

Pete, your questions about what rights are denied of gays are on what perspective, man's, or God's?

This minister who is supposed to be married to a man has violated two very important traditions that has been initiated by God.
(1) He has brought ostracism upon God holy santification of marriage between a man and a woman, therebye making a mockery of creationism.
(2) He has been ordained, (not by God) but by man to preach the sacred words of the holy scriptures by false definition.
His words are motivated by deception and all who follow this unlawful person will also share in his plagues that Jehovah God will soon bring upon him in the coming tribulation.

James-

DENIAL. The founding fathers were Deist yes. You can read much of their reasoning in their personal papers. But don't throw out or suggest that they did not look to God in any way in the laying the foundation of this country?

Or think that our founding principles had no basis in the laws of God?

The facts are that these were God fearing men who had an amazing ability to, through prayer, lay the foundation of this country by setting aside man-made ideas so that the rights of equality would be protected for all...

That only serves your agenda. Anyone who takes time to thoroughly study this knows quite differently their intentions my brother...

Lets get one thing perfectly clear... Homosexuals are not a minority.

You are referring to a particular group of people who engage in homosexual behavior.

That does not give them status as a minority group? Where do you get that definition for those practicing homosexuality?

And please james, don't set yourself up as being mr. know?

Mayan - nice to know i gotcha! lol hope your head is okay?

Betty - hello to you. hope all is well?

jd1 - so how do you really feel about this?

John D
I generally think you are pretty smart,
but you are deluded on this one.

I know you don't like definitions, but,

here are a couple of ways to decide what is true.

Ideology: Communists think everything is a reflection of the class struggle. No fact can contradict their belief.

Open, Scientific, evidentiary, fact-based.

I believe Gay Parent raise kids who turn out as healthy as those raised by a mom and dad.

But if you show me a range of credible scientific evidence that contradicts that belief, I will be open to changing my view.

Yes, everyone has preconceptions. Scientific reasoning and method has a way of correcting for that.

You must, as an anthropological master, realize that there are better and worse ways of demanding and evaluating evidence.

Otherwise, you are as bad as those French deconstructionists.

James,

Bill O'Reilly once called his show the "No Ideology Zone", thus demonstrating how deluted it is to think one is free from ideology.

Ideology is a human universal, so yes, ideologies are dangerous, as are humans.

RTC
Like Betty, I love you madly.
But you are psychotic.

You have no understanding of the constitution, or of the "original intent" of the founding fathers.

Do you really think you know what you are talking about? Do some studying, sister.

One of the most basic principles of the constitution is to protect the RIGHTS of minorities, even if the majority would rather trample on them.

The founding fathers were Deists (look it Up).
God is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Read Joseph Ellis. My God. You embarrass yourself, I love you so much, I hate to see you do that.

I can settle this RTC/Phaedrus Controversy

Listen to your Aunt Betty.

You two are perfectly entitled to your godlike or godlike views.

In the public sphere, rights are determined irrespective of one's belief in God.

You can vote whether you are an atheist or a zealot.

You can not be discriminated against in housing whether you are a black person or a white person.

As long as you are not a criminal.

Gay people are not criminals.

They, therefore, can not, under the constitution, be discriminated against. They are entitled to all the rights that straight people are entitled to.

To believe otherwise violates the Equal Protection clause of the constitution.

now will you two just kiss and make up. Love ya both.

Phaedrus,

i feel your pain. i really do. in fact, if your head is shaped at all like my head was once shaped, then the concave features of your wall must resemble the same concave shapes of my wall.

you wrote an amazing response that is logical, thoughtful and represents you very well. jefferson would be proud. and i am sure, if your mom were to read it, she would be proud too. well done, man.

John D's Ideology

JD, putting aside from the provocation of the characterization of all Mormons as evil, if we can (agin, my sainted mother, darling brother, 300 cousins are all mormons)

you would admit, wouldn't you, that ther is a danger in ideology, whether it is communist, scientologist, mormon, catholic, or liberal.

I would agree with you that one should have a moral stance towards one's own behavior and that of others. But dognatic obeisance to ideology that causes one to disregard evidence, moral fairness, and new facts is a bad thing, don't you think.

Now, whether I consider it Ideology to believe in a God, that is a tough one.
There is no objective "evidence" that God exists (or that Communism is beneficial), so I guess it might be an ideology. I don't know this late on a Wednesday night.

RTC, in all seriousness, I have not the slightest idea if you are merely continuing with your religion uber alles tack, or trying to adress the actual points that I made in my earlier post. I am confident that I do understand your position on the issue, as well as the foundation on which you base it.You have made that very very clear. I have shown how, as this is a legal issue, religious ideation is irrelevant, whether it be one particular religious view, or the sum total of all religious views.

If you want to refute that, you are going to have to adhere to the rules by which refutation is actually done. I am willing to engage wth you on some basis of logical discourse, but not otherwise.

Phaedrus -

I do not doubt for one moment by your argument that you would completely argue with the law. This is my exact point.

In fact, this is what you have done, and in so doing, the evidence when clearly before you is greatly lacking in substance?

Can you not see the injustice of this?

For this reason the cause that continues to be put forth by those who clamor for the "fake" rights of which they do not have a right to, and demand that it is our "duty" to give them continues to fail.

Until your cause recognizes that which others hold dear and true, which are their rights, of which are the majority, they will find themselves in opposition to the whole.

As long as society as a whole will continue to maintain a moral majority, it appears as though, God will prevail. If and when that changes, then your formula may rule?

This was the intent of our founding fathers and should be the rule of law.

RTC:

Maybe it would be helpful if you defined "birthright" in the sense in which you are using it. Then we can see if it is something that can be given legal standing, or if it is just another way of attempting to inject religion and fake rights into the law.

Phaedrus -

This is where you delude yourself in your reasoning skills? The reality that is before you and that you continue to choose to deny will not simply die, divorce, leave, become single, etc...

There is a birthright involved that will be heard regardless of your rhetoric and of which is much more powerful that I believe you realize my friend. It is a shame that you consider this so lightly?

You speak of the founding fathers and attempt to speak their minds? Trust me... they would not forget the birthrights of these childen.

To put it in words that perhaps you just might understand... it is a crime.

Having both natural parents in the home wasn't important for Jesus Christ or his Father.

The"right to a mother and a father" is a fake right, in that there is no way for any society to meet the duty enjoined therein. Parents die, divorce, leave their children for adoption, choose to become single parents etc, none of these things consituting crimes.

As to a "natural" basis for law, there are a great number of people who believe this is possible, including the founding fathers, and a great many who say that a "natural" right is meaningless, as all rights are recognized, or not, by the state alone. Thus, a natural right in these terms is simply one that people believe should be rocognized, whether it is or not.

So, you see, I did not ignore your "natural birthright" argument, and even gave it space in this discussion. But, as you base it on a religious dictate, and as it is a fake right anyway, it is safely rejected.

Phaedrus-

You know, you had my attention there for a minute...

You intelligently went through some very important points of law, etc. But then you chose the three areas of discussion on which you felt best to debate your presentation.

That is when I realized you were not looking to be objective. You stated you had looked back over the thread with consideration?

Really? Did you not notice how many times I have brought up the fact that children have a natural birthright to have both a mother and a father?

"Have you seen my MOTHER"?

This is something that they HAVE a RIGHT to and is not something that can be overlooked! OR simply ignored. Do you not consider this a worthy part of this discussion? I do realize not many have been willing to converse about it... I wonder WHY?

The "ick" factor is a much more flimsy subject for your goal?

You lose credibility when you choose to not take seriously that which is at the height of this issue and has nothing to do with religion, which forces you to L@@K!

Do you think that protecting children could fall into DUTY since they are innocent and they don't have a way to protect their own RIGHTS?

I state again that most do not want to consider the consequences of the children that would be raised in these types of circumstances?

The future generations that would be affected IF society were to move forward in allowing same-gender marriages to become legal iS incalculable?

It is my contention that your argument falls FLAT as you have presented it poorly in leaving out that which is MOST IMPORTANT and IGNORING completely the SACRED nature of the many individuals in this country who believe in GOD AND CHOOSING TO IGNORE THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN AND THE DUTY OF ADULTS TO PROTECT THEM.

Your logical reasoning is not very impressive I am afraid?

"And the religion of Mormon seems to encourage people to do evil."

Infamous acts have been carried out by vessels of any and every ideology that has been around for more than a century. I do not think it well advised to read a sensationalist compiling (Under the Banner of Heaven) of such acts, and based on that make the blanket statement that X ideology “seems” to encourage evil.

It is a slanderous propaganda tool, and arbitrer of prejudice.

That is all I have to say to such comments. I should have ignored this one.

Further response to John D:

Rights, Duties, Law, and Religion

This thread has focused, in part admittedly, on the issue of "rights;" and to whom they should be accorded for which purposes. In looking back at the overall content of this discussion, it occurs to me that we have left out a crucial element of any discussion of rights, and that is the concomitant issue of "duty." For every right granted to an individual, there are implied duties for the rest of a society; thus, the right to bear arms places a duty on the govt and its citizens not to take away an individuals weapons. Admittedly, there are also limits placed on these rights, but the limits are designed to make the duties less onerous. Any right that places impossible duties on others is a fake right, such as the "right for everyone to be able to die with dignity." Even if we could all agree on what this actually means, society cannot determine the maner of death for every person. Politicians love to talk about these fake rights, because they sound great, and few people think about the impossibility of the duties they carry. An important thing to notice is that all of these duties are secular in nature. Although rights may pertain to religious freedom for instance, the duties to recognize this freedom are always secular. Some say that there is no religiously oriented "right" at all, and that religious freedom is simply an example of the overall right to liberty. But, this distiction seems irrelevant to this discussion.

The framers of our system of law placed extremely high value on individual rights. The statement: "it is better to free a hundred guilty men than to imprison one inocent one," speaks to this focus on the individuals right to liberty, for instance. Of the big 3, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, there is more contention around "pursuit of happiness" (POH) rights than the others, largely due to the purely subjective nature of "happiness," which then determines what the "pursuit" actually entails. The right to life simply carries the duty for people not to kill other people, "life" being a more objective term. Liberty rights tend to fall in the middle. Gay marriage is a POH-derived "right."

As a further illustration, the right to consume alcohol is a POH-based right, and it has been the subject of contention. Consider the societal duty that attaches to this right: the duty to accept the consequences of the inevitable abuse of alcohol. Among these are deaths from drunk drivers, the many costs of alcoholism, under-age drinking, etc. The fact that the right to consume alcohol survives, despite the high cost to society in honoring its duty, reflects the enormous emphasis placed on individual rights in our legal and moral tradition.

So, what are the atached duties for society in recognizing the marriages of hmosexuals, that many say are far too onerous to bear? These seem to break down into 3 types: Personal emotional discomfort (the "ick" factor, as some have said), the "slippery slope or Pandora's box argument (let em marry and the next thing they will want is the right to adopt children, or force their lifestyle into the school curriculum), and the third is a religious objection (God is against it, so the law must not allow it)

The "ick" factor should represent no barrier at all to gay marriage, as there is no competing right to be free from things that disgust us. This would actually be an example of a "fake" right, as there is no way to possibly bear the societal duty enjoined, if such a thing could be conceived at all (which it obviously cannot) Further consideration of this objection is therefore not warranted.

The Pandora's box argument may hold some weight, as gay marriage may indeed lead to the furthering of the effort for gays to adopt in all 50 states. However, as for the argument that this would lead to further efforts to penetrate school curricula etc, history shows that once rights are granted to aggrieved groups, there are actually less florid displays and radical actions, as they are no longer seen as necessary. If people really wanted to cut down on the number of wild displays from the fringes of gay culture, show more acceptance and the need for "in-your-faceness" will dissipate. At any rate, even allowing for the Pandora's box argument, when compared to the emphasis placed on individual rights in our legal tradition, there is no contest here.

This leaves the religious argument. There is a reason that the duties attached to rights are entirely secular. These are the only acts that a society can mandate unless one lives in a theocracy. Theocracies act in secular ways to impose what they purport to be divine retribution. The founders of this nation steered about as clear of this possibilty as they could, and thus, no civil penalty can be imposed in this nation, nor can ay act be mandated for solely religious reasons. This is the fundamental difference between our system of jurisprudence and sharia. Our government cannot execute what it might consider "the will of God," wihtout secular justification and secular due process. Our laws are conceived to represent the rights and responsibilities of the "people," and not any deity. Biblical prohibitions on any act, including gay marriage, must have no legal standing.

Thus, it is my contention that there is no reasonable and legal justification for denying homosexuals marital rights, as the duties attached either pale in comparison to the value placed on individual liberties in our founding documents and hundreds of years of legal tradition, or rest on a religious foundation which cannot be permitted to enter the argument at all.

