Mormons: Time Sanctifies Everything

H0nKLx U cool ))

http://besting.itrello.com >st paul traveler insurance Run out of steam

http://bestinfo.freeweb7.com >traveler insurance Steal a march

http://kreoline.247ihost.com >cancer car donation Cobblers - A load of

http://kreoline.247ihost.com >cancer car donation Cobblers - A load of

http://bestinfo.freeweb7.com >traveler insurance phone number Turn up trumps

Hello! Quality content! Regards,

Susan,
As a life-long member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I enjoyed reading your comments until I got to the middle, where you abruptly stepped right into a major fallacy. You cherry-picked the most extreme behavior (a massacre?) and used it to generalize about an entire group of people. Furthermore, you then attributed that behavior to their religion, rather than any other causes. Essentially, what you're saying is that a religion is bad because some members of that religion have done bad things, that surely the reason they did those bad things was because they were a member of that religion, and that surely their bad behavior is typical of members of that religion. If you applied that same thinking everywhere, you could "prove" that all religions, groups, parties, nationalities, etc. are bad.

This is called "confirmation bias", and is a very common logical fallacy. If you approach a subject with a preconceived opinion, and seek out only evidence that supports your opinion, then you can "prove" absolutely any opinion, regardless of the underlying truth.

I suggest the following alternative, particularly when looking at a church, religion or any other belief system. What does the church really teach? (As opposed to what someone else says they teach) What behavior does it encourage or discourage? What are its adherents really like? What are the most faithful members like, versus the fringes? How does the church respond to misbehavior by its members?

Here are just a couple of brief Mormon scriptures addressing the concerns you raise.

Does the LDS church persecute other faiths? No.
Articles of Faith
"11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

Would the LDS church impose their faith on other people, if they could? No.
Doctrine & Covenants 134:9
"9. We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied."

Is the LDS Church part of the so-called "Christian Right"? No.
Church statement on Political Neutrality:
"The Church’s mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics. This applies in all of the many nations in which it is established." (Check out the full statement at
http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom)

Does the LDS Church teach that men are superior to women, that a husband should dictate to his wife, or dominate her in any way? No.
Doctrine & Covenants 121:41-42
"41. No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42. By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile— "

What about the Mountain Meadows Massacre? http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/EmailArticleProcess?action=update&cmlId=114265&locale=0&emId=83671856

Do all members of the LDS Church practice their beliefs perfectly at all times? Obviously not.
I can attest to that directly, from my own efforts to better live up to what I believe.

There is lots more to say, but this post is long enough already. Don't be gullible by believing second-hand accounts and rumors about the Mormons or their beliefs. If you don't believe the Church's teachings, I respect that. But there is no need to mis-characterize the Church or its beliefs, or its members, when you can easily inform yourself better at www.lds.org.

Why not let the women decide? What about if some wome prefer to share one alpha male than being the only one for a loser?

m414k

"He beckons each one of us to lay aside ALL, and to Come Follow Me..."

AMEN! Including Gays, Anti-Mormons, Feminists, and even the worlds most brilliant literary critics, I might add!

Love ya!!

Neal

HJ,

I too will give you this one...

As to be in the Celestial Kingdom is to be in ZION.

And they were of one heart and one mind and they dwelt in righteousness.

It is really that simple and beautiful when we strip all the layers away and we become as the Savior.

He beckons each one of us to lay aside ALL, and to Come Follow Me...

Neal-

Just got home after a long day. Taught Seminary this morning and an Institute class.

You did a great job with our dear friends here. You are not nearly as stubborn as I am. Maybe I need the meds! They will surely agree with that statement. lol

But hey guys... at least I can admit it:-)

In all honesty, I make this point about the absolute fact that "there will be NO Mormons in the Celestial Kingdom" for a number of reasons.

The most important, at least to me personally, is to make the point that the Plan of Salvation is Universal.

It is not about gender, race, color, etc... It is about each individual child of God.

It is not about time or space, but about Priesthood authority and the absolute requirement that keys are the law that must be received in the flesh in order to return back into the presence of the Father.

It is about vicarious work that has been authorized to be performed for those who have died, AND as you stated and explained so beautifully in sections 76 and 137, for those who died without LAW.

It is about recognizing that Jesus Christ has authorized living prophets today through divine ordination the use of His Priesthood Power to administer all of the required keys unto salvation for the living and the dead.

It is about understanding that ALL men and women can Come Unto Christ through authorized Priesthood Authority in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints here upon the earth.

The name "Mormons" is a nickname here upon the earth.

The tag "latter-day-saints" pertains ONLY to this dispensation.

There will be absolutely no need to designate the government of the Priesthood as "The Church" in the spirit world.

In the Celestial Kingdom it will be known at The Church of the First Born.

Check out the new thread over at Otterson's. Chatting about law of consecration. could use you:-)
rtc

Actually, HJ, I'm wondering if there is allowance in the Celestial Kingdom for God/Goddess couples who have no desire to have children. Should we try it and see what kind of drama we could stir up up there? :)

SML
Since I am gay or asexual our offspring would have to be the result of Virgin Births.

Are you up to it?

Are there virgin births in the afterworld?

and will they be able to break a twenty?

HJ ~

I'd be your celestial companion anytime! Especially considering 1. I love your books (at least those I've read), 2. My current non-Mormon husband has no desire to attain the priesthood or celestial glory for himself, which means I'm SOL, and 3. You crack me up. I would love to laugh my way through my eternity of pregnancy. Oh, and 4. it's highly likely someone open like you just might actually mention me to our children, and allow them to pray to us both. Yesssss.

E-mail me to discuss. Here I thought I was gonna be a hundredth wife of some dude I don't know in the next life. You have no idea how relieved I am! My hope is renewed!!!

HJ:

Yes. I would agree.

The scripture said God would judge the intent of our hearts, among other things, and one can only assume some of those hearts had the darkest of intentions. It would be hard for me to imagine someone like Hitler qualifying to "move up".

I would expect Gandhi to take the express elevator straight to the top! :D

Neal

Thanks Neal

It does seem our differences are semantical, but perhaps also meaningful.

If i said
"all residents of the Celestial Kingdom will believe the same things about God and the plan that Mormons believe (largely because it is right in front of their eyes)
and will have gone through the sacraments that current Mormons go through, including temple ordinances"
would you then agree with me.

The residents of the Terrestrial Kingdom would presumably know what those folks up there in the Celestial Kingdom believe, and If I were one of them, I'd want to accept it and move up.

So, why will anyone (like Gandhi) stay down in the Terrestrial Kingdom? Cuz they weren't good enough on earht?

RTC:

Neal-

"May I just compliment you on the very intelligent, bold and articulate way in which you have run the gauntlet over the last few days here on this thread!"

Thanks Dude!

"I really hope you continue to blog here, but do so hope you come on over to Otterson's thread."

I'll check it out...

"Again, welcome aboard! By the way, these guys are actually quite stimulating, don't you think?'

Yes indeed! With the exception of a few anonymous "snipers" who drift in and out, I find these ladies and gentlemen to be most wonderful! So intelligent and well read! Quite refreshing...

Neal

HJ,

My only disagreement with you is using the term "Mormon". Clearly there will be people from the days of Moses, Adam, and others. Clearly there will be people from the time of Christ. The term "Mormon" is a recent one, and therefore a poor one to use in this context. It would be more accurate to say there will be no one there who is not a believer of and follower of the Gospel. Since we believe we understand the Gospel as fully as it has been given to us on this earth, then of course, those who would be in the Celetial Kingdom would have the same knowledge and understanding we do. "Demoninations" as we know them now will not exist.

Neal

Hi SML

yes, the MAIN reason for people to join the Church, and what "we" mean when we say the Church is "True", is that only through the agency of the God-authorized priesthood can one go through the sacraments needed to reach the hightest level of heaven, and thus have the Optimal Eternal Progression (be all that you can be in God's Army).

hey, why don't you leave that good for nothin husband of yours and run off with me.

I don't think the fact that I'm gay (if I am sexual at all) should be any detriment to our attaining eternal happiness in our marriage.

Neal thank you for your comments.

To add to that, Mormons are taught, you will go where you are comfortable. If you are wearing jeans and a t-shirt you are not going to be comfortable in a ball room where people are wearing formals. If you have not lived your life with service and compassion for others you will not be in a kingdom full of others that have lived that way.

No Neal,
there will NOT be Non-Mormons in the celestial kingdom.

There WILL be people who
were NOT mormons in this world
but who
accepted the Gospel in the next world and accepted the temple sacraments

and therefore BECAME Mormons in the next world.

That I agree with you on, within the context of one's accepting Mormon doctrine in the first place of course.

But ya gotta be a Mormon to get there, sooner or later.

HJ:

"Last sentence: one MUST be married in temple to get to highest level, and ONLY mormons can enter the temple and get married there.

Do you disagree that this is Mormon Doctrine?"

Yes and no. Marriage in the Temple can and is performed for the livind AND the dead (sealing). The majority of these dead people never heard of the Mormon Church in their lifetime, and many were born before the Church was even organized.

From D&C 138: Joseph F. Smith vision of the Redemption of the Dead

"32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets.
33 These were taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands,
34 And ALL OTHER PRINCLIPLES OF THE GOSPEL that were necessary for them to know in order to qualify themselves that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. "

In addition, we have Joseph Smith's account of his vision on the Celestial Kingdom. Pay particular note to his mention of Alvin, his brother, who died before the events of the restoration and the formation of the Church. Notice also who Alvin is keeping company with in said kingdom.

D&C 137:

"5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;
6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.
7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, WHO WOULD HAVE RECEIVED IT if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;
8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;
9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts. "

So, for members of the Church who understand the principles of the Gospel, they are indeed required and expected to fulfill those commandments and live those laws. Those who did not have the opportunity will be afforded every opportunity to recieve the ordinances of the Gospel, including Baptism and Eternal Marriage, and will be judged by their knowledge, works, and "intent of their hearts"; God himself knowing what those are.

There will be plenty of non-Mormons in the Celetial Kingdom - including the highest levels, from what I understand of these scriptures. There will also be plenty of Mormons in the Telestial Kingdom.

Neal

HJ ~

Your information is sound. I learned just that growing up in the church, and I also taught it to my students in my Gospel Essentials class (the class for investigators).

If the Celestial Kingdom isn't for Mormons, then why the need for baptisms for the dead?

BTW
the 1966 ediction of Mormon Doctrine was approved by Prophet David O McKay
after revisions were made to the controversial 1950s ediction.

Mormon Doctrine on Celestial Kingdom

This from "Mormon Doctrine" by Apostle Bruce McConkie, 1966. Again, Neal and RTC, are you saying this is NOT Mormon Doctrine?

"The highest kingdom, the Celestial, is reserved for those who have been obedient to the LDS gospel and have, "gained complete obedience to gospel or celestial law" (Ibid, p. 116).

The Celestial Kingdom itself is divided into three categories. Those who are worth and have been married for time and all eternity in LDS temples can achieve celestial exaltation in the highest of the Celestial degrees and can become Gods (husbands) and Goddesses (wives). In turn, they will rule and reign over their own new earth. They will procreate millions of new spirit children who will populate this new planet and the whole Law of Progression begins again (Ibid, p. 321-22).

Neal and RTC

Here is a one paragraph summary of what I was taught as a Mormon:
The LDS Church teaches that at the end of the world everyone will be resurrected. They also believe that almost everyone will go to heaven, which is divided up into three main levels. Bad people go to the lowest, the Telestial Kingdom (Doctrine and Covenants 76:81-86). Good people, who were not Mormons, will go to the middle level, the Terrestrial Kingdom (D&C 76:71-79). Mormons will go to the highest level, the Celestial Kingdom (D&C 76:50-70). However, only those who merit the highest part of the Celestial Kingdom will have Eternal Life [the ability to live in a marriage relationship and continue to beget children—see D&C 132:20-24, also see Mormons Hope to Become Gods of Their Own Worlds]. All others have immortality [which is defined as the ability to live forever in a single condition, not married and no future children] but do not have Eternal Life. One must be married in the LDS temple and then obey all of the Mormon regulations to get to the highest degree of heaven. "

Last sentence: one MUST be married in temple to get to highest level, and ONLY mormons can enter the temple and get married there.

Do you disagree that this is Mormon Doctrine?

Concerned Do you have a brain? I can't see it, so there for It must not exsist.

One day, a 6 year old girl was sitting in a classroom.

The Teacher was explaining evolution to the children.