Mike from California:

"why is all I hear about how bad Mormons are? Every Mormon I've ever come in contact with has been to me and my family. They seem to live an honest lifestyle and promote moral values. What's more christian than that?"

Mike, people everywhere are pretty much alike, and most people, no matter where you go, are good and decent people quietly pursuing their happiness.

But... it doesn't matter how good and decent people are, if they come under the influence of an ideology, or a religion, they are capable of doing incredible evil, because THEY THINK IT'S RIGHT. They are capable of glorifying a vicious killer such as Porter Rockwell. And they are capable of hounding young people to suicide if they happen to be homosexual.

And here's the thing: No matter how good and decent they are, and no matter how right they think they are, when they do evil... they are evil.

And the religion of Mormon seems to encourage people to do evil. Murder governors, massacre travelers (Mountain Meadow), and form villages in remote parts of the desert for the purpose of raping young girls (Under the Banner of Heaven).

Evil is as evil does, buddy.

Sister Mary Lisa,

Thanks for your kind response. The general what if questions from yourself and others seem to be around what if my friend remained single and what if I was unable to somehow “redirect” my attraction also what if I was unable to marry my husband is in the same vein?

As I have eluded to in my post, I have relatively speaking, barely touched on significant choices that effected my personal progression and development of my own personal testimony of Jesus Christ and the restored gospel found in the LDS church which paralleled the pieces of my experiences I have chosen to share thus far in this thread.

This “story” is one I tease out of a vast myriad of stories and experiences and knowledge from the whole of my personal history again, in small pieces where I find such to be pertinent to what I want to add to this discussion. It's been quite a challenge for me actually to summize so much history and discriminate between relavant and irrelavent details to finally compose these relatively short posts.

I recognize because I have not shared other more testimonial/spiritual experiences, that perhaps my choices in other hypothetical situations may seem unclear.

I hope clear is that I respected my best friend -- her values and goals for herself which included a temple marriage to a faithful LDS man, motherhood and an overall commitment to live the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Growing up, I too also line upon line as we LDS say, gained a genuine personal testimony of my LDS faith and had these goals ( more consolidated over time) while I was also sexually attracted to women. A perplexing combo to say the least.

I know myself pretty well now and while I acknowledge that I always have the agency to bypass my conscious and light/gospel understanding I’ve received, I do not believe I would have openly/formally pursued an intimate relationship with my friend in any of the hypotheticals posed nor with any other female for that matter.

Again I think our relationship was so positive for both of us because we trusted and respected one another and in doing so were giving and building up one another.

Given what we each knew to be true and our goals for our self, any action on my part to pursue a more intimate or committed relationship with her I find to be utterly selfish and undermines what made our friendship so genuinely loving in the first place.

I’m human, I thought about/ was tempted to at times cross that line out of some of my own selfish desires, I’m glad I learned to keep these desires in check as they detracted from my spiritual progression and ultimately to do such things as I’m sure would have ruined the best friendship I ever had up to that point.

I’ll add that when I set out to “redirect” if you will, my sexuality more consciously, I only had faith for the ultimate outcome I have now come to. My alternative plan for if I did not marry in the temple was not to pursue an intimate same sex relationship but to remain single and “ be the bomb like Sheri Dew!” (FYI, a former member of the LDS general relief society presidency who happens to be single, an amazing “prophetess” in my opinion) in that long-term scenario, no matter who I was attracted to, I wanted to “bridle (my) passions” and live my faith.

PS: Phaedrus, I will try to answer your response to me more specifically some time today or tomorrow. Thanks for the thoughtful responses to both John D and I

Joy - All,

Thanks for expressing thoughts so similar to my own. This has been a truly tough thread these past few days. It has required a boldness that we as members are not often confronted head on with, but are nonetheless willing to defend when necessary.

I too am able to separate the behavior that I disagree with on a moral level, from the individual very easily, while on the other hand clearly engage with that I find offensive.

The disappointment thus far, has been that no one has any interest in discussing the fact that the lds church is willing to embrace those who would like to find safe harbor within the church?

It seems as though there is only one alternative, and that is that God change for them? They refuse to hear His voice and recognize that there are open arms which are willing to receive them?

There are many members who have confessed an awkwardness in our ability to do this, but a willingness to be much better at it. We have reached out and asked this thread to engage in some positive dialogue that would assist us in some thoughts that would be helpful?

So again, as Gus has observed... we will continue to wrap unless we do something constructive together? We are pretty smart folks you know? How about some input?

Regardless of our strong opinions, I have come to think quite highly of most all here and consider you all friends. I personally would love to know how I could be a better friend to my new friend that I told you about earlier on this thread???

So... give it up guys/gals?

Gus,

I will borrow from The Marches, an essay by Jewelle Gomez, to explain why I participate in these and other arguments.

Forty-Three Septembers
The Marches
p.98
1993

After thirty years of marches there is a certain sameness about them... Sometimes it seems banal - walking with banners, hoping the media doesn't lie about the numbers, hoping the numbers mean something to those who are afraid of us. I used to think that we, the marchers, were trying to make bigots change their minds and make legislators take notice of our power. More and more that is not my focus.

What I really hope as I'm marching, as I'm greeting the many people I now know, is that somewhere in the U.S. a lone person who's lesbian or gay or bisexual flips through all the channels to watch the news, like I used to do, and sees me or the thousands like me, and understands that none of us has to be alone. I'm hoping they will see themselves as part of a long line of marchers, working to make society a more honest and fair place for all of us.

The person I'm imagining is not necessarily the one living in a gentrified brownstone, or sitting at the local gay bar, or just returning from the lesbian cruise. The one I have in mind doesn't live anywhere near a women's bookstore, isn't really sure there are gay bars, or lives in fear of losing her children. It's sometimes easy for me to forget about these people since I spend so much of my time in New York City and San Francisco, places of privilege for most lesbians and gays. Nevertheless, those people are out there, and they are probably the majority of us.

Gus,

My original intent was to try and explain that I believe Christ would have me treat others with love. As you said, so many indictments of Mormons hating homosexuals have been posted here. I wanted to say that, at least in my life, that has not been the case. Even the philosophy of the church on this topic has never been one of hate.

I have found as I have posted, however, that much of my heartfelt thoughts have fallen on deaf ears. As I have read this thread, it seems no one really believes the other side. I think that some will agree that on, an individual level, we all try to do our best to love our neighbor. I hope, at least, that those who disagree with me would treat me with respect if they met me in person, even knowing that I disagreed with them on some ideas.

So I will continue to argue my thoughts about the gay-rights movement when those thoughts affect my life, while continuing to love those I know who are gay. And I assume that those who are advocating for more gay-rights will argue their thoughts against the Mormon church despite knowing Mormons that they respect.

My thoughts are at an end for this thread. Best of luck to you all!

Jen: "When a person takes on the label of homosexual, gay or lesbian, I believe that person chooses to focus on only one aspect of their lives. Whether gay or straight we are first, foremost, and ultimately children of God."

That's like saying that if a person takes on the label of vegetarian, it means that the only part of life that person considers important is diet. Everyone wears many labels, each of which refers to a single but important part of the individual's life. Some of the labels I wear:
mother
daughter
sister
wife
friend
woman
pet owner
gardener
pagan
omnivore
environmentalist
bglt equality advocate
heterosexual
teacher
actor
artist
Which label(s) I choose to use at any given moment depends on the context of the moment.

I've read through about 99% of the posts on this topic and to be honest, I'm a little puzzled by the intent of posters here.

Basically, non-LDS, former LDS, or non-practicing LDS, posters have one point of view and believe the LDS church and much of evangelical Christianity is wrong. I think that has been, shall we say, well established.

LDS posters, non-LDS but perhaps evangelical or other donominations believe that everyone else is wrong. This too has been well established. So we're basically approaching this with little or no common ground. I don't believe your arguments bear any authority, you don't believe my arguments bear any authority.

What is the goal with continual posts and reposts, rehashing the same (tired) arguments again and again. Nobody is going to change anybody's opinion through this medium.

I've read many offensive/ill-considered/ill-informed posts on both sides, and I don't think it's very constructive to the real arguments concerning homosexuality within and without the LDS faith.

So my question again, What is your goal in posting? What do you hope to accomplish?

Pete,

Prior to the enactment of DOMA, the General Accounting Office (as the GAO was then called) identified 1,049 federal statutory provisions in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor. An update was published in 2004 by the GAO covering the period between September 21, 1996 (when DOMA was signed into law) and December 31, 2003. The update identified 120 new statutory provisions involving marital status, and 31 statutory provisions involving marital status repealed or amended in such a way as to eliminate marital status as a factor. This yields a total of 1,138 provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges.

Here are some examples:

* Right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:
o Social Security pension
o veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
o survivor benefits for federal employees
o survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
o additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
o $100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
o continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
o renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse
o continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
o payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
o making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts

* Right to benefits while married:
o employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
o per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
o Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)
o sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits

* Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
o veteran's disability
o Supplemental Security Income
o disability payments for federal employees
o medicaid
o property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
o income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates

* Joint and family-related rights:
o joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
o joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
o family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
o next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
o custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
o domestic violence intervention
o access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods

* Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
* Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
* Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
* Spouse's flower sales count towards meeting the eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act
* Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
* Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
* Court notice of probate proceedings
* Domestic violence protection orders
* Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
* Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
* Funeral and bereavement leave
* Joint adoption and foster care
* Joint tax filing
* Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
* Legal status with stepchildren
* Making spousal medical decisions
* Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
* Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
* Right of survivorship of custodial trust
* Right to change surname upon marriage
* Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
* Right to inheritance of property
* Spousal privilege and confidential marriage communications

Pete, the list of rights and benefits by State may vary, you can usually get answers to your questions from your local GLBT organization as well as online.

Joy:
If your god's plan is for human beings to eventually become gods, and he is all-powerful, then why not simply create more gods, and not muck about with all theis fallible human being business?

Looks like others are out there trying to have their voices heard as well... I just received this in an email.

Subject: About: ABC

After I received and read this I understand why ABC has the programming they have and thinking that Christians are in the minority. I now watch very little TV and almost never ABC. There is too much violence and other objectionable materiel. I do enjoy watching the History, Hallmark, Discovery and TVland channels. If ABC thinks we are a small minority, just don’t watch ABC and let them find out who is the minority!! Warmest regards Larry

Maybe if more of us would take a stand we might get better television
viewing.

-- Jim Nugent is a coach in Childress , Texas.

Jim writes:

My name is Jim Neugent. I wrote to ABC (on-line) concerning a program
called "THE PRACTICE." In last nights episode, one of the lawyer's
mothers decided she is gay and wanted her son to go to court and help
her get a marriage license so she could marry her 'partner.' I sent
the following letter to ABC yesterday and really did not expect a
reply, but I did get one.

My original message was:

ABC is obsessed with the subject of homosexuality. I will no longer
watch any of your attempts to convince the world that homosexuality is
OK. ' THE PRACTICE' can be a fairly good show, but last night's
program was so typical of your agenda. You picked the 'dufus' of the
office to be the one who was against the idea of his mother being gay,
and made him look like a whiner because he had convictions. This type of
mentality calls people like me a "gay basher." Read the first chapter
of Romans (that's in the Bible) and see what the apostle Paul had to
say about it.... He, God and Jesus were all 'gay bashers'. What if
she'd fallen in love with her cocker spaniel? Is that an alternative
life style? (By the way, the Bible speaks against that, too.) --Jim
Neugent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Here is ABC's reply from the ABC on-line webmaster:

How about getting your nose out of the Bible (which is ONLY a book of
stories compiled by MANY different writers hundreds of years ago) and
read the declaration of independence (what our nation is built on),
where it says "All Men are Created equal," and try treating them that
way for a change! Or better yet, try thinking for yourself and stop
using an archaic book of stories as your lame crutch for your
existence. You are in the minority in this country, and your boycott
will not affect us or our freedom of statement .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



Jim Neugent's second response ! To ABC:

Thanks for your reply. >From your harsh reply, evidently I hit a nerve.
I will share it with all with whom I come in contact. Hopefully, the
Arkansas Democrat Newspaper will include it in one of their columns
and I will be praying for you.
- -Jim Neugent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Note: Wouldn't Satan just love it if people stopped using the Bible
For a crutch? Please resend this to everyone in your mailbox.

-- Thanks, Jim Neugent

I wonder if the person from ABC considered how many people would read
this e-mail!

This is one we should definitely pass on.

This I Believe -

Are you willing to answer my question about the rights that gay people are being denied? I really do not know the answer to the question and it seems that no one will give the facts plain and simple.

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

Anon:"...Afterall murderers, KKK, antisemitics, arsonists (fill in the blank) wouldn't have any difficulties either if people accepted them for who they are..."

Yes, but to accept murderers et al as they are means allowing them to deliberately go out an d harm others for their own pleasure. A relationship between consenting adults harms no one.