The Teacher asked a little boy:

TEACHER: Tommy do you see the tree outside?

TOMMY: Yes.

TEACHER: Tommy, do you see the grass outside?

TOMMY: Yes.

TEACHER: Go outside and look up and see if you can see the sky.

TOMMY: Okay. (He returned a few minutes later) Yes, I saw the sky.

TEACHER: Did you see GOD?

TOMMY: No.

TEACHER: That's my point. We can't see GOD because HE isn't there. HE just doesn't exist.

A little girl spoke up wanting to ask the boy some questions. The Teacher agreed.

LITTLE GIRL: Tommy, do you see the tree outside?

TOMMY: Yes.

LITTLE GIRL: Tommy do you see the grass outside?

TOMMY: Yessssss!

LITTLE GIRL: Did you see the sky?

TOMMY: Yessssss!

LITTLE GIRL; Tommy, do you see the Teacher?

TOMMY: Yes

LITTLE GIRL: Do you see her brain?

TOMMY: No

LITTLE GIRL: Then according to what we were taught today, she doesn't have one...........

II CORINTHIANS 5:7 " FOR WE WALK BY FAITH, NOT BY SIGHT "

Concerned: "Mormonism will slowly fade from society"

Others thought Mormonism would go when Joseph Smith died, they thought they would fade when driven from Missouri, they thought they would fade when driven from Illinois, they thought they would be gone by now and they are still around. So if it is going to fade, it will not happen in your lifetime.

To reiterate for the benefit of the new "bloggers":

Mormonism will slowly fade from society as will contemporary Christianity and Islam because of the obvious problems with the founders of these religions especially their angelic/satanic hallucinations and related prophecies. "Pretty and ugly wingie thingies" simply do/did not exist. Associating the Singularity with these mythical assistants and opponents mocks the concept of God the Almighty.

The Good Words were articulated via reason and common sense by the ancients. These Words of Wisdom were simply repeated with each major race and religion. Unfortunately the Words were attributed to embellished men in most cases as a means of profiteering as noted by the contemporary billions of dollars owned and controlled by the Mormon, Christian, Jewish and Moslem religions. It is time to get our money back!!!!!

Our name is Legion, for we are many."

"Betty Henry James"

My dear old friend... have we not been the rounds on this before?

You make the same comments, arriving at the very same conclusions.

You pose the same questions and receive the same answers.

As I have said before... there will be NO Mormons in the Celestial Kingdom!

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints is upon the earth to administer the saving ordinances that are required by all of God's children so that they may enter back into His presence.

These must be received while in the flesh, thus vicarious work for those who have passed on and have NOT received them while living. It is that simple. They may reject or receive them as they choose.

Those who did not have an opportunity to hear the gospel in this life to their complete understanding, as well as those not at all, will have that opportunity in the spirit world.

They will NOT go to the mormon church in heaven... They will be taught by those who are authorized by Jesus Christ and who hold the Priesthood.

It is the order of the Priesthood that will govern that which is in the spirit world. Not the MOOOOh-mons.

Haven't we discussed this?

Neal - "They" are having fun with you:-)

rtc

K I understand

Emily,

Ambiguity is the price of awareness, whether one is an atheist, theist or somewhere in between.

Congadulations on having the awareness to recognize it and courage to live in it.

Regards,

JD1

"Tonio I never "claim (my religion) as more "truthful" than the others" I you would read closer and be less judgmental. I never said my religion is right and yours is wrong. Reread what I have said!"

DTS, I wasn't responding specifically to any of your posts, and I apologize that it came across that way. I was talking about the general concept of evangelism.

Henry Henry Henry

"And, Mormon Doctrine CLEARLY states that one MUST be baptized (and sealed in the temple) to achieve the Celestial Kingdom. One might say it is the entire RAISON D'ETRE for the Mormon Church. Yes, non mormors will be in the Telestial/Terrestrial two star hotels, but not at the top. No Gandhi there."

You missed the mark on this one. That simply is NOT true. One of the main purposes of the Temple is to provide those ordinances for individuals who did not / could not recieve them in this life. If they accept the Gospel, they can have all those blessings afforded to them and qualify for Exhaltation.

Neal

EMILY -

Here is something to think about when pondering our different roles as men and women...

Heavenly Father's Plan is that... Women are co-creators and givers of life through the sacrifice of her own life-giving blood in giving birth to children here in MORTALITY, but death comes upon her children eventually... (and think about how a woman remembers this part of herself continually IF she realizes her role? In the Old Testament Women were put away during this time until they were cleansed... beautiful symbolism)

The other part of His Plan... because of Him authorizing priesthood authority to MEN, they also are givers of life through administering the saving ordinances of the gospel of Jesus Christ, that through the sacrifice of His atoning blood all mankind may be saved from that awful monster death and hell.
(men must keep themselves clean in order to be considered a worthy vessel of the priesthood...)

All men and women will be resurrected from the graves of mortality to be reunited with their bodies for eternity.

Those who accept Jesus Christ as their Savior and Redeemer may receive eternal life through the cleansing power of the atonement.

The Plan of our Heavenly Father is beautifully laid out and both male and female have important roles in bringing to pass the immortality and eternal lives of their own children here upon the earth.

Hope to see you over at Otterson's thread in the future:-)
rtc

Neal-

May I just compliment you on the very intelligent, bold and articulate way in which you have run the gauntlet over the last few days here on this thread!

I myself have a little experience dealing with these rascals. lol And particularly upon the topic of homosexuality in the church. WHOA!

If you want a sampling, just take a look at the past thread that involved this very subject. Yikes. These folks love to nest here at On Faith, as it is soooo cozy.

Although, they usually hang out over with Michael Otterson. I suppose the attention here with Jacoby was too much to resist?

Who can blame them, her thread has been hotter than Otterson's this week.

I really hope you continue to blog here, but do so hope you come on over to Otterson's thread.

Again, welcome aboard! By the way, these guys are actually quite stimulating, don't you think?
rtc

Hi Emily ~

Thanks for the answer. It's a real conundrum, no?

Thanks, P. *Grin* at you too.

And I thought YOU were the one into rockin' on...

Hi Sister Mary Lisa,

You asked, "If salvation is the same for men and women, then why are the differences between men and women celebrated within the LDS Gospel now? Why are our roles here so very different if salvation is to be the same for us?"

I've asked myself those questions many times, and I don't know what the answers are. I am just taking God's word for it that he means me as well as my brothers when I read "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs of Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." (Romans 8:16-17). I think thoughtful believers have to tolerate some paradox and ambiguity to keep their faith. For me the reasons to believe outweigh the reasons not to, but I can understand why the balance tips in the other direction for some people.

Tonio:

Well-timed point, there. It reminds me of a story involving a young Zen monk who approaches his master and asks; "Master, please tell me what happens after we die." The master pauses briefly before replying, " How would I know this?" The young monk says, "But, you are a great master." The master smiles slightly and says, "Yes. But, not a dead one."

I look on that as the only possible reply, if one is truly honest.

And SML:

I agree with Anon. Rock on Sister!

OOPS AGAIN not I you but IF YOU

OOPS did not mean to post 2X! I just wanted SML at the first. :o}

Tonio I never "claim (my religion) as more "truthful" than the others" I you would read closer and be less judgmental. I never said my religion is right and yours is wrong. Reread what I have said!

SML I would like to think that I am living my life here to be as Christ like as I possibly can be. I would like to believe that God is a merciful God. If I am living my life the best I can and in the next life I have not belonged to the right church, when presented with the correct plan, I will have the knowledge and understanding to accept it. My wish is that everyone lived with this belief, however I know that, that will never happen.

I would like to think that I am living my life here to be as Christ like as I possibly can be. I would like to believe that God is a merciful God. If I am living my life the best I can and in the next life I have not belonged to the right church, when presented with the correct plan, I will have the knowledge and understanding to accept it. My wish is that everyone lived with this belief, however I know that, that will never happen.

A serious comment: it seems pointless to me to debate the various claims about truth after death. Since no living person knows what that truth is, all claims about it are on an equal footing. I can think of no reason to treat one claim as more "truthful" than the others.

Two non-serious comments: first, I loved the Hank's story at the link that E Favorite provided; and second, happiness is NOT a warm metaphysical gun.

Hey Anon ~

*Grin* Thanks. Same backatcha.

Hey Mary Lisa,

Your stubborness is the stance of any intelligent person with a healthy regard for accuracy in their beliefs, when confronted with superstitious nonsense at the point of a metaphysical gun.

Rock on Sister.

Hiya DTS ~

I am stubborn! :) Obviously. I'm saying that if people leave this life for the next with the knowledge they gained here (as we are taught in the LDS church), then it is highly likely that the same attitudes/openness/opinions will very likely hinder some people's acceptance of "truth" if the missionary method is used in the Spirit World as it is here, especially if they are still of the belief that their religion of choice on Earth was the true one.

IF the Mormon church is true, and this is God's method of allowing for the salvation of his children in the next life, there is a lot of room for souls to fall through the cracks this way, in my (stubborn) opinion.

sml so you are saying that you are so stubborn that if the true religion is only on some remote island and you have never heard of it, in the next life you will decline it?

DTS ~

I was referring to those righteous souls who believe on Earth that their NON-LDS religion is the true one. Just because a missionary in the next life says the LDS gospel is true won't be an automatically easy reason for those people to accept the baptism made on their behalf in the temple, as you seemed to suggest.

Why would any god powerful enough to make absolutely everything, require such silly metaphysical contortions as baptism for the dead, or need any female deity by whom to reproduce little potential versions of himself? Why would this god need to entrust his 19th century course correction to a teenage treasure hunter in upstate NY? Why would such a figure decide that he needed to produce a book of history containing a set of rules, and then perform the task so poorly from a literary perspective that he would not even pass an upper level composition course? After deciding He deserved an "incomplete" with the OT, HE tried again with the NT, then, still not getting it quite right, release part trois in the form of a science fiction tale? Why would he endorse genocide, taunt parents with orders to commit infanticide, encourage slavery, then change his mind later, endorse polygamy, only to reverse course later, endorse racial preferences as to whom can act in His name, only to, yet again, say "whoops" when the heat gets turned up?

Good grief people.

You obviously have heard about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints here on earth and your opinion is that it is wrong, so if it is the truth than I am sure that you will decline it in the next life. But people who have never heard of it will have an opportunity to accept it or decline it.

I said what ever the truth is in the next life, people who have live right will accept it. If you have not yet heard of the truth here on the earth and you live right here, Don't you think you will accept the truth no matter which religion has the whole truth?

Emily ~

Hi again...I noticed you also wrote, "Salvation is the same for women and men, and blessings promised to each are the same."

If salvation is the same for men and women, then why are the differences between men and women celebrated within the LDS Gospel now? Why are our roles here so very different if salvation is to be the same for us?

E Favorite-

"Hank" was hilarious! Thanks for the link. (I confess, I've been violating the wiener law for years. Guess I better repent, huh?)

DTS ~

I was taught that we would enter the next life with the knowledge we gained in this life only. I was taught that there would be LDS missionaries in the Spirit World, teaching spirits just as they did on Earth. So do you think that people who were not raised LDS on Earth will automatically accept the "truth" of the LDS Gospel easier there than here, even if they believed their own religion was the truth on Earth? If so, why?

Let me add to that, Of course within the boundary of the law! If a person is the best murderer he can be that would not fall in that category! I am meaning what ever religion a person is.

I think if we all live to the best potential of what ever we believe, we will accept what ever the truth is in the next life. The Pope, Einstein and Freud and the Dalai Lama and Gandhi you and I and......)

Neal Neal Neal Neal Neal

No, Gandhi and I don't believe the Bible is the word of God. We have no desire to be Christians.

It is the height of (something) to think that Christians know the Only Truth: that Jesus is the Only Way. Or in fact, that GOD is the only way.

I agree that Baptism for the Dead makes sense IF you accept the base assumptions of Mormonism. But no one but Mormons DO accept them. Certainly not Jews whose relatives died in the holocaust.

And, Mormon Doctrine CLEARLY states that one MUST be baptized (and sealed in the temple) to achieve the Celestial Kingdom. One might say it is the entire RAISON D'ETRE for the Mormon Church. Yes, non mormors will be in the Telestial/Terrestrial two star hotels, but not at the top. No Gandhi there.

That is part of the shell game for Gays: to achieve your greatest potential in the Plan of Eternal Progression, you must get married in the temple. To a woman.

And other than with your friends, for most Gay men and hetero women such marriages turn out to be a disaster. Brokeback Mountain ISN"T fiction.

"Henry, do you believe, as it says in the Bible, that every knee shall bow and confess Christ as the Lord?"

Neal, that is the point I was making earlier. I see no valid reason for any religion to make claims about the entire human race, as opposed to claims about the religion's adherents. Why couldn't Christians believe that Christ is their own Lord and no one else's? Why couldn't Muslims believe that Muhammed is their own prophet of Allah and no one else's? Putting aside the evangelical doctrines of these religions, what difference should it make to the daily life of a Christian or Muslim if others don't share their beliefs, as long as neither side uses its beliefs to harm others?

HJ:

"Tonio, the part you (and I) object to is thinking that Mormons have a monopoly on the highest level of Heaven in the first place.

To believe that only Mormons will achieve the highest potential for Eternal Progression (leaving out Einstein and Freud and the Dalai Lama and Gandhi and......)is the height of ignorance and arrogance even though my sainted brother and my sainted mother believe(d) it.

Mormon Joe Schoo from Idaho is going to become a God, but Gandhi isn't."

Henry, do you believe, as it says in the Bible, that every knee shall bow and confess Christ as the Lord? If so, then all the Gandhis and other non-Christians will eventually be Christians, correct? They will know he is their Savior - there would be no denying it.

Thinking along these lines, Baptism for the Dead makes sense, does it not? At least if one believes Baptism is an essential ordinance.

And I don't think there is a doctrine that says only Mormons will be in Heaven. Joseph Smith's vision of his brother (who died young and prior to the rise of Mormonism) in the Celestial Kingdom shocked even him. The essence of that vision was the understanding that God would take all things into consideration in our judgement - including our opportunities to learn the Gospel while here in mortality.

Just my thoughts...off to bed - many speeches tomorrow.

Neal

Jacosta,

My apologies for failing to respond to you sooner.

I am talking about female officers in the LDS Church, not their families. It is correct that women officers of the LDS Church are always subject to men. Male leaders can always overrule female leaders.

That is even the case in the LDS "women's" organization, the Relief Society. Every personnel decision is subject to male approval. Men assign the budget totals. Women are not allowed to raise their own money. Insofar as women can determine the details of the budget, men can always overrulet female decisions.

You may not like it but these are the facts. Having served in branch presidencies and bishoprics, I am intimately familiar with LDS policy, thank you very much.

I am glad that there are feminists left in Mormonism. The fact remains, however, that dozens of people have been excommunicated for feminist speech.

Finally, let me point out that I find your aggressive and personal response to my post troubling. I am looking forward to a productive exchange but would be grateful if we could stick to the substance rather than personal attacks.

I am learning quite a bit here and in other threads on "mainstreaming" and Mormons. And with Mormon ladies on their choices.

Thanks to all.

Hi, Phaedrus - glad you enjoyed Kissing Hank's Butt - hope Tonio, et al read it too, and yes, of course, Hank is always Right.

It sure simplifies things.

Baptism for Dead

Once one has, as a Mormon, accepted the Doctrine that only baptized Mormons can enter the highest level of Heaven,

it is then merciful to give one's ancestors (and others) the opportunity to choose Mormonism and gain that highest level.

Tonio, the part you (and I) object to is thinking that Mormons have a monopoly on the highest level of Heaven in the first place.

To believe that only Mormons will achieve the highest potential for Eternal Progression (leaving out Einstein and Freud and the Dalai Lama and Gandhi and......)
is the height of ignorance and arrogance

even though my sainted brother and my sainted mother believe(d) it.

Mormon Joe Schoo from Idaho is going to become a God, but Gandhi isn't.

Temple work done by LDS for the dead today is done exclusively for one's own ancesters.

To a people who believe baptism and other ordinances are neccessary to recieve all of God's blessings, extending this oppurtunity to all, even vicariously to the dead, is the most logical and merciful answer.

Though LDS hope to complete that work for everyone, due to similar feelings expressed by Tonio, the church today respectfully does not to continue this practice beyond the direct ancestors of LDS themselves.

Anonymous: Can't you give Yourself a FAKE name!!!!!!

Where did the money for the investments come from? Trees?

I am frankly very grateful for the Enterprise and Capitalistic Expertise of the Mormon Church.

Mormons are very good for the Stock Market, and being on a pension, I especially appreciate that.

Of course, I do spend a lot of my time in bars and strip clubs, in order to get my material, so that part I am not so crazy about.

Gay Strip Bars, some wags say.

The SLC mall was purchased exclusivley with funds drawn from the churches investments NOT TITHING.

The mall is adjacent to the Salt Lake Temple, Temple Square, The Tabernacle, the Conference center, Church headquarters, etc

Previously, the church and local LDS have had ongoing city and legal battles to keep this sacred and historic area from having bars and strip clubs in the vicinity.

They are now redeveloping and beautifying the entire area.

My Dear Henry James (may you rest in peace) ~

You crack me up. Hard.

SML
Not only have you No respect for authority,
you are cynical as regards its motives as well!!

Of course, you are dead right.

If the General Authorities were sitting in the Accounting office and seeing the Tithing Revenues going down by 20% this year, you bet that they would turn up the volume on the Evangelism.

And you bet that the planning for Church "growth" is intimately connected to plans for growth in tithing revenue.

I am sure Gordon Hinckley the Prophet thinks First and Foremost about the Eternal Salvation of his Flock. But at the same time, he realizes they can't be saved without the Money to build the temples and pay for the marketing.

And the bigger and older ANY church gets, the more inextricable the need for Money (the Church's drug of choice) is to the Plan for Salvation.

May God Strike me Dead. Oops. I'm dead already.

E Fave:

Good to see you again. I just read about "Hank" from your link. That is hysterically funny, laugh out loud funny. Thanks!

And don't forget number 7!

Tonio ~

I didn't say money was the ONLY reason for evangelism, but it does (in my humble opinion) play a vital role. I also happen to think doctors charge as much as they do sometimes for money reasons too, not just because they want to help people.

In the LDS faith, why is it required that people pay tithing in order to be admitted into the temple to be able to perform the required ordinances for exhaltation? If they don't pay tithing, they don't get to the temple, thus they don't get to live in God's presence again in the next life. The LDS members would say that it's because they are doing so to show God that they are obedient. I say that they are required to do so because the church wants and needs their tithing dollars to fund their buildings as well as their extensive business ventures like the $2 Billion mall they just bought recently in Salt Lake City.

Tonio my Friend

As you probably know, I agree with you about the menace of evangelism, and the arrogance of believing that one's religion is the Only Way.

It is, in fact, the reason I left Mormonism. I couldn't stand that arrogance (and you all know how UN-arrogant I am now).

And yes, Mormons would find it problematic I think if the Jehovah's Witnesses starting baptizing dead Mormons so they could choose to accept JW ism.

That was in fact the point of my last paragraph. I was trying to make it less arrogantly than I usually make points.

Luve you
Henry J

Sister Mary Lisa, I reject the arguing that evangelism is all about money. That would be like claiming that doctors want people to be sick or that psychiatrists want people to be mentally ill. I suspect that for most people who evangelize, the practice satisfies an emotional need that is separate from their religions' doctrines.

Hi, Tonio - I feel your pain, but suggest you don't try to look for the inherent logic in all this.

Easier to just accept that when it comes to religion, logic doesn't count for much.

And for a good laugh on the subject, go to http://www.jhuger.com/kisshankbutt.php

I first heard about "Kissing Hank's Butt" (cleaned up version of the original) on this forum months ago and your post above reminded me of it.

Evangelism is vitally important if a church is dependent upon tithing dollars rolling in in ever increasing amounts.

"Mormons believe that the Dead who are baptized HAVE a CHOICE in the afterlife of whether to accept the baptism or not. The point is to give a choice to people who otherwise would not have a choice."

Henry James, I can understand the inherent logic of that position and the intentions behind it. And you're right that the doctrine doesn't directly affect the right of living people to follow their own religions beliefs.

My original point was about the general principle of religious freedom. It just feels wrong to me for any religion to make claims about all of humanity, as opposed to claims about only the religion's adherents. In the case of the Mormons, why couldn't they believe that only they themselves need to be baptized, and leave the rest of the world out of their cosmology? Of course, that conflicts with the idea of evangelism, but then I see evangelism as the problem no matter what the religion.

"To think the dead Jews are up there waiting for a chance to accept Jesus can seem a problematic attitude from the viewpoint of Jewish people, and I see how they would feel that way."

The Mormons would probably find it problematic if adherents of another religion believed in consecrating the Mormon dead in the name of the other religion. So why wouldn't the Mormons realize how their attitude seems to Jews and others? Isn't it hypocritical to say that one's own religion is entitled to that attitude and all others aren't?

Tonio

Mormons believe that the Dead who are baptized

HAVE a CHOICE
in the afterlife

of whether to accept the baptism or not.
The point is to give a choice to people who otherwise would not have a choice.

I am an Anti-Mormon,
but this approach doesn't seem to violate religious freedom.

It is a bit presumptuous, and condescending to religions like Judaism that are much more established - to think the dead Jews are up there waiting for a chance to accept Jesus can seem a problematic attitude from the viewpoint of Jewish people, and I see how they would feel that way.

I see "baptism after death by proxy" in any religion as against the principle of personal religious freedom. They wouldn't baptize living people against their will, so why do they think it's right to baptize the dead? That's almost like going into hospitals to baptize comatose people and newborn babies without the consent of the families.

That last post was from me--didn't mean to be anonymous.

Henry James:

I think it's going to be two stars away from Kolob.

But seriously, of course I'm serious.

I think we pray to the Father and not the Mother based on tradition. SML thinks I'm wrong, but we disagree.

Yes, God says pray to me and only to me, but since Mormons believe God is really a couple, I still maintain that starting our prayers with "Dear Heavenly Father" is a tradition and in reality they both hear our prayers. My own interpretation, I admit, and unconventional, I also admit. But I don't think it's undoctrinal.

SML asks what my definitions of power and glory are. That's a good question and deserves some serious thought, but I'm pressed for time (I have a 3 month old who only takes 30 minute naps). One reason those words came to mind is that they're part of the blessings promised in temple ordinances, and those promises are the SAME for men and women. Women also excercise priesthood authority in some temple ordinances, so I think we should not assume we understand everything about what priesthood means in the next life. Salvation is the same for women and men, and blessings promised to each are the same.

and that is why we sould not jump to conclusions about mormons, buddhist, ect.

And maybe the person who held the door for you is a former Mormon, or the person who stopped in traffic to let you through was an atheist, or the person who smiled at you to brighten your day was Buddhist. You just never can tell.

People are wonderful in and of themselves, aren't they?

Posted on May 7, 2007 12:00

Phaedrus:

As I stated above ms wrote: "They have no ability to think critically, rationally, or scientifically. A Plato, Aristotle, Kepler, Galileo, Locke, Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, Einstein, or Hawkins will never come from such a religious Empire."

I am just pointing out that there are Mormons who have accomplished a lot. I never said that Covey broadcasts his religion. As a matter of fact, most Mormons do not broadcast their religion.

My sister in SLC had a man from Boston come and work with them for a week. At the end of the week the man commented "I am so glad that I did not have any run ins with The Mormon’s". A coworker said "what do you mean". The man responded, "I don't think I have seen a single Mormon while I have been here." All the people he worked with during the week were Mormon. The man was so impressed that he flew his wife to SLC and stayed for 2 more days. Went to Temple Square and completely enjoyed himself!!!

So you never know, the person who held the door for you this morning might have been Mormon. Or maybe the stranger who simply smiled and brightened your day was Mormon

That is a good one SML, two anons duking it out over who is more real. "Velveteen Rabbit insulting Velvetine Rabbit."

Actually, I am quite familiar with Covey's work, and respect it for what it is, a very inspiring and useful amalgamation of the work of many thinkers throughout recorded history. In fact, he tells of visiting China for the first time and being thanked repeatedly by the largely Confucian Chinese contingent for having "reminded (them) of what their grandfathers had taught them." Covey does not hide his LDS affiliation, but he does not exactly advertise it either. It would not aid his business. I know personally an individual who was one of both Covey's and Hyrum Smith's inner business circle for years. He says that they never discussed their faith at all within their professional domains. If you check the list of "Wisdom Literature" at the end of Covey's works, you will find a few that the LDS leadership would get a "different kind of burning bosom" over.

I have respect for Covey's work, and he is a bright person, no doubt. His genius lies in his ability to "package" pre-existing information into a cogent whole. He would tell you himself that he does not consider himself to be an original "thinker" in the fashion of those others mentioned in the referenced post.