Joy,

Thanks

After reading many of the posts it is obvious that many former and current members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have felt alienated and ostracized by the Church's stance on homosexual behavior. For this, I feel deeply for my brothers and sisters. I feel deeply for those who may not feel loved or accepted by their family members or former friends within the Church. At the same time I feel that many who are in this situation confuse the doctrine of the Church with its imperfect application by often well-meaning members.

Mr. Otterson succinctly described The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' stand on same-sex attraction. One reason, I believe, the Church uses the word same-sex attraction is due to distinguishing the tendancy, inclination or action from the actual person. Members of the Church believe our true and accurate label is that of son and daughter of God.

When a person takes on the label of homosexual, gay or lesbian, I believe that person chooses to focus on only one aspect of their lives. Whether gay or straight we are first, foremost, and ultimately children of God.

Perhaps we could all take a deep breath and set aside our moral, philosophical, emotional, spiritual, educational and other differences and focus for a moment on what is right with ourselves, the LDS Church, our neighbors and our family.

I've recently tried to make a habit of doing this when I feel bogged down, misunderstood, or neglected and it is a truly liberating and refreshing exercise. It allows me to then tackle my challenges with renewed purpose, energy and sometimes a change of perspective.

And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.
And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities.
(Book of Mormon, Alma 7:11-12)

2 al you al that lke to critze smone ovr wrtng, gt a lfe.

Some of the most educated people sound the most uneducated. Sometimes I think they just like to hear themselves.

I am not sure that I was as clear as I wanted to be in my last post. I KNOW that homosexuals are looking to be able to marry each other. What legal rights are they hoping to gain by these unions that are not available to them now?

Kudos to Mr. Otterson for admitting that both he and many others have a lot to learn about loving unconditionally in these circumstances.

I can't really say the same about the acrimonious brow beaters that have immediately gone full out on the offensive on this thread. I am quite certain you haven't done squat to change the mind of Mr. Otterson or the LDS church.

To all who express smug satisfaction in the hatred of Mormonism in light of their percieved hatred of "practicing" gays and lesbians, may you hold a mirror up to yourselves and get a good look at your hypocrisy. To paraphrase another recent panelist question "can you criticize the Mormon church and not be Anti-Mormon". I honestly don't really see many examples of anyone trying to find any such balance here in 300+ comments, except maybe sideon early on, the recent backpeddling of the main offenders notwithstanding.

Could someone tell me EXACTLY what legal rights are being withheld from gay people. Please don't tell me marriage - because they can marry someone of the opposite sex, just as I can. They can live with whomever they want, just as I can. They can will their property to whomeever they want, just as I can. Instead I am interested to know what legal rights they are truly looking for in all this debate.

Casual Observer, sorry bout that. you sure are right. i slipped up there. thanks for pointing it out.

thankful and phaedrus, thanks to both of you for those thoughtful posts.

thankful, have you read the carol lynn pearson books that todd o. referenced? any thoughts on her stuff?

John
to clarify
i would not describe Mormons today as
either
Evil
OR
"morally challenged."

What I mean is that, in general

I don't use the term "evil behavior."
I use the term "immoral behavior."

also, sorry for my "to/too" typo in the first para.

John D !!!!!

Once again, you are being MUCH to moderate and reasonable.
What kind of world would it be if everyone behaved as you do?

Let us substitute for the inflammatory word "demonize" the term
"portray as evil, and thus ostracise." PO for short.

Jews were PO'd for centuries (in the plague many considered them the cause)
Blacks were PO'd - they did evil things because they were sub human,
and because they were evil in the preexistence they could not hold the priesthood.
We Mormons were PO'd in the early days.
Homosexuals are PO'd today by most religious groups.

Mormons TODAY are not considered evil by anyone but quacks. They are treated with suspicion as Romney's experience shows (largely by ignorant evangelicals).
But you and I and Mayan have no belief that Mormons are in general evil people (my term would be "morally challenged.")

I believe, as you know, that society has to get over labelling/thinking of Gays who have gay sex as evil/sinful.

Many (Joy) disagree. That is their right.

The societal debate should NOT be about whether Gays are evil.
It should be about whether
Homosexual acts should be a crime. (they shouldn't).
Whether, since gays are not criminals, it is moral and legal to deny them equal rights.

In the cultural debate, there is much ignorance and prejudice concerning gay issues. We all have a moral obligation to correct those moral wrongs, because they lead to very bad outcomes, as history has shown over and over again.

Thankful:

It takes courage to put these kinds of personal stories on this site, because, despite the anonymity cerated by noms de plume, hurtful responses are what they are. Your readers benefit from your story, and thanks are due. You have mine.

As I wrote before, I am most happy that your particular situation has worked out to your benefit. You had the right to choose which type of relationship to pursue, and you made the choice that does not result in the hurtfulness that gays are forced to endure in our culture. However, it seems that you did not make a "choice" to be attracted to your female friend, nor did you make a "choice" to be attracted to your husband. Your orientation could be described as non-exclusive in terms of your sexual orientation.

Imagine if this were not the case. Imagine that you were solely attracted to your own gender, such that you could in no way find the opposite gender appealing in any sexual sense. As it seems you did not make a conscious choice to be attracted to either your friend or your husband, only to pursue one relationship over the other, would you not agree that gender attraction cannot be significantly altered by conscious effort? At least for a great number, if not the vast majority of homosexuals?

You are courageous, yes, but also fortunate. Because if your same sex attraction had been more exclusive in nature, yu might have been one of those poor people who try to act hetero, even getting married and having children, only to have it all unravel eventually as they cannot sustain the pretense. In these cases, everyone loses. How much better would it have been for those people to have simply been able to be who they are, in full, and have the legal rights due all Americans?

Mayan, It wasn't me who said you were not religious or spiritual, that was "curious observer". I was confused myself for a minute.

James,

Thank you for asking my opinion, as per our prior conversation.

I don’t think the “demonize” label applies to either side.

Any moral prescription has the potential to portray those who do not adhere to it seem “evil or subhuman.”

It is clear that theists demonize non-theists and vice versa.

Communists demonize capitalists,

Republicans demonize democrats

Anti- Mormons demonize Mormons

Hetero-sexists demonize gays and so on and so forth.

Two extremes,

1). Moral disagreement with the utmost tolerance and respect for the other as human being.
2). Moral disagreement that results in demonizing the other.

Many fall somewhere on continuum between the two.

Often in these types of debates, people on all parts of the continuum are grouped to together into the demonizing other.

This happens a lot when historically persecuted minorities are being criticized by a majority. I think that’s why Mormons automatically call critics anti-Mormon, and Homosexuals automatically call critics bigots.

I understand this. I am uncomfortable with public criticism of my faith, not because I do not like questions, but because I fear that unfair prejudices people already have against Mormons will be hardened.

It reminds me….we must be conscious, even in our passion, that our criticisms do indeed contribute to such notions as “The Mormons have been a bad lot from the beginning” and “Homosexuals should be put on an Island some where.” I think the key is not being silent as to our opinions, but tempering our rhetoric by affirming the goodness, dignity, and worth of the people we are criticizing.

P.S. Pheadrus, thanks for your response, I have something in the works...too long to finish tonight.

As recorded in the New Testament...

Jesus taught that the whole hath no need of a physician, thus jealous as I would be if He were to come amongst us (not that I could not use time with him myself as all could?)

But, He would be spending much time with those MOST in need, i.e., not keeping His moral laws as proscribed in Holy Writ and by His living prophets...

Actually Betty, with shellfish and kosher, no I do not, but you must be equally informed that the eating of shellfish was a prohibitive of the Nation of Israel "only" under the covenant arrangement through the Mosaic Law.
That restriction does not apply to Gentiles, or non Jews.
No, I believe that Christ did not openly condemn homosexuality, but his heavenly Father did and Christ's followers after him, the Apostle Paul who learned examples from scriptures that were in illustration form taught by Christ to enable him to suggest homosexuals would never inherit the Kingdom of God would by power of reasoning that Jesus would honour his Father's words. Think about it, both Jesus and Paul, are they not also accountable to God?
Your Lutheran minister is married, that is commendable, but is he married to a man or woman.
If he is married to another man, he has brung ostracism against God's holy tradition of marriage which consist of a man and woman.
If he is married to a woman and a practising homosexual, he has brought ostracism and apostacy upon God's holy scriptures and has committed adultrey just from his heart condition alone.
There is no getting around it, no matter what your minister may preach about right and wrong and what's Biblically true, he does not have the right to teach any congregation until he gets his own house in order before he can qualify to teach from God's.
When I used foolishness and blindness as an example of many people today, were you really that unsure of yourself that I would be referring to you dear?
Love and kisses Ron

Are Mormons Christians

Just as the Mormons were the last group in America to recognize the rights of Blacks,

they will probably be the last group to recognize the humanity of gays.

Donna Freitas, Catholic columnist on this website, says in her current column:

"as a Christian, I have no idea how anyone can call herself a Christian and not agree with this viewpoint.

Anyone who believes in the dignity of the human person, and Jesus’s commandment to love one another and preach the Gospel to anyone who will listen, wouldn’t dare deny the right of one human being to enter into a sanctioned and lifelong commitment with someone he or she loves, or refuse a committed Christian to speak on behalf of his or her beliefs. And if, as the gospels tell us, Jesus hung out with the marginalized, the oppressed, and the outcasts during his lifetime, then who do you think he’d choose to hang out with today?"

This is what many of us mean when we say

THE MORMON POSITION ON GAY RIGHTS IS UN-CHRISTIAN.

I guess you Mormons are the only ones with a prophet who gets direct revelation from God, so I guess it makes sense that you would be alone in oppressing the marginalized when even the enlightened Catholics have seen the Un-Christianity of marginalizing Gays.

My sainted Mormon mother must be rolling over in her grave.

John D and Phaedrus and Tradition

John D and P Man
you are both smart, thoughtful boys.

Now, let's bring entropy into this.

A completely tradition-bound society
is like a closed system in term of energy.

If there is no outside source of new energy
(for example, the body that takes in food)

the energy of the closed, traditional system, will run down,
the entropy will increase.

it will eventually lead to total DIS-order.

Once again John D my main man
you need a BALANCE between
Tradition
and
disruption/new energy/change.

Giving Blacks the Priesthood (how nice of us)
for instance.
Recognizing our Gay Lutheran Minister's marriage
described in our current Guest Voice post
perhaps being another.

Ronald:

Jehovah God tells you not to eat shellfish. Do you eat Kosher?
I bet you don't.

Jesus, our Christian exemplar, never condemned homosexualtity.
He said adultery was a sin,
but our Gay Lutheran on this site is married.

And he is a blinkin minister.

You do not appear qualified to lecture me on foolishness.

love and kisses
betty

So Betty, you swallow what this mortal human being,... this Jack Rogers says about all those myths and yet you reject what Jehovah God says about his disapproval of homosexuality in the holy scriptures.
So who do you think is gonna outlive the other here to prove who's correct, God or Jack?
I'm amazed at how people these days who are bombarded with knowledgement that has never been surpassed in any other generation in history, yet foolishness and blindness is so prevalent.

Joy,

donchya think that a guy that asks "doesnt god grant this authority" by which one is married, and suggests that sex outside of an 'authorized' marriage already knows where the mormons meet?

Mike,

If you are interested in reading more or finding out more about Mormons you can go to the website - lds.org. I think that they have links to meeting times and places on there as well. In your phone book you should be able to find the phone number and thus times for the visitor center for the San Diego Temple (I think look under San Deigo Temple or Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints)

Mike: I love you Too

But I must say, at the risk of shocking you into self-consciousness,
that your approbation of Gays who have loving relationships with each other,
given the evident level of your intelligence and moral sensitivity, not to mention your grasp of the English Language,
is a supreme example of a human being
assuming a posture of superiority towards your fellows
when a stance
of abject humility
is patently much more appropriate.

Love you.
betty

Mike and Gay Marriage

Mike: confusing isn't it?
Is adultery solely a Mormon concept?
Did the Mormons exist when Moses gave us the 10 commandments?

If a Catholic gets married in City Hall and then has sex with her spouse, is that considered adultery even they weren't "married in God's ceremony?"

I think not.

Is gay sex adultery if the gay couple has been married in (gasp) Cambridge City Hall, or in a Lutheran Church in Boston (where everything is banned).

Did you answer whether Jesus ever condemned/outlawed homosexuality?

He did speak out against self righteousness.

Thankful's Lovely Story

I echo Sister Mary Lisa, whom I adore.

T, your story was honest and eloquent and heartfelt and compassionate.

I don't come to the same conclusions that you do, but I have great respect for your journey and your figuring things out for YOURSELF. and for your true love and connection with your friend.

There is a big difference, I think, between the theology behind the LDS church's rejection of homosexuality/homosexuality and the rejection of gays by other religions. The major difference is that other religions do not preach of a tiered afterlife based on sexuality and earthly marital promises the way Mormons do.

Once again, the discrimination is in the DOCTRINE rather than in the individual members, necessarily, although it's obvious that doctrine and practice can and do drive behavior.

Doesn't God grant this athority? Man is not above God. So if God grant us the authority, then it's a sin.

Love all you Mormons.
I am sure you are Right about everything.

Just to give you a heads up about the evil outer world: there is this guy named Jack Rogers, professor emeritus at San Francisco Theological Seminary (wouln't ya know it, San Francisco!!!) who just wrote a book called "Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality"

damned if he didn't reveal that the following are MYTHS!!! Thank God none of us believe these hokum crackpot things:

Myths about Homosexuality

That sexual orientation in a choice.
That people who are homosexual can become heterosexual.
That homosexuality is idolatry.
That homosexuality is a sin.
That homosexuality is a mental disorder, psychiatric disorder, or a gender identity disorder.
That the Bible contains a model of monogamous heterosexual marriage in Genesis.
That the image of God in humans is rooted in a male/female relationship.

Thankful ~

Your words are beautiful. Thanks for sharing your story.

I'm wondering what you think you might have done if your friend whom you loved HADN'T met and married her returned missionary. Had she stayed single, do you think you'd have made the choice you ultimately made?

Mike

Do you really not know how to spell "irrelevent", or was that just a typo.? Just checking.

By whose authority were they married? In the state of Massachusetts where I live, marriage is legal between two men.

When two people are married, whether in the church or by a justice of the peace, their ensuing sexual relations do not constitute adultery. These two men ARE legally married.

Now how do you judge their "sin"?

Jesus never said it was a sin.

Leviticus would damn EVEN you to Hell in a heartbeat.

To John D:

John, thanks for the posts, which were interesting, and provocative. If I may paraphrase your main points:

1. There is a difference between secular and spiritual morality, with spiritual morality being more transcendence focused, and secular morality more concerned with mundane social progress.

2. That tradition, which you do not define, is at odds with "liberal establishment" values, also undefined.

3. That connection with "tradition" is crucial to Mills' doctrine of the greatest good for the greatest number, in that it promotes a more pervasive happiness than a lack of, or separation from, tradition.

4. That social change must not be permitted to do violence to tradition, but may be permitted to gradually alter it, which you refer to as "softening."

5. That those communities which maintain a connection to the transcendent, are superior to those which do not, this superiority residing in what you refer to as "vibrancy."

My response:

First of all I think that you do an injustice to "tradition" by seemingly asserting that it is a monolithic entity, one limited largely to the spiritual. Tradition is a much richer and more variant subject than this. The word itself stems from the latin for "handing over," and the modern definition covers the handing down, from one generation to another, information, beliefs, and customs. Thus, there are a plenitude of non-spiritual traditions; such as the law itself, or different artistic movements, or even such nebulous concepts as "that old pioneer spirit." Some of these are transcendant, some mundane, each interacting with the other. To deny one, is to weaken the other.

Further, you seem to imply that "traditions" must be writ large, when we all know of many "micro-traditions" within our circle of friends and families, or our schools even, that elicit immediate emotive responses whenever we think of them. Watch an SEC football game and you will observe evidence of the rich variety of traditions, some shared by thousands, and some by a single family or fraternity. It is this interplay of various, and sometimes competing, traditions, that makes for the rich tapestry of SEC football games, which is woven from a pattern of thousands of smaller traditions.

In this way, the United States as a nation is merely a huge tapestry of peoples and the traditions to which they hold. These traditions compete with one another at times, and complement one another at times, and, in so doing, form an overall culture of "Americanism." I agree that there is great cohesive power in this idea, and find much of the American genius for invention, and reinvention within it. It is also our greatest protection against the tyranny of homogeneity, which leads to stagnation, lethargy, and the loss of the very "vibrancy" you reference.

So, based on your post, you are not so much an advocate for "tradition," as you are for one form of tradition. You denigrate the rest, that vast tapestry,, and,in so doing, deny the engine of our national genius. Your narrow form of one exalted tradition is definitely the way to hold back social progress though. And this is also what Mill thought, by the way. he did not have especial truck with religious hegemony.

I submit that, in advocating for continual social change, in the interest of relieving that suffering which can be relieved without causing a greater suffering, I am actually adhering more to the overall "tradition" of America than you are, in focusing on the smaller, insular "tradition" you describe. Americans have always been a restless people, a people willing to lead the way. A people willing to challenge the staus quo, within the grinding machine of our sometimes clashing individual freedoms. We will never lose our greater traditions by practicing them, John.

There is no greater "vibrancy" than this. To fail to continually challenge our concepts of justice is to retreat into greater forms of injustice.

In my next post, I will take up gay marriage within this context.

Mike
No offense meant, mate.

We jolly old englishmen use "Old Bean" as a term of endearment.

Like saying, "Don't shoot me, I'm your friend."

I didn't mean to imply you were a vegetable, or anything like that.

Google "old bean" and see what you find.

Hello again Phaedrus,

I think John D the First has set a good example by avoiding trite answers to explain his ideas and I’ve decided to follow suit in more fully answering your question (and it appears advocacy) of same gender marriage.

You spoke earlier in the thread of your LDS mother -- “There is no finer person on this planet, though I admit to a certain bias.”

I also use this description for the outstanding LDS woman who became my best friend towards the end of high school.

As one might gather from what I have already shared of my experience with same gender attraction in this thread, I felt quite lost in many ways at that point and finding such a friend, a best friend, was an absolute godsend to me.

She nurtured me really -- she never knew what it was that I just felt I couldn’t talk about that at times ate me up inside but she always put her arms around me and affirmed her love and care for me -- respected what ever it was as mine to share or not -- taught me in so many ways of my genuine worth. I loved her for it, I still love her for it, as my dear friend she continues to teach me.

I always tried to reciprocate her care in the way that a deep gratitude just naturally compels and we were an extremely close and integral ongoing support to one another as we entered and navigated the young adult world.

She really became the example I wanted to follow particularly in living our faith as she was and still is a consistently righteous, thoughtful and generous person -- a great blessing to all those in her company.

I’ll just say it, I fell in love with her but in my behavior I chose to respect her values as they were also mine and as I have implied, there is no more upstanding and virtuous woman than she in my opinion.

My behavior did not change the way I felt, however, and this was something I struggled to keep in check. I felt at times that I was walking a very fine line. In many ways we were inseparable especially when we were both home from college every summer. I often considered abandoning our friendship all together but couldn’t bring myself to do it as she had so much become a source of incredible strength and meaning in my life.

She “waited” as we say, for a missionary who I came to know as an equally outstanding LDS guy. I “waited” anxiously with her too becoming quite convinced she would marry him when he returned.

On the day that the two of them were finally married, I rejoiced genuinely for her as I had always wanted above all, no less then the complete and utter happiness of my dearest dearest friend. Together, to this day they are one of the happiest, good, exemplary couples I know.

Even before her marriage, our relying on each other had naturally begun to change and that process had continued as she appropriately and naturally turned more and more to her husband. This in and of itself was very hard on me and when the celebration of her marriage was said and done, I felt very lost and very alone.

As time went on, though our friendship continued, I came to feel very depressed. I felt uncomfortable around her. I missed her all the time even when I was with her. To me, it was like she had died. I was grieving for her.

During this time, I thought more about what I really wanted in my life and a lot about what I didn’t want. I thought about the kind of relationship that would be worth investing myself in, investing my life in. I began to think about many of the things I have shared in a previous post and I state them here again:

“In the context of homosexual relationships what does it mean to “have no promise” ?
To me it has come to mean many very personal things…To me it means that however loving and supportive such a relationship may be (which I acknowledge they can be), it does not have the potential to be exalted, the potential to create life, the potential for one to fully experience both joy and growth in fulfilling their own divinely given gender stewardships while also being uniquely magnified by the other, the potential to ultimately achieve a lasting happiness and unity in being bound/sealed to whom one loves and has borne out their life with, the potential to have one’s most precious life’s gift and work - their children to be bound to and with them forever and finally the potential through the eternities to continue to experience emotional and sexual intimacy as ongoing partners in creation of children and new life. “

Overall, I knew what I really wanted was to have these blessings, the foremost of which at that time was -- to achieve lasting happiness and unity in being bound/sealed to whom one loves and has borne out their life with. My thoughts and questions and energy began to turn to how I might somehow really have an intimate eternal companion of the opposite sex.

Perhaps at some point I’ll talk more about that process for me but at this point I only want to contrast to at least some degree, my experiences in my relationship with my best friend with that of my husband.

I continue to compare these relationships whenever this topic happens to come up and it seems that each time there is a deeper understanding and appreciation for the choices I have ulimately made and the experiences I have had. In doing this, I also look at my dear friend’s relationship with her husband and think on what our lives might have otherwise been.

I look most obvious contrast is in how we are both mothers now and how this continues to be a wonderful part of our personal growth and happiness that we could not have given to each other. I think about how perfectly our husbands are suited to us and are each righteous priesthood holders who magnify us and offer a unique sense of protection, safety and support. I think about how I have discovered and cultivated more of the beauty of my own feminine qualities particularly in the contrasting presence of my husband‘s masculinity. I think about how he and I find great meaning together in building an eternal family and in living the restored gospel of Jesus Christ with the hope and faith and commitment to each other of a forever family and relationship. To me, there is an undeniable qualitative difference in my relationship now with my husband that I only once idealized as possible.

These are the some of blessings of now and I’m convinced our ongoing choices to seek the full blessings found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will reap the blessings I promised in eternity. (for more reasons too lengthy to share)

With my experience, I imagined what it would really be like to love someone for a lifetime and then be parted when this life is over. These are the sadest thoughts to me and these thoughts do not escape me as I vote and speak with my conscious that I cannot endorse gay marriage.

It is my belief that gay marriage is perpetuating a counterfeit idea to others that further distorts where eternal happiness and companionship and intimacy ultimately lies.

I believe this life is a probationary state for all of us which has eternal implications and out of the same love I have for myself, I respectfully counter these things and hope others will do the same.

In sharing these things, I fully recognize that this is my experience and those who read may take it or leave it.

PS I've already spent a bit of time here on this today and probably won't be able to respond to any thoughts till tommorrow

adios

James,

I don't appreciate the "Old Bean" comment. I'm not someone you can talk down to.

Mike

James,

By who's authority are they married? Just my thoughts on this, I don't think god would sanction a marriage between the same sex. Otherwise Adam and Eve would have been irrelivant. Just a thought?

Take care!

Mike

Mike Old Bean

Read the Guest Column on this post at the moment.

It is from a Married Lutheran Minister Iremember, you have to be a minister to post here).

He is married to *another man*!!!!!????!!!!

So when they have Gay Sex, it IS NOT adultery.

Are you OK with that?

Joy

Leviticus said that people should not have relations within their own sex. He also said not to eat shellfish.

I know of no statement attributed to Jesus concerning Homosexuality. Do you? He did say be kind unto the least of these my brethren. But no "beat up the sissies."

You say that you "attempt to treat gay people with as much love and consideration as anyone else I know."

I am sure you are "nice" to the gay people you meet.

However, if we go by the dictionary definition of Christian James cites above (not the only entry of course: following Jesus is involved)
"Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
kind, kindly" (which Jesus did better than most of us)
then you would have to concede that
few gay people think the Catholic or Mormon Church treats them in a kindly, humane way that shows loving concern.

you and your church consider it a sin.
The lutheran minnister now posting says he is sure God considers his gay marriage holy.
That is a true Christian position in the best sense of the term, IMHO.

And yes, a number of us Mormohs were "disgruntled" when the Church denied the priesthood to Blacks. Kind of like having a stone in your shoe.

Mormons, for the 300th time, are generally very good people, like my sainted mormon mother was.
On this issue, they are Unchristian.
Jesus would be pained to see the Mormon position.
In my opinion. You are entitled to yours and the Mormon opinion as well.

Joy,

Thank you for clarifying the Mormon view on this. I have had great Mormon Neighbors and they are nothing what the other people have posted. I was wondering if you have more information on your church I can read? I was thinking about visiting your temple here in San Diego. How to I find out about what times you meet at?

Thanks!

Mike

James,

You made my point when you said the following: "...I said it (Mormon and Catholic Church) treated gays in an Un Christian way, but which I meant, contrary to the way Jesus would treat them".

Words DO matter James.

First of all, how do you think Jesus would respond to Homosexuality? Put asside the fact that have chosen a Homosexual lystyle, sex outside of marriage is considered a sin according to Jesus. Then if you look at the fact that Marriage is sanctioned by God, well that would conclude that Homosexuality is wrong. You can't follow Gods' techings and be "Christian" by your definition and most importantly by Jesus' definition.

Now let's look at the born gay arguement. If GOd made a person Gay, then by gods definition he would be a sinner. A because we all know god is perfect, this wouldn't be the case.