The days of the religiously affiliated scholar, such as a Mendel, in the hard sciences, like Einstein's own theoretical physics, are largely over. The ragged edge of these sciences does not fit well with a fundamentalist worldview. There are some exceptions, but, for instance, of the top level US scientists, only 7% believe in a personal deity. The rest are atheist or agnostic. The same figures are seen in the best British scientists as well.

Mayan, thanks for the links. Ugly stuff there, but that is what happens when one disrupts the marketing campaign.

Cougar 08',

This may be a nice thought to Mormons but I think presumptious. We may do an individuals temple work but that does not mean that they have accepted that work and therefore are now a Mormon. We have no way of knowing this and I think it's irresponsible to assert it.

Einstein is a Mormon by now. Even though he was born in Germany to a Jewish family he was baptized after his death by a proxy in the Mormon Temple. Only the Holocaust survivors that were baptized to be Mormons were later removed from the list of people that had their temple work done for them. I dont think he was considered one of the Holocaust survivors.

I love it when two "anonymous" posters go head to head telling each other to "get real". Does anyone else see the humor in this??

I am not comparing Stephen Covey to Einstein my point is MS wrote that no thinker can come from the mormon religion!!!!!!

Are you saying that Covey is not a thinker!!!!

YOU GET REAL!!!

Hmmmm, "Einstein vs Stephen Covey."

having been through every one of Covey's books, and his one week leadership training, I can speak from experience on this. Covey quotes Einstein in his lectures. You would never have heard Einstein quoting Stephen Covey. Please, people, get real here.

Emily ~

You wrote "In Mormon theology the Mother God is equal in power and glory to the Father God. It is not our tradition to address her in prayers..."

It's not a "tradition" that causes us to address God in our prayers. We are commanded by God to pray only to God. Period. In his son's name. If I chose to get up in church and start my own "tradition" by praying to our Heavenly Mother whom you say is EQUAL in power and glory, I'd bet money that my bishop would stand and make me stop once I said "Our dear Mother in Heaven, we're thankful for this day..." and I'd likely find myself in my own church "court of love" to be disciplined if I pressed it and didn't cease praying to her.

What is your definition of power? Because the male in an LDS union presides, being the only one capable of holding the priesthood authority. That should tell you where the power really lies.

And what is your definition of glory? Because all I've seen is that we give glory to God in the Highest. Only. Even Jesus knew whom to direct glory to...he didn't want glory, he wanted it all to go to his Father. If the "glory" I've seen Heavenly Mother enjoy is all there is for women in the church, I wish you and other church members would quit telling me that women are treated equally and will share equal glory with their husbands. That's just silly.

The following link is the heartwrenching story of Janice Allred. For those that watched the PBS documentary by Helen Whitne, The Mormons, you will have seen an equally disturbing story about Margaret Toscano, Janice's sister.

Not only do Mormons not discuss a Female Deity or the female spouse/partner of a male deity, but, the leaders of the Mormon church will excommunicate anyone that promotes such a discussion.

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

This paragraph highlights the tone of how women that wish to learn about or discuss femininity in deity are viewed in the church. As I have stated in previous posts, I am not implying that ALL Mormons are this way, however, the approval for this behavior by the 15 Apostles, and the lack of community support by men and women throughout the church, reflects the lack of tolerance for thought and expression. Especially, when such expression does not promote the Priesthood and male authority.

"Where do we go from here?" I asked. "You tell us," President Bacon said. "Well," I said, "You should say we have talked to Janice Allred. She believes in Jesus Christ, she accepts the scriptures as the word of God, she loves the church and is committed to it, and she follows the commandments. We should just drop this whole procedure against her. She should be free to write and publish according to her own judgment." They both stared at me as if they we thinking, "You have got to be kidding." President Bacon said, "I couldn't remain stake president one week if I didn't do something about this." He then said that he would decide whether to have a court or not. "I will have to judge you," he told me. "I will have two counselors and twelve men to advise me, but the final decision will be mine." (end quote)

=========
The famous mormon people lists are really cracking me up. Mormons are in the mainstream on an individual basis. They can have any job in any field. However, the leaders of the church are completely out of touch, removed from the mainstream and working diligently to pacify the core group of members that sustain them without resistance in their power, titles, politics and dogma. Janice Allred's story profoundly displays the disdain that the church leadership has for fringe thought, even when those thoughts are spiritual and in line with the outward obedience that is demanded for all the 'blessings' in the mormon church.

ms wrote: "They have no ability to think critically, rationally, or scientifically. A Plato, Aristotle, Kepler, Galileo, Locke, Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, Einstein, or Hawkins will never come from such a religious Empire."

You don't think so?

Stephen R. Covey
Chairman, Franklin Covey Company

J. Ralph Atkin
founder, SkyWest Airlines

Nolan D. Archibald
CEO, Black and Decker

Melvin A. Cook
chemist

Richard and Linda Eyre
family counselors

Dr. John S. Lewis
space scientist

Joseph F. Merrill
(1869 - 1952)
physicist

and many more are found at

http://famousmormons.net/
You may be suprised. There are mormons everywhere. You may even work with some. Who knows, You may even like them without even knowing it!

Now you do not think any of these people are thinkers, or rational, or scientific? They are all mormons.

And you better turn off your Comp and throw out your TV because Philo T Farnsworth invented the TV and he was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Emily

I am sure that you are right that the Heavenly Mother is JUST as important to Mormon doctrine and the afterlife as the Heavenly Father is.

Why is it that I pray only to Heavenly Father?
Why did I hear about the heavenly mother TWICE in my 19 years as a Mormon?
If Heavenly Mother wants to establish the new world two stars away from kolob, and Father wants to do it THREE stars away, who is going to have the final word?
In other words, are you serious?

Henry James:

You're not telling me anything I don't know that lots of other traditions have goddesses. What I said was that Mormonism is the only CHRISTIAN faith with a Mother in Heaven concept. I didn't credit Mormonism for inventing female deity. Duh.

Sister Mary Lisa:

In Mormon theology the Mother God is equal in power and glory to the Father God. It is not our tradition to address her in prayers, but that doesn't mean She's just a baby factory. If Father in Heaven was the sole repository of power and glory he could just create some baby-making pods to create spirit children and dispense with a Mother.

Neal
very nicely said.

I think we are in fundamental agreement with your analysis and readings of the situation, and your reasonableness is exemplary, in our opinions.

You are probably right that the LDS church isn't likely to change this doctrine, and of course they, like all churches, are perfectly justified in setting their own doctrines.

The process of the congregation figuring out what doctrines mean and how they apply is a complicated one, as you indicate, and there is therefore a role for robust discussion, especially when questions of justice and tolerance are concerned.

Peace.
Henry and William

Clearly there are many who do NOT agree with me on this issue, both in and out of the Church. I'm not aware that I made any demands.

That being said, each person is responsible for their own salvation. How closely they follow the doctrine of the Church is a matter of personal conscience. The requirements to be considered a member in good standing are basically outlined in the Temple Recommend interview.

People are at varied levels of spirituality in their lives. Some have only a shallow faith and hardly practice their religion at all. Some may have a superficial understanding of the Gospel. Others may pretend to have faith, and practice their religion more for social reasons or reasons of tradition. Still others are seeking true discipleship and put forth the most sincere efforts to study, pray, and live a Christian life of service and love. They have deep and abiding faith, and are well versed in Scripture and Doctrine. Inbetween these examples are an infinite number of other levels of understanding, obedience and faith. So there may be some who do not understand particular doctrine, or who may not agree with particular doctrine. That's simply something they must work out for themselves - hopefully with the help of the Lord and others who do have strong faith. Many do, some do not, and some let it become a stumbling block until they lose their faith entirely.

The Sodom issue is indeed intriguing, and the idea of beseeching God for a "Change of Heart" is, as you say, not without precedent. Even Christ asked for the bitter cup to be removed. But God does not always honor our pleas to Him. In the case of Sodom, Lot and a few others were spared. In the case of our Lord, the bitter cup was NOT removed. So there is a precedent for God to grant or deny those requests. You just need a Prophet to go to bat for you, right? Perhaps you should speak with GBH himself? Couldn't hurt to try. I know Spencer W. Kimball met with a number of Gays to discuss things. I do respect your desire to see this doctrine changed, I just don't think that's in the cards, so to speak. I think its too fundamental. I do not think it will change.

William and John and many others

You're brilliant and well spoken ladies and gentlemen. I appreciate the opportunity to have a dialog like this - its been very stimulating. If any of my remarks have been unkind or offensive, (and at times they can be), please forgive me. I'm far, far from perfection.

Tomorrow I start three solid days of seminars, and I'm the speaker at half the sessions, so I probably won't get a chance to have much meaningful dialog on this blog for a while. I'll try to catch up later in the week.

Take care,

Neal

G'night, Bets. Sleep well, my friend.

Whatsamatta SML

Don't you have any respect for authority?

You go Girlfriend.

nighty night

bets

My Dearest Betty ~

Of course you're right about exclusive emphasis being placed on men and how they can become Gods with lots of wives to help populate their worlds...

Having babies is the one divine role women are given within the church. Why am I even worried about the whole goddess thing?? (shaking my head at myself)

Emily ~

I am not angry at the church for failing to say anything about our Heavenly Mother beyond preaching that there is one. Disappointed, yes. Disenchanted, yes. Disgusted, yes. Angry, no.

What will you do if the same fate befalls you as has befallen your Heavenly Mother? What will you say when your righteous, priesthood-bearing husband creates a new world with you as his goddess, but he puts your children on your new world with no memory of you, and he commands all your children to worship him and pray to him and remember him, but he fails to mention YOUR name and doesn't tell your children about you at all when it matters most?

Oh, wait. What CAN you do? You're in it for eternity, and by then there will be no point in complaining, as it really won't matter what you think then any more than it does today, considering you're a woman with no priesthood power to act in God's name.

Oh Neal, one more thing...

I know I'm not supposed to use Reason when talking about religions, but...

your fellow mormon John D has argued strenuously that Mormons are free to have their own ideas, to think for themselves, that they don't ALWAYS have to agree with the General Authorities.

(sounded Crazy to me, but that is what he said).

Now it seems like YOU are telling us that NOT only do all Mormons have to agree with the GA's on this one, they also have to agree with YOU>

(not to mention that all Christians ought to agree with you, and perhaps all Jews and Jains and Jesuits).

Do you think John D was saying its fine for Mormons to think for themselves and disagree with the GA's as long as it isn't about anything important?

(JD isn't the only one who has said this by the way - many Mormons on this site have trumpeted the freedom of thought within the Church).

Ah yes, the Story of God, Abraham, and Sodom

thank you Brother William for reminding us that we need to appeal to God from time to time to act justly. Here is what a Jewish teaching says about Abraham's plea for JUSTICE:

"While the people of Sodom use their power to pursue and preserve wealth, Abraham is willing to risk everything he has to pursue justice. Abraham doesn’t act because he knows that his is the way to save the innocent, or because he thinks that he can change the will of God. Abraham acts because the same code of justice which demands that God not kill the innocent with the guilty demands that Abraham take action. Abraham acts because if he doesn’t do something, he will have stood by idly while the blood of innocent people spilled before him.

Together, Abraham and the people of Sodom illustrate the underpinnings of social justice in Judaism.
• Unlike the people of Sodom, we understand that we enter the world in partnership with both God and other humans, and from the moment of our birth, we are enmeshed in relationships of obligation to people we do not know.
• Like Abraham, we know that when structures of power are unresponsive to, or even cause pain, we are obligated to act. Abraham knew he needed to confront even God, the Mightiest Force in the World, in pursuit of justice; so too must we confront the punier forces which sometimes seem so mighty – governments, corporations and our own complacency – when we pursue justice."

Neal
Lest you think Henry is being sacreligious when he talks of "working out a ..justification with God,"

remember that God was determined to destroy that City in the Old Testament, and Abraham convinced him that God had no theological justification for doing so, since innocent civilians would be killed in the process.

So we have precedent. I looked it up here at the Harvard Divinity School.

Peace
William

Neal

Don't get so worked up - you'll have a stroke.

Let me try to be a little clearer.

As you say,
"you know what you believe, and WHY you believe it."

Assuming for the moment that ALL MORMONS agree with you,
the point I was making was that
Many Many Christians
have different understandings and beliefs concerning what God thinks about homosexuality.