Take care!

Mike

Mike,

The initial posts are written by ministers or representatives of various religions. The comments written about those articles are by anyone that would like to comment. My experience is that a variety of people post about Mr. Otterson's articles. Many of the people who disagree with or criticize Mr. Otterson's views and consequently Mormon views, are former Mormons who are disgruntled in some way or athiests who are against faith in any God at all.

The Mormon perspective regarding homosexuality has been spelled out pretty clearly by Mr Otterson or the links he provided. Many of the Mormons who have posted here have also put their opinions and experiences on this thread as well. After spending quite a bit of breath spelling out my perspectives on the subject, I have decided that no matter what I say I will not change their ideas and they will not change mine. We have different morals and values that are at the core of how we believe on the subject.

In my own life I work to treat the gay people I know with as much love and consideration as anyone else I know. As a Mormon I am trying to live the teachings of my church in this regard. The Mormon church teaches me to treat everyone as Christ would.

I am not sure what people mean when they say that we are being Un-Christian. Perhaps that has been their experience with people who are not living as Christ would, who happen to be Mormon. We are not claiming to be perfect at being Christian.

One of the things that Christ taught was that sin would not be tolerated in the kingdom of God. So saying that disagreeing with the gay lifestyle is being un-Christian is not a true statement.

I would hope that if I met Betty or Sister Mary Lisa's brother on the street or out in the world that I would show them geniuine love and kindness. I am trying to be like Jesus.

Mike
You can't post here unless you are minister.

I was using this definition of Christian, which IS in the dictionary:
"Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
kind, kindly"

You are free to disagree, but few gay people think the Catholic Church treats them in a kindly, humane way that shows loving concern.

Definitions of words DO matter Mike.

I did not say the Catholic Church was not Christian. I said it treated gays in an Un Christian way, but which I meant, contrary to the way Jesus would treat them.

I also, clearly, said "Catholics are good people." I was criticising the church on this stand.

Catholic Charities is a very good thing. Very Christian.

I respecfully disagree. Catholic's are good people. Just becuase a church doesn't bend to your way of thinking doesn't make them un-christian. Attacking a Christian religion and calling them un-christian, I think you have it backwards.

What church do you guys belong to? You're atheist, or you don't live your faith.

Just curious.

Take care!

Mike

Mormons are Not the Only Church
that treats Gay people
in an Un Christian Way.

The Catholic Church does, and most catholics are great people for the most part.
Fundamentalist Christians do, and though I don't like them much, most fundies are pretty good people.

So don't think that we critics are just picking on you/us Mormons. We are critical of all institutions who discrimate against and portray as evil/un-natural our gay brothers and sisters.

Mike's Confusion

Yes mike. You have to be a minister to post here.

Most critics here of the Mormon position on Gay rights have Mormon mothers whom they revere. They know as well as you do that most Mormons are very nice, and have said so frequently.

Mormons are NOT very nice to Gay people, which is the topic of the day.

They attempt to deprogram them. They have given them shock treatment. They have ostracised them by defining them as evil if they have sex.
They believe God told them to, and they believe they are right, but from the point of view of a self-respecting gay person who wants to be treated like a human being, this is often an awful situation to be in.

Seems like an Un Christian situation to a lot of us.

But we love our Mormon mothers and cousins and aunts and uncles.

" ... are right."

If, as it appears, that there is am in utero biological, genetic, hormonal basis for a human's development ex utero as a homosexual, will the religious community adopt abortion as an appropriate "solution" to the "problem"? Or will they accept these people as God's perfect children, known by him in the womb before they were born?

Also, with the exception of one psychotic, manic depressive boss, I agree that every Mormon person I have ever met or known has been a very nice person, respectful of others, polite, reasonable, and a pleasure to associate with. So there is something good going on with the Mormon community. That doesn't mean, of course, that their attitudes toward our gay brothers and sisters is right.

Is this an open forum to discuss faith and view's? If so, why is all I hear about how bad Mormons are? Every Mormon I've ever come in contact with has been to me and my family. They seem to live an honest lifestyle and promote moral values. What's more christian than that?

So what's the big deal here?

I don't know if I'm suppost to be posting on this Blog. Is it for Ministers only?

Take care!

Mike

Let's not confuse the two here. Civil rights have nothing to to with Gay Rights. Homosexuals have the same rights as I do, the agenda is to gain additioanl rights as they see fit. Gay rights? What about Hetero Rights?

Homosexuality started as a Heterosexual perversion. Let me explain. It all started when lust filled a mans heart with thoughts of being with two women. Then socioty accepted this as normal. Experimantation led to sexual sin/perversion, and then came the debate over "is homosexuality normal". Some accepted it, some not caring either way, some strongly apposed it on moral grouds, while others don't know where they stand. Then there came the organizations that wanted to normalize Homosexuality. They did study after study until they got the findings they wanted. However, I can go on the internet and find a billion more references to the contrary. So on goes the debate.

Homosexuals as anyone have agency to do what they will, but will be accountable after this life for their thoughts and actions. I just don't want them interfering with the text books in my kids school. I say remove sex-ed from all schools and have the parents of the children take responsibility for the raising of thier children.

God bless!!

CO, good question. i have no clue what ganesh says about homosexuality. this response is typical of many that i get when i discuss the church. "well, mayan, if you dont believe in the mormon church, what religion do you believe. well, mayan, what god do you believe in?" some mormons are sort of trapped in that revelation mode, they are just waiting for that further light and knowledge to be delivered to them from a prophet, that got it from god.

when it comes to civil rights, i prefer common sense, debate, facts, equality and fairness, and i dont rely on mythical gods or old books for that. and more, i dont rely on tradition interpretations of mythical gods or old books. i like contemporary research when it is available.

RTC:

Are you aware that the idiot Dr. Dobson has written about "curing" "pre-gay" children who appear to show characteristics commonly associated with the opposite sex? Yes, if your 4-year-old boy occasionally plays with his sister's Barbie doll, the Wisdom of Dobson can straighten out his "pre-gay" behavior!

And you think this person is credible?

The current "Guest Voice" on this site, a Lutheran Minister, says the following about his own Gay Marriage. i wonder if he gets a burning feeling in his chest when he asks God if his relationship is holy? Is he hearing from the wrong God? Is his problem that he is not a Mormon?

He writes:

"I find holiness in many places but especially in my relationship with my partner. Our relationship teaches me on a daily basis that I’m called to live with tenderness and gentleness, with forgiveness and vulnerability. My commitment to him “for better and for worse” makes me more fully human, more deeply reflective of the image of God. Biblical principles of commitment, generosity, compassion, justice, forgiveness and tenderness have been the guideposts for our life together.

Put simply, I’m a better Christian because I’m with him. The longer we are together, the more deeply confident I am that our union is blessed in the sight of God. I long for the day when all people who find themselves in sexual minorities will be able to come to the church and hear words of grace and blessing spoken over their promises."

RTC ~

You said, "But also if [my gay child(ren)] chose to be active I would hope and pray that those where ever they lived would embrace and support them so that they would feel accepted and loved."

Does that mean you would let them stay in your home if they came to visit? Or not? How would YOU help them feel accepted and loved?

hey ME,
if you and your family are having discussions about other "religions" and "gods" pray tell,what does ganesh say about gays and lesbians?

We are all free to believe what we want. We are not free (or shouldn't be, in our American system of rule of law and not of men, that respects the rights of individuals and protects them from tyranny) to impose our beliefs on others, when to do so infringes their freedom to act in ways that are absolutely not harmful to anyone else.

Mayan-

If you claim to know the kind of "mormons" that you do and they would not stand up as those here are... then they are most likely not the kind of MORMON that I am.... you are right!

They are also most likely not the kind of Mormon that would go to the temple.

They are also most likely not the kind of Mormon that sustains the living prophets.

They are most likely not the kind of Mormon who honor their priesthood.

They are most likely not the kind of Mormon who keep all of their convenants.

They are most likely not the kind of Mormon who has a valiant testimony of Jesus Christ.

They are most likely not the kind of Mormon who has received the spirit of the Holy Ghost.

So what kind of a Mormon is a Mormon?

Michael Otterson said:

For The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the doctrinal issue is clear cut. A sexual relationship outside of marriage – whether heterosexual or homosexual - is sin. And same-gender unions are, we believe, unacceptable to God.

But we can’t leave it there, because how to love, treat and respond to those who have feelings of attraction for those of the same sex in our own congregations is much more complex. I probably still have something to learn about how to love unconditionally and non-judgmentally in such circumstances, and I’m confident that I’m not alone in that.

We need to remember that it’s not a sin to feel inclinations or to be tempted. The sin comes in yielding to the temptation. Church leaders have taught that a person who feels attraction to those of the same gender can progress in the Church as long as they don’t yield to temptation – that is, engage in sexual relations.

I say to All - He is not alone in his feelings.

I know many lds members feel the struggle he does of knowing the behavior is wrong, yet loving people and wanting to embrace them.

I would very much like to have a dialogue that would open the door with how this could better be accomplished with those that would like to share their feelings in a positive manner.

The lds church can be the safest harbor for those that struggle with same-gender attraction. We have much to learn in how to support and love them, but we can do it and are willing to do it.

As I have mentioned in previous post, if I had an adult child that was actively engaging in this behavior I would not condone it and would not allow the behavior in my home and yet my love for them would remain. But also if they chose to be active I would hope and pray that those where ever they lived would embrace and support them so that they would feel accepted and loved.

I know every parent would want the same for their child. So what are some ways we could best accomplish this?

Ultimately, I hope that a Mormon is one that follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. In following Jesus Christ we are taught to love one another and to take care of one another. I believe that The Church of Jeus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints truly does put forth effort to do this in many ways.

I find it fascinating that so much emphasis is placed on the importance of "marriage between a man and a woman being of God"...yet the Bible doesn't strongly suggest that Jesus Christ himself was. It is only SPECULATED that he was married to Mary Magdalene. In fact, he hung out with and associated with mostly men, it appears. Same-gender attraction, perhaps??

I would think that if this were such a "fundamentally moral" and vital issue to the eternal salvation of man for a man to be married to a woman, that Jesus himself would have made a point of DOING IT OPENLY and PREACHING IT more strongly so it would end up in the bible as a fundamental law, like he did with baptism.

Interesting.

Mayan
YOU don't count yourself as mormon, except when you try and make some point which you want fellow posters to take seriously. Then the tbm, rm, married in temple all come out as if to justify something. It doesn't work that way.

and seriously, you are teaching your kids to treat others with respect? the way YOU do?

and yes you are right, I have NO clue what you do for any individual or group as it relates to homosexuality which is why I asked. Being a fan of lesbians isnt enough to "fight biogtry". and do you really think that is what you are doing through your posts? I thought you were smarter than that. Guess I was wrong.

James -

The reference to "convoluted" is to be applied to both your application of it to my statement " a truly educated person knows that in their findings the motives are CLEARLY seen or found"...

As well to the many comments that YOU have directed towards me... which are extremely CONVOLUTED.

Also in adding your assessment of my "ignernt" circumstances along with mayan's, is simply your opinion.

But do appear to me as ignorant on your part in that you are unwilling to recognize that you are conversing on Mr. Otterson's thread wherein he is a Mormon and makes his statement for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints.

It would be a "logical" thought process for most to assume then that on this thread you would converse with many of those of the lds faith and would therefore be educating self to learn about this faith at ON FAITH?

You are right when you say there are 5-6 million of us... what would the ratio to the entire population of the world be? hmmmmmmm?

Would what we think or feel or believe or know have any force in the data that you give so much value to? Maybe we should try some of those stats and see how the numbers pop up?

But, I realize that you don't see things my way, because I believe in God as all Mormons do.

UN-Enlightened Saint

You have No Right to preach and admonish non-mormons regarding their behavior based on the teachings of a church that they do not accept.

You sound like a raving lunatic when you do so.

good point sml. ya know, i obviously have some issues with the church, and this is one of the hot-button topics that i like to read and comment about. though, i have to say, i hope that nobody reads all this stuff and takes from it that ALL mormons are just following the prophet. the mormon community is full of some very interesting and dynamic people. they are thoughtful people, for the most part. while they sing songs about following the prophet and praising joseph smith and they believe god talks to a living prophet, they are not all blindly walking in the steps of these guys. rtc, and her ilk, dont accurately represent all the mormons i know. there are some that claim to not disagree with the prophet, but i wonder if they would really pull the lever to vote for continued discrimination. i like to think that they would privately vote for equal rights. i know others that will admit openly that they think the church is flat out wrong on this subject. and there are many mormons on the continuum from the left to the right.

the saddest part for me, is that this dialogue is happening here, online, and wouldnt be a welcome debate in the halls and classrooms and chapels of the mormon church. the church hosts a massive conference, twice a year, and there will be no public forum or debate among the members to discuss this and other current topics. rather, the prophet will speak, followed by amens, and any debate will be carried to private or online venues. the discontinuation of an employment contract for a byu professor who disagreed with the church's political actions is a sad message that debate and dissention will not be tolerated. all the while, that professor's actions prove that all the members are not alike, nor are they all igg-nernt.