You MAY have proven that you and the Mormons believe certain things on this topic

BUT
you have not proven that it is the ONLY POSSIBLE interpretation by smart Christians of Good Will (though you may dismiss them all as Lame).

And the fact that you know WHY you believe what you do would not convince a person of faith from another Christian sect that YOU were right.

I don't EXPECT that the LDS church will change its position. I do think that if my Brother William and I were the co-prophets of the Church, we could work out a theological justification with God so that Gay Marriage could be understood as consistent with Mormon Doctrine.

You clearly disagree. You are clearly free to. Just because my brother wrote the best book ever about religion is no reason to think our opinions have any special weight.

HJ:
Really?? No, I said "I know what I believe and I know WHY I believe it."

As for what others may think of me? What matters is what I think of me, and what I think God thinks of me. If I'm comfortable with that then the rest is irrelevant. And I think that was a cheap shot on your part.

And you have only established that YOU don't think God's word is clear on these issues. To the contrary, I think they are crystal clear. Others think they are crystal clear. My Church teaches they are crystal clear. This is an example of perfect clarity:

From the Proclamation on the Family:
"The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

Please re-read that last sentence. Is there anything unclear in that statement? Is there any allowance for gay marriage there? For gay sex? Does the word COMMANDED have any ambiguity? Does the word ONLY have any ambiguity? How about MAN and WOMAN?

Let me remind you that this is an Official Declaration, signed by the First Presidency and the entire Council of the Twelve. This is doctrine.

Just to be sure, let's refer to Mayan's post about what constitutes official doctrine:

"This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), OFFICIAL DECLARATIONS and PROCLAMATIONS ,..."

Is all of that clear?

So, as I said we are right back at the beginning.

You can conjure up all the experts, ethicists, high-minded intellectuals, and nay sayers you want, but the simple fact remains that this is our doctrine. Period. You may think it unfair, unjust, unholy, unethical, unthinkable, unamerican - I'm running out of "un's". You may think of a thousand arguments why you don't think it should be so. That does not change the fact that it is so. You can speculate until hell freezes over that it will change, but until the men who wrote that Proclamation say it will change, it remains. You can protest, foam at the mouth, gnash your teeth, or have a stroke over it, but until those 15 men say it will change, it remains.

So if you REALLY think this doctrine is just a fleeting political fauxpau the Church got itself into, then by all means - knock yourself out. Expend all the time and energy you want on it. But I personally think you're delusional...

Neal

Emily

there are about 1,500 other traditions in human history that include Goddesses/heavenly mothers/earth mothers of many kinds.

Islam's Allah has NO gender.

To give Mormons credit for the concept of a female deity is crazy.

and the Mormon female deity is clearly part of a Patriarchal system
as opposed to hundred of traditions
where the female Goddess
is NOT subserviant to the male.

As far as Reason goes, most esteemed spiritual people would say that reason is an essential element of an elevated faith. it is quite extreme to say that reason has no place in faith.

Sister Mary Lisa:

I wish Heavenly Mother were more prominent in Mormon theology, but I find it ironic when people are angry at the church for not making Her more prominent when the very idea of her existence comes from the church. As far as I know, no other Christian faith has a Heavenly Mother concept like the Mormons do. Some Christians worship a non-gendered non-coprporeal God, but certainly do not view God as a couple, with the female component being equal to the male component (although more mysterious). Would you believe a Mother in Heaven existed without hearing it from the Mormon church?

Neal:

I think you articulate the doctines and policies of the LDS church very well. The "shot to pieces rhetorically" comments are not terribly relevant when it comes to matters of faith, since faith isn't based on reason. It's based on things discerned by the Spirit, as you say.

Hi Betty,

It’s been a while. I get your point. Let me further clarify. This scripture is talking about propagation after the resurrection. According to LDS doctrine, as stated in the recent Proclamation to the World, gender is an essential component of our pre-mortal and post-mortal identity and purpose. This is very difficult to meaningfully reconcile with the idea that a man can have children with another man after the resurrection. If Eternal marriage does not essentially entail Eternal offspring, it looses its meaning. There is no doctrine about fertility problems being Eternal, rather LDS scriptures state emphatically that bodily defects will not persist after the resurrection.

Neal,

I want to echo Thankful: “You are the Man.” I have really enjoyed your comments and participation here. It’s been great to get your perspective. I think you’ve fared quite well. This is a difficult conversation for all of us. It’s always difficult to have dialogue when two people come to the table with totally different underlying assumptions about the nature of things.

Hello James,

The only point I wish to make on this thread is that the two, Priesthood Ban and prescription against Homosexual sex, are not really comparable. The transition from Blacks and the Priesthood required no theological revolution and drew strongly on concepts already in the Mormon revelatory tradition (that is why in the church at least this was NOT viewed as revelation of convenience, but a genuine expression of Mormon beliefs). The same went for the transition out of Plural Marriage (read "Promises Made to the Fathers", for an Anthropological assessment of how smooth this change was).

Introducing Gay sexual relationships into the Mormon theological framework would require a revolutionary outpouring of theologically rich revelation similar in scope than that in Nauvoo. There is nothing in the Mormon tradition to currently justify it.

BTW, thank you for being so kind and respectful in dialogue, despite my falling on the conservative end of the spectrum. I have personal reasons for my position, but they are not really for airing in such a forum. Now I have to be responsible: I have two callings, children, career and an education to attend to!

Kindest Regards to all of you,

JD1

My Darling SML

when I was a mormon, I was never told I could become a "Goddess."

You are being too even handed. I know the heavenly mother is hiding back there in the doctrine somewhere, but the exclusive emphasis was on how Men could become Gods, and BTW, with lots of wives to help populate the worlds that they would rule by virtue of holding the Priesthood.

Love
Betty

John D the First wrote, "Gender is significant because the Eternities entail propagation and parenthood."

Again, I must point out that I'm not very pleased that I'm told in the Mormon church how very important I am as a woman, yet I've been given only MEN to aspire to become like. And the reason all the Mormons strive to be good and righteous is so they can become gods and goddesses and gain eternal glory, to live in the Celestial Kingdom with their families, able to rule their own worlds someday.

My point is, if gender is so gol-darned important, why are the women of the church only told of the glory of the man god, and not his wife? The church sure doesn't act like women are that important, if the scriptures are any indication. Maybe gender really ISN'T important. Maybe it's just PEOPLE that are important.

Leonard writes:

"Pheadrus (sic) is wicked smart, but still going to hell."

"Question with boldness even the existence of god, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blind faith."

Thomas Jefferson.

The Man Who Believes
He Posseses God's Wisdom

most certainly does not.

No Neal, we are NOT back at the beginning. you represent that YOU KNOW What God said about Homosexuality without possibility of error.

I have demonstrated that many think that you have your head up your behind,

We have therefore established the OPPOSITE of what you maintained, that God's word on this is clear.

Your final statement above can be paraphrased as
"I know what I believe , and I know that I believe it."

Do you expect any other human to take such a position seriously?

God gave us reason. he gave us spirituality. Your statement demonstrates neither.

L:
"Neal obviously does not know when he has been shot to pieces rhetorically, medication or not,"

Well I didn't run away, like you...

Neal

H:
"I should amend my point Even smarter believers than you or me believe that God does NOT consider homosexual sex to be a sin. And within marriage of course, it is not adultery or "fornication." "

And again, even smarter believers than you or me believe exactly the opposite. So we're back at the beginning.

Ultimately my faith is not based on some intellectual analysis of scripture or the opinions of other men. It is based on my own personal experiences with God and the witness I have received through His Spirit. One of my favorite scriptures is in I Corinthians, Chapter 2, which discusses how we can understand the things of God:

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Spiritually discerned. I love that scripture..

Neal

JD
one last point to add to my transsexual sister betty:

my scanning of the Bloggernaccle indicates that many open=minded Mormons, who, as you have often told me, are free to disagree with their Church leadership (though not, apparently, to teach at BYU)
think that the time has come for the Church to consider revisiting their position on Gay Marriage just as they reconsidered their position on the Black Priesthood ban.

I am beginning to think you may be on the conservative end of the spectrum even among Mormons. That is fine, of course. You are a principled and smart advocate for your positions. I am just speculating on the range of opinion within the Church.

I know that when I was in the
Church in the 60s and 70s that lots of Mormons could not wait for the GA's to change the Black Priesthood embarrassment.

John D

Is there any scripture that says
"If a man and a woman get married in the temple, and they aren't able to have children, their marriage has no eternal force."

John
There ARE a number of doctrinal sources that leave open the possibility that Blacks will SOMEDAY hold the priesthood (I remember my sainted mother telling me that, and it was clear she hoped the SOMEDAY would come soon).

But you can't deny that there are scores of justifications of the ban from Brigham Young through the execrable Ezra Taft Benson (do you believe he was a REAL prophet?).

Anyway, yes, some doctrines said the ban would eventually be lifted, and of course it was, but its original justifcation has never been officially denied by Church leadership (David O McKay was a different species than ET Benson, BTW, wasn't he? i STILL love him and Harold B Lee.).

I agree that the FAMILY has been central to the concept of Salvation. All the homosexual families I know consider themselves families. The D and C refers to hetero families because that is all that was known at the time.

If I were the prophet (omigod) I could easily craft a prophecy that extended the concept of FAMILY to include homosexual marriage based families, of which I know many. One of my board members is a prominent lawyer who is one of two wives in her family, and she just gave birth to a son. I don't think it was an immaculate conception.

While the D and C esteems and prescribes hetero marriage, it DOES NOT prohiibit homosexual marriage. Mormon practice and recent "revelation" does that, and there is not Scriptural injunction to do so. There is no scripture that says: "no same-sex married couples, from Massachusetts or elsewhere, can be sealed in the temple and be married, therefore avoiding adultery in their sexual congress." Is there?

Hi James,

That verse in the Book of Abraham says that the descendants of Ham could not have the Priesthood. Where does it say who the descendants of Ham were? Where does it say they will *never* have the Priesthood?

According to 19th century lore, Blacks are descendants of Ham, but that association is no where in the standard works. For this reason David O. McKay concluded that there was no curse on Black people as popularly believed. It appears that Joseph Smith did not find these verses to have modern application for Preisthood ordination, since he ordained Elijah Able (a black man) without flinching and called him to function in his preisthood office until Joseph's death.

The Book of Moses referrers to Antediluvian descendants of Cain and it makes no reference to Priesthood from what I am aware.

There is no indication in the Standard Works that any descendants of Cain survived the deluge. Though some 19th century folks thought that Ham married a descendant of Cain, but this is not explicitly stated anywhere. The curse on Ham's children supposedly resulted from Cannan’s disrespect for Noah or Ham's disrespect for Noah, I am not sure.

Anyways, overturning a dubious application of Old Testament curse pronounced by Noah is, overall, not very significant. It is but a fleeting frill in the conglomeration of meanings in Mormon practice and belief.

The heterosexual family as an Eternal Unit has been central to the Mormon concept of Salvation since the Nauvoo period. An Eternal concept of gender is essential to this doctrine. Gender is significant because the Eternities entail propagation and parenthood. If you trivialize the gender element of Eternal Marriage you undermine the very purpose of it.

Here is the verse significant to the Mormon doctrine of Exaltation and the place of Eternal Marriage in it:

"And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life...it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, *which glory shall be a fullness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever*" (132:19).

This idea is central to Mormon theology; Noah's curse, peripheral at best. Not to mention the modern application was highly questionable.

Black Priesthood Ban has Basis in Mormon Scripture

Unlike the Gay Marriage Ban,
there is justifcation for the Black Priesthood Ban
in Mormon Scripture (not the Bible).
See POGP, Moses 5:16-41 and Abraham 1:20-27.

And there are INNUMERABLE justification of it in saying of the Prophets going back to Brigham Young, as well as Standard Approved Church Doctrinal Works.

John D, if you are still out there, I NOW believe that the Doctrinal basis for Gay Marriage Ban is MUCH weaker than the Black Priesthood Ban.

And I needn't remind you of my status as a literary critic. So I won't.

Hmmmm.... let me see.

To the gays in this thread, I hope you are not that naive to assume that gays will be okay in a purely secular state or non-religous society. Remember what Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot did. It will have to be a secular humane democratic society. But, homophobia is a human attitude (fear and loathing) that afflicts many people across beliefs or ideology.

Let me see, as a (faux) guy here, I am all for equality of women and gays. Er, is it equal rights?

Well, equal rights, equality is fine by me as long as as I can hang out with the just the guys for beer and a game. As long as I can go fishing, hunting, golf with just the guys. You know, male bonding. Women don't want to be roughing it out and competiting all the time.