Enlightened Saint ~

Slander = to utter damaging reports about.

Much like your comment that I'm SINISTER. (**insert evil laughter echoing into silence**)

I am not uttering damaging reports about Mormonism. I am quoting certain Mormons as they speak their own "damaging" stuff in this thread that makes them appear narrow-minded and judgmental. Most of the Mormons who write here don't paint a very rosy picture of the religion they so love, and I don't know if they recognize this.

So. If if my pointing this out paints a damaging picture of Mormonism, maybe that is vital to this discussion. My entire point is that LDS teachings about this topic are discriminatory to gay people. Discrimination IS damaging.

I never asked RTC to step back in line and act Mormon. I'm claiming that her words come across as ignorant and narrow-minded and that she is behaving as a true follower of Christ wouldn't or shouldn't, in my opinion. She also paints a very strong picture of herself as someone who "blindly" follows her priesthood leaders whithersoever they goest, even if doing so is discriminatory and non-Christlike in nature.

RTC

Are you truly asking whether it is consistent for
a person to be BOTH
convoluted
and
Ig-nerrnt.?

I would consider those mutually reinforcing qualities.

Your implicit claim is that your discernment is higher than others because of your gift of the spirit from your God.

That argument carries no weight with those who do not believe in YOUR god (i.e., everyone in the world except 5-10 million).

It works fine when you have a conversation with other Mormons, but you may have noticed that that is not the situation on this website.

You and I both can discuss the meaning of empirical evidence in the world.

I can't discuss arguments that you base on your belief in God. You are entitled to them, but they are not a matter for possible accommodation here.

If you say, as you seem to, that God and your church tell you what to believe on Gay Marriage, then we have nothing to say to each other, and the Mormon view should be disregarded in the public sphere when we are discussing legislation.

There we have to rely on morality, law, and evidence.

oh enlightened saint, careful there. i dont think she was slandering members of the lds faith. but its interesting that questioning the mormon leaders, especially on something as important as civil rights, would be interpreted as slanderous to mormons.

"Sister Mary Lisa",

You slander members of the LDS faith for it's stance on Homosexuality, yet you ask RTC to “step back in line” and act Mormon when it suits you. Which way would you have it? Grow up.

You may also want to change your name to “Sinister Mary Lisa”, it suits you better.

JAMES-

"This belief would truly astound any intelligent and educated person."

How is it that you want it both ways James? In one sentence you claim I am convoluted and the next I am ignernt?

Why such confusion and astonishment with such a simple concept as discernment?

But alas, to discern requires more than just intellect and education.

To truly discern requires the spirit, which is a gift from god.

In fact, it is a gift of the spirit. You may read about it in the Bible.

I apologize for the confusion.

You know, there's an interesting thing about people who call themselves "educated". They profess to know more about things (based on "studies, cases, findings, etc.) than someone who received a lot less education... say, Jesus Christ.

Don't pretend to be above the teachings of God. You are in danger of blasphemy. "Trust in the lord with all thy heart, and lean not unto thy own understanding". Words well spoken.

The plan of salvation is real and can be achieved by living the teachings of Jesus Christ, and on bended knee.

If what you preach doesn't build up the lords kingdom, then it is in vain and is of the devil. Short and sweet.

RTC ~

I wonder if Otterson could reach you via e-mail if he'd ask you to quit already! I bet he cringes as he reads your stuff here. You don't paint a very pretty picture of Mormons here, sadly. And I am sad that you just don't see it.

Betty-

Thus far in my life and that of the history of this world, it has been quite a safe thing to trust in the God of the Old and New Testaments.

This is the same God that created this earth upon which both of us stand.

This is the same God that created man.

This is the God that I pray to and answers my prayers each and every day.

Yes Betty, but with no fear whatsoever this is the God in whom I put complete trust and who's voice I listen to...

I realize that this assurance frightens you, but there is complete peace for myself in this.

It is interesting that many would like to compare it to those extremist who have done and followed in the past leaders into acts of violence unspeakable. They are completely off the mark in where we are.

I am firm knowing the God I trust and His characteristics and attributes. I understand His great love for His children. He is not a vengeful God.

I know by what and whom I am led.

He leads in love for all of His children. I am happy to follow...

RTC, you DO continue to amaze us.

You write
"A truly educated persons knows that in their findings (the work or findings before you to judge) the motives are CLEARLY seen or found..."

The convolutions of this sentence aside,
what you SEEM to be saying is (correct me if I am wrong)

"it is easy for a smart person to assess the motives of any speaker."

This belief would truly astound any intelligent and educated person.

Additionally, I don't advocate disregarding one point of view (your pediatricians) because it contradicts my belief.
I advocate getting MANY points of view, evaluating the reliability of their evidence, and making your own judgment.

BTW, you also totally misunderstand the nature of scientific theory. Do some reading by some real philosophers of science about the nature of theory. Your construction of it is, to quote Mayan, Ig-nernt. Or was it Phaedrus?

RTC
you write
"I know that I follow a source that I can trust completely. In that I am confident."

Have you read any Greek plays? Do you know how many humans have said the same thing you say and it has led to catastrophe? Doesn't your surety scare you a little bit? (I fear the answer you will give is no).

I follow Allah, and I know I can trust it completely. And Allah tells me things that completely contradict what you Mormons believe.

Whom should I trust? You, or Allah?

"The black issue was not wrong as you would like to believe, but withheld."

Justice delayed is justice denied. No amount of PR can cover this up.

James -

A truly educated persons knows that in their findings (the work or findings before you to judge) the motives are CLEARLY seen or found...

It is not necessary to know their credentials and motives before you take upon their findings? Just look what is before you... You will know if YOU are an educated person IF it is credible?

If you do NOT use this formula, you will miss much truth that comes before you as you will ONLY give credibility to those whom YOU judge as worthy?

YES, I realize you may like to say that I may do this, but you would be very wrong....

rtc: i dont think that is what anon is saying, i think his point is that this group was formed with prejudice and is not publishing from an unbiased point of view, much like you.

casual: interesting that you would consider me, or my home, or my children not at all religious or spiritual if my children are "discussing" other religions. equally interesting is that you refer to other religious gods as 'fake.' and most interesting is that you say i 'forcibly' removed my kids.

not only does all of that fly in the face of the articles of faith, its just plain igg-nernt. why, in this great big world of ours, why wouldnt someone take the time to discuss religion, including other religions, with a kid? and why, if a kid became interested in other cultures and their customs or traditions, would anyone shut that down? and finally, if a kid is old enough to choose to be baptised, as a kid, in your church, is that same kid not old enough to choose not to be baptised, or attend your church? that whole age of accountability thing is just a convenience to you, isnt it?

kdoss: please dont get snippy with me about who counts who as a mormon. take that up with otterson and his people-counters.

yours is a very very very curious comment kdoss. for one, you have no clue what i do for any individual or group as it relates to homosexuality, nor will you ever know. suffice it to say, that plenty is done around here for all sorts of people, including homosexuals. fighting against bigotry is just one of many things that could make a difference in the world. what really piqued my interest though, is that for some reason you felt obliged to comment on my family. i couldnt help but think of that misquoted david mckay quote that i heard so often among mormons,“No other success can compensate for failure in the home.” ya know pal, i am doing a lot to help these kids not grow up to be bigots, thats a good thing, no? i am trying to teach them to respect others and respect themselves. i may fail, i may stumble. but for damn sure, we wont make the mistake of teaching them that some people deserve more rights than others. and that, is good for the world.

phaedrus: you are smart, you saw the attack coming and you were right, oh prophetic one.

Pediatricians and Homosexuality

RTC: there are no doubt many pediatricians who believe as you do.
There are many pediatricians who disagree with you.

There is much evidence of the effect having same sex parents has on children. Religioustolerance.org gives a fair overview of the range.

I am sure we agree that we should look at a wide range of evidence, and not rely on uniformed prejudice on this important question.

Your doctors give ONE data point. There are many others.

Betty -

Thank you. As always I appreciate your reasoning skills.

I have stated my path as to why I remain steadfast in opposition to the cause of those who press for the same rights as myself in a heterosexual marriage.

Also one of the reasons being that of the birthright of children.

Science is theory until proven differently. Safe.

The black issue was not wrong as you would like to believe, but withheld. Very different.

I don't personally claim to know everything, but I am willing to trust in what I do know.

I know that I follow a source that I can trust completely. In that I am confident.

RTC:

"internal consistency" is an attribute ascribed to a particular claim, or set of claims, not a bodily state. In other words, your points disagree with one another (e.g. "they already have the same rights as I do" vs. "they should not be permitted to be married.") So, I maintain that your argument is illogical, and based largely on the "authority fallacy." Your "God wills it!" argument has been at the forefront of any number of human rights debacles through time, as i have pointed out in previous posts. And, to repeat, it is the "justification" put forward by religious extremists in their denigration of human freedom and dignity around the world. You have a lot of company in this mindset, RTC.

As to the "American College of Pediatricians," it is well-known that they are a reactionary group with a narrow agenda, as opposed to the "American Academy of Pediatrics," which is akin to the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association etc. It is not surprising to see their claims in close proximity to those of James Dobson et al. As with any "interest group," on either side of this and other such social issues, one must view their "data" with skepticism.

I did not go into this, because it is a side issue to the more core question, which has to do with the rights of gays to have legally recognized marriages. An attempt to conceal by muddying the water.

RTC , you wrote

"A truly educated person knows that this is evidence in their findings."

As far as I can see, this sentence has no semantic content.

What are you trying to say?

A Neutral View of Homosexuality

RTC: One of the challenges of modern life is finding information that is reliable. We humans have a number of choices.

1. We can trust the authorities of our in group, whether America or Mormonism (Bush when he says Saddam had ties to Al Queda, Benson when he says Blacks aren't worthy of holding the priesthood).
2. Find a "neutral" authority who agrees with us (and yes, I can do this as well as you can)
3. Look at a range of information and opinions, determine the motivation of the source, and after some hard work decide for oneself what to believe.

You say you "know" you are right.
Scientists and other searcher for truth are more skeptical of their "knowledge."
History has shown that those who have "known" that they were right (about the age of the earth, about the sun revolving around the earth, about Blacks holding the priesthood) have many many times been shown to be mistaken.

A fairly objective source of information about Gay issues and religion is the website "religioustolerance.org", in ny humble opinion.

There are others. They avoid the thought pollution of rabid anti-gay or rabid pro-gay sites.

JAMES-

A truly educated person knows that this is evidence in their findings.

FYI:

American College of Pediatricians

Mission of the College

"The Mission of the American College of Pediatricians is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being. To this end, we recognize the basic father-mother family unit, within the context of marriage, to be the optimal setting for childhood development, but pledge our support to all children, regardless of their circumstances."

Rtc my friend

Only an uneducated person fails to assess a speaker's motives when evaluating the truth of her statements.

RTC ~

You seem to be arguing that your stance is strong in support of denying gays the right to marry mainly because you have been told to do so by the priesthood-bearing authority which you embrace. You appear to be saying that no matter what YOU may feel about it, your priesthood leaders have said it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.

You also seem to be arguing that you are actually fighting not AGAINST gays and their rights, rather FOR the children of gays and their rights.

You wrote, "It is the birthright of every child to be raised by their mother and father. There is no way around the FACT that every child HAS A MOTHER AND A FATHER."

I'd believe your intentions really were sincere if you were fighting against ANY situation or marriage that didn't include the "mother and father" that every child in fact HAS. But you aren't. You are only fighting against GAY people parenting, while arguing that children should have and keep the parents they were born to.

What about people who marry spouses who are not the biological parent of the child? What about single mothers who live with their friends because they can't afford to live alone, so they all inevitable help with the parenting of children in that home? What about single mothers who live with their brother, and both adults help parent that child? What about people who love each other and live together and don't marry at all? What about women who divorce their abusive priesthood-bearing husbands and decide to raise their children alone? Do you campaign against these not-traditional situations as actively as you do against gay people and their desired rights?

The answer is, you don't.

Not good, RTC. Not good.

I think we should address their findings instead of their motives?

Anonymous -

So are you saying that because this group of highly respected authoritative doctors and professionals do not agree with your values their educated opinions do not work for you?

Just in case others were confused by the seemingly anti-gay stance of the "AMERICAN COLLEGE of PEDIATRICIANS," here is an extract from Wikipedia:

"The 'American College of Pediatricians' was formed to oppose the American Academy of Pediatrics on issues concerning sexuality and sexual health.