And them women really are not up to par with us guys when it comes to games. We'd have to give them handicaps. It's a drag to have them around.

And hey, I'm not against gays. I love Tom Hanks in "Philadelphia". But, you know, having them around for what we guys do, would, you know, put a different flavour to our male bonding. It's a gay, err..guy thing.

But, really, I have no no problems with gays or women. I'm all for their rights. It's just that sometimes, I don't want them around. I am sorry that you misunderstood me. I regret your reactions. Some of my best friends are women and gays. And blacks. And Jews. And atheists. And fundies. And liberals. And so it goes.......

Well, I cannot believe that I took the time out of my schedule to read this whole thread, but I did. All I have to say is that Mormons seem to be a heck of a corporation, with a great market strategy. Too bad the product is such a problem, touchy history there.

Individually, I'd have to say that Jihadist has the riskiest name, Henry james has the best sense of humor, I don't know what the heck a Mayan Elephant even IS, Neal obviously does not know when he has been shot to pieces rhetorically, medication or not, and Pheadrus is wicked smart, but still going to hell.

That said, I'm out. Leaves' over.

Mormon Scripture DOES NOT Forbid Gay Marriage

If one reads D&3 131 and 132, you find ENDORSEMENT of a "man taking a woman in marriage,"

but it does not say that is the Only Kind of marriage that God would recognize,

and of course, no where in Mormon Scripture is homosexuality or the issue of Gay relationships/marriage mentioned.

There was of course no LDS position on the question until recently. Enunciated by Prophets and apostles.

And of course, the position on Blacks in the priesthood was CHANGED by the Prophet, AND had doctrinal support in the scriptures, unlike the Gay Marriage Ban.

God could change the Gay Marriage Ban the same way He changed the Black Priesthood ban.

Hello Neal

You are quite a thorough respondant!

Our Methodist Pastor may seem lame to you, but he is one of many Christians, of varying degrees of lameness, who read the Bible on homosexuality quite differently than you do.

I, as America's greatest literary critic, thought that he made a fair amount of sense. But of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

My general point is that interpretation of what God said may be clear to you (it rarely is to me), but many disagree with you on many things.

You, Neal, have said, haven't you, that the Church doesn't forbid Gay people to marry, as long as Gay men marry straight women. The statistics in the Wide World on Gay men marrying straight women show it to be a disaster. You must have a remarkable group of friends.

Yes, the Christian God loves everyone unconditionally (the Old testament God often seemed to Hate everyone unconditionally).

I should amend my point Even smarter believers than you or me believe that God does NOT consider homosexual sex to be a sin. And within marriage of course, it is not adultery or "fornication."

Love,
Henry

Neal,

I am glad we agree on something.

you omitted this part of the quote: "This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith"This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.

You may consider the other sources to contain doctine. Clearly, the church would love a huge piece of fancy cake, and to eat it too. In this case, they want everything they say to be trusted, but they want no accountability for having said it.

I see the positive progress in that any member can now limit their loyalty to those things in the scriptures, and not be burdened with the spontaneous remarks of these men.

As for Oaks and Wickman. There is no way that is doctrine. It is not possible that even a church as messed up as this one would make an *official* declaration of policy that a parent is not to publicly associate with a child because it may endorse the child's choices. That is political suicide.

HJ:
"Jimmy Creech, former senior pastor of the First United Methodist Church, in Omaha, Nebraska has concluded that: "...there was no understanding of sexual orientation in the culture and time when scripture was written. There was not even a word for 'homosexuality' or 'homosexual' in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, the original languages of scripture. "

That's a pretty lame defense! The hebrews fought constantly to battle the effects of Helenistic influence in their culture. It was a huge dividing point for many, as their conquerers used their acceptance of all forms of immorality to corrupt the hebrew faith. Gymnasiums (nude sports spas) were built and lavishly decorated as enticements. Hebrews were ridiculed for their circumcisions, which could not be hidden in such circumstances, and many hebrews stopped the practice because of this social pressure. Gay sex was part of the Helenistic culture and openly flaunted.

Early biblical writings condemn, 'man lying with another man'. I don't know how much clearer a description you need. New Testament writings condemn the same thing. Wheter or not these people understood human psychology at the time is irrelevant - they understood the BEHAVIOR was sinful. It was clearly condemned, unless you consider the death penalty a trivial punishment.

Even the Greeks, whose adult men traditionally took young boys as sexual partners until their later twenties, had fierce debates on the "morality" of that practice, and at times outlawed it.

---------------------

"Bigger Point: encouraging Gay men to marry straight women is a BIG problem: whatever the church does doctrinally, the practices that are encouraged there are dangerous and often tragic, just as they are in the non mormon world."

The Church doesn't teach that. They teach that homosexuals should NOT use marriage as a "cure", because it isn't. There are however, quite a few homosexual men happily married to women. I know a number of them. I also know a lot who ignored the counsel and "faked it", and they are, in general, most miserable.

--------------------------

H:
"You are a smart guy, but many Even Smarter Believers think that God loves Homosexuals who exercise their sexual natures. I will get you some references on my next installment."

Thanks for the compliment. Not to pick on every litle detail, but, the implication in your statement above is that God's love is conditional. God loves homosexuals whether they excercise their sexual natures or not. This is a separate issue from behavior. God condemns the behavior as sin. God loves each of us perfectly, unconditionally, and equally.

----------------------

ME:
"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications."

That is indeed significant. Please note that it also mentions "official Church publications". These include the Church web site, offcial letters to Bishops and Stake Presidents, etc. and includes talks given at General Conference. The interview with Wickman and Oaks on Same Gender Attraction is essentially an official declaration of policy, and similar statements have been made by other General Authorities in other public venues. An official letter was sent to Bishops, Stake Presidents, etc. outlining most of the same things. There is one other unmentioned source of Church doctrine - or at least policy - and that is the General Handbook of Instructions.

------------------------
SML:
"Neal ~

Someone above (I don't have time to look it up) wrote of their teenaged son talking to another 17 year old boy who is gay who claimed that gays choose to be gay. Would you say you chose that for yourself or were you born that way (regardless of whether or not you act on it)? If you already explained the answer to that I don't remember..."

I did not choose to be homosexual. Who would? However, I don't think "born that way" is accurate either. I think there is a combination of factors that contribute to homosexuality, some of which may ge genetic, and others not. I find no evidence that the issue has been conclusively decided. I was sexually abused and exposed to pornography starting at the age of seven, and I have no doubt that was contributory.

I would personally prefer to be a straight man with a wife and kids.

------------------------

R:
"I am not sure what it is you want to discuss further but there's the spot where I moved our gender discussion."

Welcome back! I'm not sure what we need to discuss further either. Do you want me to jump to the other site? let me know...

Neal

Neal, yeah, I'm back. :-)

I belong to no religion. I am still on the roles of the mormon church, so I am counted in the 12 million members, yet I have not considered myself a mormon for years. I have not been excommunicated or disfellowshipped. I left on my own, quietly and without fanfare for many reasons, but definately the role of women in mormonism was the catalyst.

Emmeline B Wells had no surprise ally in Brigham Young. She was one of the wives of Daniel Wells, who led the mormon militia directly under the leadership of Young. She was in the relief society general presidency for many years. She is an admirable person, that is certain. She was a strong proponent of polygamy and was sort of an amabassador for it to the outside world. The shared goal that she had with Young was to keep polygamy from becoming illegal. However, it is certain that Wells was a proponent for women's rights in general, as she was part of the national women's suffrage movement. Young, however, had one interest and that was to keep polygamy intact, his and the church's political power in Utah intact, and gain statehood. There is no doubt that he was a very capable politician. To the point that giving Utah women the vote was for polygamy's sake...the US Congress removed that right for the very reason that they wanted any vote in favor of polygamy to be decreased.

When I say dissent is silenced by excommunication from mormonism I mean silenced within. An excommunicated person is pushed to the outside, where the authority in the mormon organization can proclaim that person has no voice because they are now on the outside. A person who is on the outside has no voice for what is happening on the inside. They are silenced in that regard.

Jay: continuedconversations.blogspot.com

I am not sure what it is you want to discuss further but there's the spot where I moved our gender discussion.

Rebecca

Great News Mayan

If they repeal the bans on Gay Marriage and Polygamy, I bet my brother Henry will now go back to the Church.

(oh yeah, forgot about the Word of Wisdom...)

BTW
Henry's note that Mormons are increasingly at odds with Science on their beliefs about the nature of homosexuality doesn't mean they have to change their position.
BUT, it makes them look increasingly foolish when they use their "facts" to justify their policy, as opposed to doctrine, none of which is in Mormon Scripture.

To accept the biblical quotes as justification is really shoddy theology, as the Methodist minister quoted above noted.

The Mormon Battle With Science

Mormon PR spokesman Otterson says Mormonism is compatible with science.

However, on gay issues, according to the web site "religioustolerance.org"

(Mormon)beliefs (on homosexuality) contradict statements of all but one professional mental health organizations, human sexuality researchers, gay and lesbian organizations and liberal religious faith groups. The quality of data on conversion rates for homosexuals is very poor. However, they seem to indicate that fewer than 1% of persons with a homosexual orientation can become heterosexual. However, a much larger percentage can decide to remain sexually inactive, while still retaining a homosexual orientation.

Mormons claim God gave them their doctrine. This claim is arguable, even within the confines of Mormon doctrinal thought.

Many other Christians interpret God's words quite differently. and homosexuality is NOT mentioned in the BoM , D& C, or POGP>

Mayan ~

I'd party in the streets with you any day. :)

Phaedrus ~

That was simply beautiful, my friend.

Betty ~

You make a perfectly valid point when you talk about the Bible sanctioning slavery. It amazes me how selective our views can be when we want to see one thing but not the other to support our religious opinions or behaviors.

HJ ~

"The Love That Dare Not Speak its Name" cracked me up. Your daughter sounds lovely. I'd love to hear her play.

Neal ~

Someone above (I don't have time to look it up) wrote of their teenaged son talking to another 17 year old boy who is gay who claimed that gays choose to be gay. Would you say you chose that for yourself or were you born that way (regardless of whether or not you act on it)? If you already explained the answer to that I don't remember...

I for one wish that you felt free to express the love and desires you feel the same way I'm able to within my relationship with my husband. It brings meaning into life that far exceeds any religion, philosophy, societal view, or morality code.

I am very glad my homosexual brother and homosexual friends have been able to find happiness and love in their lives with loving life partners while being true to themselves. I just can't support a so-called loving God who would condemn them for seeking out love and a quality life for themselves, especially if homosexuality was created by God in the first place.

Well said wise Phaedrus,

"To those who would say, "But the Mormon church is a private entity, and should be able to decide for itself what rules it will enforce for its members," I say "Right you are. If it ended at the borders of the faith." But, it does not. The LDS church spends millions of dollars to combat gay marriage, and any meaningful version of civil unions, in every state that takes up the issue. In so doing, it seeks to exert its influence over the lives of "everyone," LDS or not."

This is very true. I too agree that the institution has the right to protect itself and set its own limits and rules. They can kick professors out of BYU as they see fit. They can excommunicate Janice Allred and her sister, Margaret Toscano. It is run by a few men who have been given full control of the institution.

However, it is not mandatory that all who disagree with those men, especially when it comes to civil rights, cease to speak. Otterson's suggestion, along with the chorus of faithful Mormons, that to speak against the LDS actions is somehow unamerican or lacks tolerance, was pathetic.

I noticed today something that is quite possibly the most significant reversal in the history of the LDS church. In my opinion, this position, as it is presented on LDS.org is bigger than the reversal of the race ban, it is bigger than the manifesto regarding polygamy, it is bigger than the 1978 change that allowed women to pray in church.

You can read it here:

http://lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=970af549db852110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD

It includes this bullet:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

I applaud this statement. It was made on Friday by Otterson. In my opinion, this is a victory for everyone, inside and outside of the church, with 15 exceptions - the Apostles.

The most common apology made by Mormons, with regard to doctrine or social stances, is that past prophets and living prophets were speaking as a 'Man not as a Prophet.' It was left to the apologists to decide when something was manly or prophetic. Members were faced with the impossible position of deciding what as just a rant by an old guy in a white shirt and what was inspired. Does Eve come to mind for anyone here?

The press release paragraph puts it all in perspective. If its not cannonized, it aint enforcable, official, godly or terribly important. That is huge progress, even if the words in the statement are not cannonized - oh for the irony and continued dilemma.

The Mormon Scriptures do not mention coffee specifically - so, any interpretation, according to what Otterson just published is left to the Mormon coffee consumer and not to the old dudes or a bishop or anyone else.

Even the proclamation to the family leaves some vagueness regarding homosexuality, in my opinion. Regardless of how it is interpreted, it is fair that the comments by Oaks and Wickman are not to be considered at face value as equivalent to scripture or God's will. Regardless of how one accepts Oak's nonsense, the church has now publicly created an allowance for people to interpret those words differently and cease the harsh judgments of others, and the horrendous forced apologies and interpretations that are the burden of members, fathers, mothers, children and friends of homosexuals.

I think there is great reason to rejoice and party in the streets.

The press release by Otterson will be dismissed by many, disected by many, and embraced by many. The debate that will ensue will do more to advance the religion into the mainstream than anything I have ever seen in the Mormon Church.

Otterson, that was bold. Lets see if your peeps in the pews can show even a fraction of the boldness as they speak for themselves more, and apologize less for Oaks comment that was broadcast on April 30th and May 1st. After all, it was not inspired and was merely the thoughts of a man that was going 'All In' in a high stakes poker game.

And finally - Woohoo! Poker is back for the elders quorum and Relief Society until we get the poker ban cannonized.

The Tragedy of Forced Gay/Straight Marriage

this Quote from a Newspaper Article notes one study showing %5 of gay/straight marriages worked.

Quote:

A gay man marrying a heterosexual woman "is just wrong," says Craig Steiner, an activist who was married for 12 and 1/2 years and has two sons.

"You are not being true to who you are and it traps women in an unhealthy relationship," says Steiner, co-director of Wasatch Affirmation, a support group for Mormon and former Mormon gays. "The church is making these men think they can win and they can't."

Statistics seem to back him up.

Idaho State University professor Ron Schow has studied LDS homosexuals. Of 136 he surveyed in 1994, 71 percent were returned missionaries and 36 had tried marriage. Only two of the 36 were still married.

Gay Testimony Day June 3

the Affirmation site talks about the movement to have Gay Mormons speak up in Testimony meeting on June 3 about their homosexuality and the Church.

Has anyone heard more about this?

You all know where the web site is, right? google "affirmation mormon gay".

L'chaim.

JD1

Interesting thoughts.
Speaking as a Neutral Theologian (I know you already know that I have no biases),
it is an interesting question as to whether there is more doctrinal/revelatory basis for
1. The Black Priesthood Ban
2. The Gay Marriage Ban.

My reading of Mormon doctrinal history, which is in the same league as yours as far as extent goes, leaves this question a toss up, doctrinally speaking.

To the best of my knowledge, there was NO doctrinal utterance on this question before 1950 - why would there be? I understand that everyone would assume that Eternal Marriage was Man/woman marriage, but Joseph and God never said so as far as I have been able to tell.

The Modern Prophets have clearly laid out doctrines, but again
Ezra Taft Benson promulgated doctrines and more informal teachings about Blacks that were overturned in 1978.

I DO agree that it would be a much larger Cultural Shift to admit Gay Marriage than it was to lift the Black Priesthood ban.

My logical philosophical Jesuitically-disciplined mind however does not see that Gay Marriage would automatically contradict the Eternal Marriage DOCTRINE.

Why can't two Men be married and then sealed for eternity? Not all marriage produce biological children.

Bigger Point: encouraging Gay men to marry straight women is a BIG problem: whatever the church does doctrinally, the practices that are encouraged there are dangerous and often tragic, just as they are in the non mormon world.

Go see Brokeback Mountain again.

Love
Henry

Hello all!!

I think I just want to say that in my opinion the Homosexual sex issue is very different than the Blacks and preisthood issue.

There are many principles in Mormon history and scriptures that promote racial egalitarianism.

For example:

"he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." (2 Nephi 26:23)

Also, Joseph Smith ordained Elijah Able, a black person, to the Priesthood and sent him on a mission.

Ideas of racial egalitarianism were pervasive in Mormon culture before the lifting of the priesthood ban; that's why the ban itself was called; "a burden too difficult to bear" even for white members of the church.

Church members were less racist than the wider society, even during he priesthood ban. (See Armaun Mauss, All of the Children of Abraham)

President David O. McKay (LDS Prophet in the 50s and 60s) even found the scriptural and doctrinal justification so slim, he wanted to lift the ban. Just like Spencer Kimball he spent hours in the Holy of Holies in the Temple asking God if it should be lifted. God's answer "Not yet." (see David of McKay and Rise of Modern Mormonism). The revelation giving blacks the Priesthood in 1978 did not require a doctrinal overhaul, it actually solved a lot of doctrinal contradictions.

On the other hand, changing Mormon sexual ethics to include homosexual sex would require a theological upheaval unprecedented in our history. It would challenge the nature of salvation and the purpose of sex and marriage itself. I think Thankful, in a prior post, pointed out how the Mormon doctrine of Eternity makes the LDS church eventually approving of homosexual sex an unlikely scenario.

There are, of course, ample doctrines of inclusion and compassion which make full unprejudiced fellowship of individual homosexuals who follow LDS teachings both possible and necessary. I actually think homosexuals who follow LDS teachings deserve more praise and recognition than anyone for their great faith and sacrifice.

Phaedrus
An inspirational and eloquent post, even compared to your usual standard.

A personal story:
When growing up as a 4th generation Mormon Boy, The Love that Dare Not Speak its Name was of course never mentioned in any context remotely connected with the Church, let alone IN Church.

I went to Provincetown for summer vacation, and I knew that Gay People existed. Many/most of my Non-Mormon friends made the usual disparaging remarks about Gays. I instinctively recoiled at this disparagement, but didn't know what to say, and I was 14.

My daughter, by contrast, grew up in an environment where she could discuss homosexuality in an Age appropriate way, went to a school where the issues were discussed in the context of humanity, justice, respect, and understanding of difference.

She is now a 20 year old concert violinist (ie not a drug addict or a prostitute). She lives in a highly educated and moral culture where gays and straights are brothers and sisters. Her roommate and best friend is a gay pianist.

She is appalled, on a moral and justice basis, that fundamentalist groups who claim God's justification would institutionalize the injustices that her friend and others like him suffer.

Your invocation of a Desert Tribe moral system is quite resonant of 1847 Salt Lake Valley. But the Mormons are not the only carriers of this tradition.

As King and Gandhi and the great religious AND moral leaders taught us,
no man is free until every man is free.
Injustice for one is injustice for all.

Phaedrus: Beautiful

In medievel Christendom, left-handedness was associated with "evil." In fact, the word 'sinister' derives from this unfortunate association, which was perpetuated by religious authorities. This mindset was so deeply ingrained, that children showing a natural inclination towards left-handedness were subjected to all manner of abusive "corrective" measures, designed to force them to use their right hand by denying the use of the left. We look at this belief and practice as silly, and barbaric, today. But, let us understand that both the belief and the practice stemmed from humans "understanding" of God's intentions as derived from his written, Biblical, word.

I wonder if church authorities, being confronted by those who decried this belief and practice, would have retorted: "We afford the sinister the same as the non-sinister; the right to use their right hand dominantly."

Those who claim, with a literary straight face it would seem, that "gays are afforded the same rights as heteros, to marry someone of the opposite sex," merely mimic the medievel mindset towards lefties. Heteros are afforded the right to marry someone to whom they are natually attracted in a sexual sense. Homosexuals are not. No amount of sophistry can conceal this central fact.

Homosexuals, in an attempt to find solace in the fundamentalist community, frequently do marry a member of the opposite sex. Many then have children. And a great number of them then see those families ripped apart when the homosexual member is no longer able to deny their true nature. This is wrong, dreadfully wrong. Having treated several of these family members through the years, I can speak to the pain this produces.

In defending this fundamentalist stance towards homosexuals, many apologists attempt to claim that, because God "prescribes" this form of discrimination, it is, somehow, no longer discriminatory. Words have meanings however, and injustice is injustice no matter the source thereof. And, this is not even to mention the fact that these claims come from those who are certain they have a monopoly on God's intentions in the first place. Can you really be so sure?

Thousands of years ago, a set of human beings codified the moral conceptions and superstitions of their time and place, and attributed them to a deity whom they then claimed demanded adherence to these "laws" from all. Having projected and embodied their own consciousness into "heaven," these men then bestowed upon themselves the authority to exact earthly retributions for insults to this "divine" will. Much suffering was born of this circularly "reasoned", and self-serving contrivance. But, we get used to that which we experience consistently. The adult elephant remains tethered to his pitifully tiny cord because it was introduced in his infancy.

Thankfully, morals evolve like everything else. The moral structures of these desert tribesmen have become progressively less tenable over the centuries. We no longer stone adultresses in the west, we no longer practice slavery, we no longer force the "sinister" to use their right hands. We have thrown off these particular yokes, but there is more work to do. The challenge to the religious fundamentalist is how to remain comfortably within the corner his Biblical inerrantism/literalism has painted him into. Time moves in but one direction, however, and it is not possible to prevent its flow, nor reverse it.

Neal claims that I am grinding an axe. This is something one says to impugn another's motive, or the fashion in which they act according to such. If I am grinding an axe, it is a pitifully tiny version of the mighty axes of a Ghandi, a Martin Luther King, a Thomas Jefferson, and the LDS' own Emmeline Wells. I am contented to be in that arena, albeit in the cheapest of seats. I will be happy to continue to work to throw off the yokes of those primitive desert power brokers, for those who continue to chafe under them.

To those who would say, "But the Mormon church is a private entity, and should be able to decide for itself what rules it will enforce for its members," I say "Right you are. If it ended at the borders of the faith." But, it does not. The LDS church spends millions of dollars to combat gay marriage, and any meaningful version of civil unions, in every state that takes up the issue. In so doing, it seeks to exert its influence over the lives of "everyone," LDS or not.

I do not claim that it should not be permitted to do so, as this is a form of protected speech. (I do urge our elected representatives to investigate whether this is a violation of the church's tax-exempt status requirements, but that is another issue.) But, having done so, the church enters the political process, and becomes fair game for its political opponents. It cannot sit back and try to maintain a low and falsely-pious profile, while it has politically partisan mud on its hands.

Our coninuing moral evolution will settle this issue eventually. One by one, the yokes placed upon modern humans by ancient sensibilities will be removed. There are a lot of little Emmeline Wells' out there, a lot of tiny Jeffersons.

I, myself, am heterosexual. My children are too young to know what this debate is all about. One of them may turn out to be lesbian, who knows? But, I feel a responsibility to fight for them now, just in case, and for other children who will one day discover they are homosexual, and suffer the slings and arrows of a society steeped in the ingrained hate of that which is "different," as well as the "morality" of a long dead age.

There are a great many of us who will continue to urge that adult elephant to break that rotting old cord.

The Bible Says: Slavery is Good

Combining the sensible (though of course arguable) position of Pastor Creech above
with the undeniable fact that there are many Clear expressions of Support for Slavery in the Bible,

if we wanted to insist on a strict reading of the Bible

we would advocate Bringing Back Slavery.

It was NOT a sin to own slaves, according to the Bible.

Once again, Mormons are free to interpret scripture however they want.

But to argue that Their interpretation is the ONLY possible one, or that it can not change even within the Church, is clearly not supportable.

Mormon interpretation and doctrine and practice has changed Many times in its history, as is true with all religions.

BTW, I still am shaking from going back and reading the Sayings of the Prophet Benson on Blacks. I sure hope he was speaking as a Man and not a prophet.

Neal
I have just discovered that different Christian religions actually *interpret* the Bible differently than you or I do. Here is one example from that web site I referred to (religious tolerance, which I think is a bad idea). There are of course more conservative readings referenced in this site as well.

Jimmy Creech, former senior pastor of the First United Methodist Church, in Omaha, Nebraska has concluded that: "...there was no understanding of sexual orientation in the culture and time when scripture was written. There was not even a word for 'homosexuality' or 'homosexual' in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, the original languages of scripture. There are biblical references that condemn same-sex sexual behavior, but they are all within contexts related to violence, idolatry, promiscuity and exploitation. Careful reading within the historical setting reveals that it is the violence, idolatry, promiscuity and exploitation that is condemned, not the same-sex sexual behavior. The same condemnation is given to opposite-sex sexual behavior that is violent, idolatrous, promiscuous and exploitative." 3

Neal
the bible does NOT use the words Gay or Homosexual.

and the Modern Prophet Ezra Taft Benson said the most racist things, as did the prophet Brigham Young.