The American College of Pediatricians' policies primarily concern:

Opposing same-sex marriage and same-sex family adoption
Opposing contraception other than sexual abstinence (including Emergency contraception)
Opposing abortion access
Promoting the corporal punishment of children"

Phaedrus - All,

Real work for me is standing up and speaking out for that which I know is true.

For those who take the time to read the Bible and learn by the spirit, it is a lesson in humility , in that we come to realize that with all the wisdom of mankind we simply cannot know His mind and that He knows infinitely more than MAN.

With that humility then comes trust in His all-knowing power to do that which is best for that which HE has created.

I realize that to many this comes across as arrogant as well as ignorance? But this is not my position. It is confidence in a power greater than myself, that I know to Be.

Simply, it comes from personal testimony. But don't mistake this for blindness either. For this testimony is born by the witness of the spirit which is powerful.

As for this "authority" of which you speak? This authority to which I, in humility hearken unto is the power God has legally given to men upon the earth to act in His name and is referred to as the Holy Priesthood....

When Joseph Smith restored the church in 1830, as part of the restoration, the authority (1829) to act in the name of God was also restored.

So when you speak of my not having an ability to maintain internal consistency... I assure you that is not the case. In fact my internal health is quite good and wish the same for many others.

I wish the same future for many children who do not have choice in these matters. So for that reason I am speaking out on their behalf.

If adults choose to engage in homosexual behavior, I have not a problem with this... so be it. My problems only begin when they request the same status and rights of those that are married...

Marriage is ordained of God between a man and a woman only. This is the definition of marriage. There is no other definition.

It is the birthright of every child to be raised by their mother and father. There is no way around the FACT that every child HAS A MOTHER AND A FATHER.

The Family IS and WAS ordained of GOD and is absolutely central to HIS plan for their individual eternal progression. Anything contrary to this is in opposition to HIS PLAN and is not optimum for the happiness of HIS children.

Although we do not live in a perfect world where this is going to happen that each child is able to be raised with both of their biological parents, nonetheless, they have a right to be raised in those circumstances that come as close as possible to the ideal...

It would be nice to have some of you respond to some of the reports and comments that I have posted, i.e. The American College of Pediatricians who do NOT support having children raised by those who practice homosexuality.

How do you feel when you read this? These are very legitimate and educated sources? They have been completely ignored? Do you feel they have valid concerns that should be acknowledge and why?

I was born in the LDS church. I have been LDS my entire life. I am still officially LDS, although currently I’d call myself a disillusioned LDS woman. I quit going to church recently since I could no longer stomach supporting a church that is deceptive in teaching its real history, nor could I continue to support a church that treats women and homosexuals with such inequality. But since it is the only religion I’ve ever practiced, and since I’ve practiced it my whole life, and since my membership records are still being used by the LDS church in its census, I must answer I am Mormon.

However, I’m not proud to say I’m LDS. I am ashamed of the LDS church when I read Otterson’s words here, as well as when I read many of these comments that so clearly betray the elitism, judgmental behavior, and narrow-mindedness of the members and leadership of my church, traits that are opposite of the way Jesus taught us to be.

Many people here fight boldly to keep people with same-gender attraction from having the right to marry if they wish. Will you fight just as hard to SUPPORT them if the First Presidency of the church announces revelation that being homosexual is OK in the eyes of God, much like the about-face God did with allowing the black people to have the priesthood after claiming for over 100 years that it was His will they be denied?

I am ashamed I once considered such misguided narrow-mindedness as righteousness. I am sickened by my “righteous,” priesthood-holding, temple-working, member of the bishopric, high priest father for telling my homosexual brother that he and people like him are the reason that God introduced AIDS to the world.

I am grateful that I am able to see with clear eyes how wrong this is, and that I have figured it out before it’s too late for me, so I can begin to practice loving acceptance of all my brothers and sisters in the world, no matter how different they are from me.

well it is obvious to me that Mayan Elephant is not at all religious or spiritual if his children are discussing the benefits of fake multi-armed "gods" like ganesh. what a shame that they have been forcibly removed from the church.

Mayan,

you are not mormon. you may have been at some point in your life but you are not now. you have either left the church or were excommunicated. the details are not clear but you cannot, today, define yourself as mormom.

i am curious, aside from spewing your "beliefs" or lack thereof on just about every mormon related website/blog/forum what have YOU done to advance the rights of homosexuals and lesbians? what are you doing to make this a better community/country/world for men and women and youth who are gay? your own family's sexual dynamics not withstanding. certainly fighting with lds memebers is going nowhere. it appears to me that you are all talk/type.

and oh, i do not wish i was you. not for one second. you are angry and hateful and judgmental and have much personal soul searching left to do.

Folks:

I have to do some real work today, and will not be able to respond until later. I am particularly interested in John D's post, and will respond to this interesting "tradition" dynamic.

RTC, when you cannot maintain internal consistency in your argument, then 2 things become clear: 1. Your position is based on illogical constructs, as all prejudice is, and 2. No logical argument will ever cause you to change your position, as it is based in the "appeal to authority." You will change your position only when told to by someone you recognize as an "authority."

As to my religious beliefs, why do I feel an ad hominem fallacy in the offing? What I say either has merit, or lacks same, independent of my religious belief. As I have not based any of my argument in an "appeal to religious authority," then this question is not relevant.

More later.

John D
You are so reasonable.

Since you spoke of anthropology, let me bring in a legal analogy.

Of course Tradition is important, both in law and in social organization/personal life.

Of course Changing Traditions is important and good, because some traditions (slavery) are manifestly immoral/bad for people and society.

Just as in the tough legal cases, the questions that are the hard ones are
How do we Balance Tradition and Change.

It was a tradition to deny the priesthood to black people for 140 years. Should we keep that practice because to change it would violate tradition?

Shakespeare's Portia reminded us to balance justice with mercy.

She would also remind us to balance tradition with change.

The hard questions, just like in the supreme court, are Case by Case. Should we change this tradition (discrimation against gays who want to marry) or should we keep it?

BTW, how did you come out on Demonization? Did you end up thinking it applies here, or not?

Sister Mary Lisa,

For a nun, you sure sound confused.

WILLEM,

Why is it unthinkable to become straight after a gay lifestyle? Is it because you have to subscribe to the notion that you are not born gay? You guys all stand so strong behind a person who "comes out of th closet", what if they change their life and preferences? People can change. I'd like to hear your response?

FROM TODAYS NEW YORK TIMES!!

"After initially denying the accusations, Mr. Haggard confessed to buying drugs from the former prostitute, Michael Jones, and admitted to what he termed “sexual immorality.” Mr. Haggard has since gone through counseling, and was declared “completely heterosexual” by a member of a panel of ministers appointed to oversee New Life."

it took teddyboi only 3 months to becum a non-gay, a new record!!
his wife and children and former prostitute are most happy with results and standing by his side!! oh jesus please what a bs!!!

honestly CO, i dont want to answer that. its too subjective. in many ways, i would say, more religious than ever. certainly more spiritual than i have been in a long time. however, i am not found in a suit and tie for three plus hours on any given sunday, thats for damn sure. and i dont follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, cuz i apparently went astraaa-ay. but, that said, i am a mormon. born mormon. raised mormon. lived mormon. and have generations of mormons in the family tree and i am grateful for most of what those people have done.

Mayan, are you religous now?

what religion?

married in the salt lake city lds temple to the greatest, most wonderful, most talented, and hot, hot, hottest mormon woman ever. y'all only wish you could be me, even for a fraction of one day. i went to byu. i completed a two year mission. i had many 'callings' or assignments in the church and was a high priest.

obviously, i find its not a good place for my kids, so i quit the joint. you wont see me hanging out there on sundays. but, i will promise otterson this, if he stops this anti-homosexual-rights crap, i will show up at church to support the change, and ill even wear a white shirt when i go. (i am worried that he may have just become more incentivised to stay homophobic and perpetuate the bigotry just to keep me away. hmmmm.....)

oops, left off my label. It's me that's eager to hear more John D.

John D the First,

I am eager to hear more...

I'm just curious as an observer of this thread... The LDS commenters are fairly obvious, but I'd like to know what religion (if any) the following commenters practice:

Mayan Elephant?
Sister Mary Lisa?
Betty?
Pheadrus?
James?
Yockel?
Dave Sigmann?

Care to shed some light on this question?

...Having said all of this I would like to point out a powerful and excellent example of this process and of what mormons really believe and experience with regard to homosexuality. Please read Thankful's entrys on this thread. You'll notice that the process she went through has been very difficult and long, but ultimately the RIGHT CHOICE (and she does not back down from saying that it IS the RIGHT CHOICE) and for all the difficulties ultimately so rewarding and beautiful, if you don't feel that from what she has written, please read it again. (Thankful, I apologize if I have spoken out of turn in referring to your experience).

...Phaedrus (I have enjoyed your very well thought out posts as well), you write:

"Would you be willing to provide an example of any of the church's dictates that you disagree with personally, and do not live by, having tested it in the manner you describe?"

But I think you also miss the point of my post. I have gone through this process with doctrines that I didn't at first agree with and have come to a deeper (though certainly not perfect) understanding of and which I now have no problem defending, (polygamy and the need for ordinances are two if you must have examples). Therefore, I continue in my faith. By the way, this process of questioning is not just a nice feature of the church, it's how all testimony is obtained. We don't just apply it to things we disagree with we apply it to everything that we would like to understand. Like Christ's atonement for example

Alma 7:45-46 (Alma is a book in the Book of Mormon)

45 "And this is not all. Do ye not suppose that I know of these things myself? Behold, I testiy unto you that I do know that these things whereof I have spoken are true. And how do ye suppose that I know of their surety? Behold, I say unto you they are made known unto me by the Holy Spirit of God.

46 "Behold, I have fasted and prayed many days that I might know these things of myself. And now I do know of myself that they are true; for the Lord God hath made them manifest unto me by his Holy Spirit; and this is the spirit of revelation which is in me."

You don't have to be a prophet to follow Alma's example, and most of us have, to one degree or another.

Sorry for being so lengthy, I don't get on here very often...

To Donna:

Thank you for your respectful post. You wrote

"Casual Observer: do you believe every other religion besides Mormonism is misguided? If you belong to "The Only True Church on the Face of the Earth" aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint, then you obviously do."

I believe what I believe and I am certainly open to allowing others the same privilege. But there's not much of a point to a religion that doesn't think it has the truth, would you agree? (ps this is not a rhetorical question, I'm really curious to know what people think)

"The fact that people disagree and believe that some are misguided doesn't mean they are awful, hateful people; either camp."

I couldn't agree more and I think if everyone on the thread felt this way we'd have a much better discussion going.

But you're missing the point of my post. We can disagree with each other, but I take issue with having my belief system described as "denying my innate sense of moral fairness" and "surrendering my mind" to others, that's simply not true. I don't know of any other religion that places the emphasis on studying things out in your MIND and HEART and coming to the truth yourself. All religions have the unenviable task of claiming moral authority, and the mormon approach to this, from the start, is: read it, think it through, pray about it, decide, and act. Which is something I HAVE done with doctrines of the church and I still believe. Which brings me to..

RTC ~

You spelled out your issues plainly:

"I do not like it that those who practice homosexuality want to impose their behavior as a lifestyle on the rest of society in order to validate themselves."

Let me point out to you plainly in words you prefer in order to help you see what I've been trying to say...

I do not like it that those who practice heterosexuality want to impose their behavior as a lifestyle on the rest of society in order to validate themselves.

The Case for Tradition…

I am an advocate for tradition. Not because it does not have its vices and victims, but because its vices and victims are less than the alternative, i.e. no tradition.

The Liberal establishment has its virtues, but is antithetical to tradition. It despises tradition for the most part. Not surprising, tradition impedes its imperial mission to penetrates every clime with its categorical imperatives.

The erosion of tradition is not only accompanied by the erosion of community (which is extremely significant in itself), but the erosion of connection. Connection to something greater. Something that is not created by transience, but which is received from transcendence. Connection to transcendence inspires individual sacrifice for community. It also provides a tremendous sense of wellbeing.

People connected to tradition are happier, according to psychological studies. Happiness and wellbeing is the greatest good according to Mills. The survival of tradition contributes to greater cumulative happiness than the erosion of it does. To undermine transcendence is to undermine community and human happiness. When people are left without tradition, they are left without their primary life line for support and wellbeing.

Social change is important, but the quest for it must come by softening tradition, not undermining it. I think many of the panelist you laude undermine their tradition in the same way diaspora Jains do. One must ask, does the religious sub-group these panelists represent maintain vibrant and flourishing communities?

I would guess the most vibrant communities are found with those who maintain an ethos they believe was received from a transcendent source and existed long before they were born.

That being said, I think the Mormon practice must be adapted to the needs of homosexuals, not undermined. A non-undermining adaptation does not entail abandoning Mormon sexual ethos.

I don’t think you want to hear too much from me tonight, so I won‘t go into this. Maybe I will post my thoughts on adapting Mormon tradition tomorrow.

I have so much to say on this issue. That is why I have not posted. Short, trite posts are not sufficient to get across what I think about this.

Traditional Morality and Secular Morality...

The same word (morality) is used to describe a phenomena that is in reality very different.

Anne Vallely put this in perspective in her article comparing Orthodox Jains with Diaspora Jains.

She studied children of Indian born, traditional Jains who grew up in Canada.

The contrast between their Canadian Jainism and Indian Jainism is telling.

They both center their religion around not doing "violence" to living things. Traditional Jains have a sub-group of monastic-like individuals who Vallely labels Asthetes. This sub-group dedicates themselves to living a life “free from violence.” They take great care not to kill even plants or insects. They must eat food that has already been cooked by other Jains, who have not taken up this lifestyle.

The meaning of this practice for traditional Jains is not so much their concern for other living creatures. It is to achieve Ahimsa, or liberation from the world of passion. A type of personal salvation, egocentric in purpose and intent.

Diaspora Jains on the other hand use the idiom and modified myths of traditional Jainism, to espouse an ideology very different than traditional Jainism. It is essentially the animal rights movement Indian style. It has any reference to Ahimsa or liberation quest hollowed out.

Jainism for Diaspora Jains has exchanged its traditional purpose and experience for western socio-centric morality- which focuses primarily on the alleviation of suffering.

Not that traditional morality is not concerned with the alleviation of suffering, but I submit, the core of traditional spirituality is the quest for transcendence.

Of course as children of secular humanism, and firm believers in the myth of the grand march of progress, you would think that socio-centric morality is superior. Everyone thinks their system of morality is superior.

I think that yours is more defensible using secular premises, and sounds superior in theory.

But I think in practice it is insufficient, and I will tell you why...

These Mormons have been a bad lot from the beginning. Avenging angels. Mountain Meadow Massacre. Attempted assassination of a governor (Missouri, Lilburn W. Boggs.) Of course, they're past all that now. All frontier crap. Except...

If you're ever in Lehi, Utah, DON'T eat at Porter's Place. It's named for Porter Rockwell, bodyguard of Joseph Smith and mass-murderer-for-God. Now billed as a "colorful sharpshooter."

Also, read _Under the Banner of Heaven_ by John Krakauer, Anchor Books, 2004. It will tell you of the horrifying behavior of certain present day mormons.

nah, i cant come back for more of this. i wont be well. i am deferring to jefferson's apprentice, mr. phaedrus, and of course the wise and wonderful betty.

Mayan-

BIG SLAP!

Wake up! "Are you okay?"

One too many shocks today eh? lol And I was sure you knew everything?

You know, I got a card kinda like that once... I think? the dream one on the sandy beach...

are you grasshopper? is this a confession? are you playin twos sides of the fence? hmmm?

interesting?

You will feel better in the morning when you get your head straight again:-)

bigfoot? cain held onto the ark? i had no clue. who told you this, bruce mcconkie? i realize he be lie ved in chriiiiist, he is [hi is] king. but i did not know mcconkie also believed in sasquatch.

am i okay? no i am not okay. how could you expect me to be okay after learning this? i am assuming that your god killed bigfoots wife, right? or is she footprinting the planet with him?

that reminds me of a dream i had, where i had walked along the beach with bigfoot, and when he and i looked back at our footprints, there were tracks where there was a single set of footprints, and not two, and i asked bigfoot, why did you leave me to walk alone on this beach, and bigfoot told me, mayan, grasshopper, those are my footprints where there is but one set, i was carrying you, and i said, oh, of course, you have huge feet bigfoot. from that moment forward, i decided to be in the greeting card and bookmarker business.

"This heinous homosexual sin is of the ages. Many cities and civilizations have gone out of existence because of it. It was present in Israel’s wandering days, tolerated by the Greeks, and found in the baths of corrupt Rome." -- Spencer W. Kimball.

OH JESUS SPENCER I KNOW YOU ARE DEAD BUT PLEEZE IF YOU DO READ THIS I STILL WONDER WHY YOUR FELLOW MORMONS ARE SO SHOOK UP ABOUT GAYS AND LESBIANS BUT NOT ABOUT ALL THOSE PLURAL MARRIGES TO UNWILLING UNDERAGE GIRLS IN THE STATE OF UTAH. THAT IS REAL NASTY STUFF SPENCEBABI!! OH BY THE WAY SPENCE TELL ME WHICH CITIES HAVE GONE OUT OF EXISTENCE?? PLEASE NOTE IM REFERRING TO THE STATE OF UTAH AND NOT JUST TO MORMONS OR REFORMED MORMONS OR LDS AND ALL THOSE OTHER HOKUS POKUS OFSHOOTS!

mayan-

shhhhhhhhhh... as long as everyone has gone to bed I will let you in on a little secret as well.......... Cain held on to the Ark and Noah threw food overboard.... shhhh, but don't tell anyone, cuz he is really still stompin around as... ...... bigfoot!

shhhhhhhh... now you come a little closer..... don't be tooo shocked like before today.... this is gonna kill ya.... ready.... shhh hold on.... the flood? well.... not only did it.... well........ha....hap.......happen!......... but.... but.......... it covered the whole STINKIN EARTH! CAN YOU BELIEVE IT! OOPS! shhhh... do you think we woke up anyone? mayan?.... mayan?.... are you okay?

These are the kinds of RIGHTS that parents lose when same-sex marriage is legalized...

As reported in WorldNetDaily:

A collection of 'gay' organizations has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a Massachusetts lawsuit, claiming they have every right to teach their doctrine to grade-school students.

Parental rights, according to the brief filed this week, "have never meant that a parent can demand prior notice and the right to opt a child out of mere exposure to ideas in the public schools that a parent disapproves of."

That includes, according to the brief, religious or any other ideas.

The new brief was filed in a Massachusetts District Court lawsuit by Lexington parent David Parker, whose civil rights case is pending, by the Human Rights Campaign, the ACLU, Massachusetts Teachers Association, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and others.

"The amici organizations urge this court to grant the school defendants' motion to dismiss because the scope of the rights of religious freedom and parental control over the upbringing of children, as asserted by the plaintiffs, would undermine teaching and learning in the Lexington public schools," the brief alleges.

"Why are all these groups – especially the national groups – so interested in a parent's right to decide what moral issues are taught to his children by adults in elementary schools, especially regarding homosexuality," asked Brian Camenker, president of MassResistance.

That group said it is a "pro-family action center for Massachusetts" which equips citizens to fight attacks on freedoms, constitutional government, children and parental rights.

"This is outrageous and very frightening. They must see David Parker's case as quite a threat to their ability to push their message on children," he said.

He said the "true agenda" of the sponsors of the brief is apparent in the demands that the state has a legal obligation to teach homosexual issues to young children in the public schools – and parents do not even have the right to remove their kids or be notified.

You can read entire article here...
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52311

rtc,

i got a little secret for ya....... shhhhhhhhh....... dont tell anyone i am helping you out here....... shhhhhhh, shhhhhhh..... come a little closer.

here it is: the great flood didnt really happen, its fiction, a myth.

try not to base your bigotry on that whole flood story, you are better off sticking to the jesus/god/adam spoke to a mormon prophet thing.

i do have a question for you though, how did the curse and mark of cain survive the great flood? i dont get that part of the myth. i know another mormon prophet said it came from ham's wife, but if she was cursed, how did she get on the myth-ark? [mormon] president taylor said this:

"And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God."

Nighty night Phaedrus,

Glad to hear that someone else thinks marijuana is addictive : )
Yes, your right, I have given a general analogy but to be fair you gave me a general question and really Im just tired right now

Sweet Dreams to you and all

Joy -

Thank you. It seems they would rather not notice TRUTH when it is before them.

But they cannot even see their reasoning with this either?

It is the old "if everyone is willing then it is okay"? What the heck?

Look what happened before the great flood? This was their philosophy then and look where it got em????

Hang ten guys!

Whatever?

Seems funny that everyone is clamoring for scientific evidence that supports the position that I hold and that RTC and others have been speaking of. Yet when some scientific basis is presented, you all ignore it and continue with your same rhetoric.

Yes... I do place the God of the Old and New Testaments above Man. You are absolutely right and I do not apologize for it.

Individual choices and how they affect others and LAW are two different things! ONE person should NOT be so into themselves that they believe they have the power to make LAW.

Where does a doctrine such as this rise from?

RTC, You ARE incredible. Mayan is right.

You put yourself above the most universally accepted moral principle in Western Society.?????????

Your presumption is only exceeded by your ignorance.

Betty wrote, quoting Kant (who?)
""Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."”

Isn't that the same thought as
"Love thy neighbor as thyself"
and
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

As the Rabbi said, "all the rest is commentary."

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."”

How low can we then go?

Otterson Has No Understanding of
Fundamental Moral Laws

According to Mr Otterson,
it is fine to have Marriage Sanctioned
Sexual Relations with a partner of a different Gender.

but
If I have Marriage Sanctioned Sexual Relations with my Gay Partner here in Massachusetts

that is morally unacceptable.

Read Emmanual Kant.
Study Ethics.
Consider morality.

Your Utahn marriage makes it OK for you to have sexual relations as a moral matter.

My Massachusetts Marriage does NOT make it OK for me to have homosexual sexual relations with my beloved partner.

If you hold this belief, you are at a low level of moral reasoning.

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."”

Well, since RTC gave it one more go....

Your reasons come down to one thing, and that is bigotry and the hypocrisy of those who hide behind the robes of others.
There is no logic, none, in your position. You simply "feel" that you have the chokehold on truth, and so everyone should be forced to live by your rules. You have yours, so who cares how they feel. To hell with their desire for a fulfilling connection with someone they love, you deny them what you probably have most wanted in your life, what you have the luxury of entitlement to. The Inquisitioner was as certain of his righteousness as you. So was the person who lit the fire under the witch. And so were all the stone-throwers throughout history, smashing open the heads of those "outcasts" who were simply "different." They all slept the sleep of the righteous man. They all cloaked their cruelties in the appearance of piety.

And, as I said before, this is the same principle espoused and acted upon by the Taliban. The difference is one of degree, not kind.

Good night.

James-

It is always much easier to speak kindly and wrap things warmly than it is to speak bodly the TRUTH when it MUST be spoken, even to those we consider friends...

AMERICAN COLLEGE of PEDIATRICIANS

Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change?

Are children reared by two individuals of the same gender as well adjusted as children reared in families with a mother and a father?

Until recently the unequivocal answer to this question was "no." Policymakers, social scientists, the media, and even physician organizations1, however, are now asserting that prohibitions on parenting by homosexual couples should be lifted.

In making such far-reaching, generation-changing assertions, any responsible advocate would rely upon supporting evidence that is comprehensive and conclusive.

Not only is this not the situation, but also there is sound evidence that children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle may be at increased risk for emotional, mental, and even physical harm.

Research data

Heterosexual parenting is the normative model upon which most comprehensive longitudinal research on childrearing has been based.

Data on long-term outcomes for children placed in homosexual households are very limited and the available evidence reveals grave concerns.

Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables.2,3,4 Childrearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent. 5,6,7,8,9 Therefore, the burden is on the proponents of homosexual parenting to prove that moving further away from the heterosexual parenting model is appropriate and safe for children.

Risks of Homosexual Lifestyle to Children

Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples. 10,11,12,13,14 Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. 15,16,17

Homosexual men and women are reported to be inordinately promiscuous involving serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed "committed relationships." 18,19,20,21,22 Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness,23,24,25 substance abuse,26 suicidal tendencies,27,28 and shortened life spans.29

Although some would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures were the practice is more widely accepted.30

Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. 31,32,33,34,35

Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.36

Conclusion

The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development.

Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation.

This position is rooted in the best available science.

see footnotes
http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50

Otterson a Moral Midget Compared to Jews and Muslims

Betty is absolutely right. Read Saperstein and Taylor on this site,
and compare their humanity and moral reasoning
to
Otterson, Joy, RTC.

on any intelligent moral appraisal of ethical levels, there is no comparison.

I would also suggest the thread by Desmond Tutu

(apologies if this is a duplicate post)

Phaedrus-

I believe every argument that you pose has been debated on this thread previously?

Definition of Marriage - Solid IF you believe in GOD!

Same Rights - Behavior's are NOT RIGHTS!

Prejudice & Discrimination - INNOCENT, i.e. active lds women DO NOT AGREE; Mormon's protected slaves during persections and we do not know all the reasons God withheld the priesthood for a time? But for certain it was NOT to discriminate... that is YOUR perspective.

Crossing the line of my RIGHTS - IF gay marriage were to be legalized, what follows would surely affect my world. Joy has covered this very well in her post. Beginning with what are very young children would then be exposed to in our schools as NORMAL, which it is NOT.

Obviously you have no respect for those who honor God, thus your final statement?

That's about it...