Yet we changed the Black Priesthood ban

ONE STOP shopping in a non partisan way on the Gay issue in religion is

http://www.religioustolerance.org/homosexu.htm

there you will find REAL live believers smarter than you or Me who believe differently than either of us.

Neal Part II

Let me STipulate again that
1. I don't expect Mormons to change their position on this issue before the second coming.
2. The Mormons are the same as most churches, and are perfectly entitled to believe as they do, obviously.

That said,
there are people in the Church whose Sexual Orientation is Homosexual.

The policy of the Church has a great effect on them. It also has a great effect on shaping the attitudes of the general membership (which BTW includes my Real life brother and nephews).

It can be tragic when a Gay Man marries a hetero woman. In or out of the Church (see Haggart and NJ's governor).
for him and FOR HER AND the Children.

Point: this is an important issue to thoroughly discuss even if the Doctrine is not going to change.

I think it should change in all churches just as it has in many (parts of Episcopalian etc).
But each Church clearly has the right to decide for themselves, and none has hired me as a consultant.

As far as Moral Issues go:
I fought for Civil Rights in the 60's even though I wasn't Black, and was a Mormon.

I think that when injustice exists ANYWHERE it affects ALL of us. Martin Luther King eloquently made that point.

So I speak out against injustice, even if it isn't in my country (Rwanda, China), or my Church,

because injustice to any of us is injustice to all of us.

You are a smart guy, but many Even Smarter Believers think that God loves Homosexuals who exercise their sexual natures. I will get you some references on my next installment.

They interpret God's word very differently than the Mormons do.

And they are on the side of justice for Gay people.

H:

Not sure what you mean that Gay issue is less doctrinal. I think its more.

"The words "gay" or "homosexual" or "marriage is between a man and a woman" never appear in the BoM or the D&C or the Journal of Discourses."

Clearly referenced in the Bible and by modern Prophets, which for us represent the same validity.

If you sell this thread, I want my cut as a major contributor!! :D

Neal

Thank you, Neal, for your explication.

You are MOSTLY right when you say you are looking at the Gay issue from the Mormon point of view and P and i are looking at it from a secular standpoint.

But there are two rather large BUT's here...
both P and I are intimately familiar with Mormon doctrine and history.
we know that some things that WERE doctrine ARE NOT doctrine any longer, for instance.
we also know what the scriptural and historical foundations for doctrine are.

Faithful mormons on this discussion, like JD!, have explained carefully how certain of JOseph's "revelations" are no longer operative, or never REALLY revelations because he was speaking as a man rather than a prophet.

The Gay issue is arguably LESS DOCTRINAL than the Black priesthood issue, for instance.

The words "gay" or "homosexual" or "marriage is between a man and a woman" never appear in the BoM or the D&C or the Journal of Discourses.

End of first installment (I'm trying to sell this series to the Saturday Evening Post).

Posted on May 5, 2007 22:19

Phaedrus:
No I am not the same as the anonymous poster. It is just astonishing how rude both sides are in this place.

ALL,

OK, I have some quiet time at the hotel room, and a few thoughts on recent posts. Some of this will be a bit of a rewind, so please pardon. I was really pressed for time on the last couple, and I could not devote some careful thought to them. (I have ADHD, and it can take me an hour or more to write a few paragraphs when I'm really wound up) So, with tranqility surrounding me, here goes:

I realized there are some fundamentals we need to cover before anyone could put what I'm saying in the proper context. P & H are largely arguing from a secular point of view. And I'm arguing from a definitely religious, and specifically Mormon point of view. So - a few fundamentals (and lets not get off-subject to debate these items - these are here for reference and edification):

1.) We believe and have faith in God, Christ the Holy Bible and other works of scripture. In general these are the foundations of any Chritian religion. Inherant with that belief is the idea that God has a relationship with man, and that man is subject to the will of God.

2.) Mormons believe we lived as pre-mortal spirit beings with God before we were born into this life. He is our Father and we are his children. We believe God exists as a physical, perfected being, and that we must also gain a body to become like Him.

This world was created for a specific purpose - to allow us, his spirit children, to experience mortality, gain a body, and learn by that experience. This life is a testing period - to quote our scripture (God speaking here):

"..We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;
And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;"

Those who obey the commandments have the opportunity to live in the presence of God after this life. Those who do not will dwell in a place of lesser glory. Those who are grossly evil will be assigned to "outer darkness" with Satan et al.

3.) Part of this plan was that we would have no recollection or knowledge of our pre-existance. God provided a way for us to recieve direction from Him through two means - Prophets, who are specially called to speak for and in behalf of God; and the Holy Ghost, who provides personal revelation. When Prophets speak for and in behalf of God, those revelations become Scripture.

With all that in mind, lets move on to specific arguments:

>>
P "Heteros can marry in the LDS church. Gays cannot. There really is no need to carry this further. By your own definition, the "label" 'discriminatory'is justly and logically applied to LDS doctrine and practice. "

Gays can marry in the Church as long as they marry a woman. And there are quite a few that have. Sexual relationships between two people of the same gender are considered serious sin - specifically "an abomination" - to God. This is plainly enumerated in the Bible. Modern prophets - whom we believe speak for God - have also reiterated the status of homosexual sex as serious sin, and place it on par with adultry - which in our cannon is next to murder in seriousness.

Since you cannot demonstrate ANY scriptural defense that homosexual sex (or "marriage") is permissable under God's law, we are fully justified in upholding our standard of moral conduct. Homosexual "marriage" is an oxymoron. Marriage - in the eyes of God - is a relationship between a man and a woman, and may extend into the next life. There is no homosexuality in heaven.

So by your logic, God himself is discriminatory. If you believe in God, that is a dangerous place to be. If you don't, then you simply won't care. Or you'll find a religion that doesn't believe the way we do. Many people "shop" for religions, much like clothes, to find one they are comfortable in. Never mind the truth.

So, taken in an LDS context, which is the context I'm coming from and the topic of this blog, this is not discrimination. This is obeying God's law. Homosexuality is a challenge some of us must deal with in this life as part of our mortal test or probation. There are many such challenges, and each is unique for the individual. It doesn't matter what they are or what form they take, what matters is how we respond to them. Will we "do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them"? Or will we seek to justify our behavior and invent or redefine institutions to try to bring legitimacy to our sinful lifestyle? That is the essence of our point of view. That is what we see YOU doing.

Now, from a secular point of view, you can put whatever spin you want on this. It honestly doesn't matter to someone in my context. And on this particular subject, that context extends far beyond the boundaries of the Mormon Church.

next..

>> P:
"Neal: "Heteros who are not married are subject to the same moral standards as homosexual members. Those who don't live by them suffer the same consequences. There simply isn't any difference. The Church takes a stand on immoral behavior, but all the statements I have read treat homosexual immorality and heterosexual immorality equally."

P: Except that the church locks gays into this "immorality" by acting to prevent them from marrying. Anyone can see the lie at the heart of your, and the church's, stance on this."

Quite the contrary, as has already been mentioned, our only beef is the Gay insistance on redefining marriage as something that is not in harmony with the teachings of God, which we firmly believe in. There is no "lie". We're quite up front about it. That doesn't stop you from cohabiting or getting insurance benefits, etc. I don't think anyone has any qualms with that kind of equity. Invent some other word for Gay unions, for pete's sake!

next

>>
"Neal: "The Black issue was altogether different ( but I don't claim to understand it) in that there were really no "doctrine" involved."

P: Simply disingeuous Neal. Had there been no "doctrine" involved, it would not have taken an act of the prophet, purportedly arrived at by divine intervention, to change the practice. The fact is, there is NO difference in the nature of the doctrine, only the adversely effected group. The LDS stance is heterosexist in exactly the same fashion as it was once racist."

Perhaps doctrine is a poor choice of words. My apologies for not being an expert on this particular subject. What I meant was that there is no clear-cut revelation that I know of stating "no priesthood for Blacks". maybe there is somewhere, and i just missed it. But it seems to be more of a "policy" than some mainstream teaching. I'll have to dig a little deeper - that happened long ago in my youth.

And I think it DOES differ markedly from the marriage issue, which is a central tenant expounded on at length by Prohpets old and new. The race issue was not an issue on moral conduct or the central and foundational insitution of the Church - marriage. Refer to my earlier comments on homosexual morality.

next

>>
H: "You Westerners use terms like "pissing contest" that are unknown to this new englander. I presume that you mean you don't like the fact that I consider pheadrus to have shown many of your arguments to be invalid. I understand that would upset you.

We are involved in a discussion of serious ideas and values here, and P and I are not pissing in the wind."

Sorry, but I'm a Southerner. I was more upset at my own inability to coalesce my thoughts into something more than an emotional shotgun blast, but alas, I discovered I had forgotten to take my medicines for two consecutive days (that happens with ADHD), and I get testy when I do that. Note to self: Take medicine BEFORE getting on Blog!

I know you're not pissing in the wind. But your're certainly grinding the axe, which was not what my intent was in politely answering Ps questions. It turns out you just wanted a convenient victim on which to grind your axe.

next

>>
P: "As a gay person yourself, I would think that you and I are fellow travelers in most instances."

I'm sure we are, my brother. On many things, but not all. :-) I truly appreciate your intellect, no matter what our views are on these issues. You have helped me see and feel the plight you face, not having my faith. There is empathy there for you from me. In many ways I wish we could do a Vulcan mind meld - I'm so inadequate trying to express myself on these things.

And just so you know, I don't consider myself gay. To me, that describes a lifestyle I don't participate in. When I refer to my orientation,I use "homosexual" or "same gender attraction". Sexual orientation does not define what I am as a person, nor is it the central focus of my life. It's just a challenge I have to deal with in this nanosecond of eternity we call "life" on planet earth.

next

>>
A:
"You liberal little feaks. We Mormons have it right on this. Almighty God does not approve of gays, and He says so very plainly in his standard works. When the two of you face His music, along with all the other liberals and gay-lovers, yu will get it. america is a Christian nation, LDS or not, and will never tolerate "equal rights" for homosexuals. Period"

Shame on you! Listen to the words of your Prophet:
"I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group. As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church. It is expected, however, that they follow the same God-given rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, whether single or married."

and from Dallin Oaks:
"Our doctrines obviously condemn those who engage in so-called “gay bashing”—physical or verbal attacks on persons thought to be involved in homosexual or lesbian behavior."

next

>>
H:
"Anyone interested in hearing about the experiences and thoughts of homosexuals in the LDS church can visit this website.

http://www.affirmation.org/

For some reason I could not post it as a link, my apologies."

And please be aware that this is a group who does not encourage homosexuals to live the commandments, or even to stay in the Church. So this is a one-sided group. They do not represent us all, thank you!

next

>>
"Hi, Neal -- I have a question for you - little different from Phaedrus' or Henry James'.

Would the LDS church accept the marriage of an open homosexual to a person of the opposite sex. e.g., could a gay Mormon guy marry a straight Mormon woman, as long as he promised to have sex with her and plan to have children?

Do you know of any cases of this?"

This was answered previously and relatively accurately. I can add a few statistics - about 1/2 of LDS homosexuals are married to women and have children. Many of this group got married because of social pressure and did not disclose their homosexuality to their spouse (shame!). This causes LOTS of problems. Still, a large number have been up front about things and got married in complete honesty. Results are varied - some couples break from the strains mixed orientation marriage causes; others adapt and have happy and joyful lives.

Although a lot of people will claim - "oh, they're just bi-sexual" I have not found this to be the case in most instances. For many, they somehow became attracted to this one lady - no others - or loved them enough that they could make that kind of commitment. Sadly, this hasn't happened to me. I would love to have a bunch of kids (people - don't suggest I could adopt if I had a gay partner. not for me.)

Finite' !

That's all for tonite, folks.

Neal

Mormonism will slowly fade from society as will contemporary Christianity and Islam because of the obvious problems with the founders of these religions especially their angelic/satanic hallucinations and related prophecies. "Pretty and ugly wingie thingies" simply do/did not exist. Associating the Singularity with these mythical assistants and opponents mocks the concept of God the Almighty.

The Good Word was articulated by the ancients using reasoning and common sense. These Words of Wisdom were simply repeated with each major race and religion. Unfortunately the Words were attibuted to embellished men in most cases as a means of profiteering as noted by the contemporary billions of dollars owned and controlled by the Mormon, Christian and Moslem religions. It is time to get our money back!!!!!

JD1,

you fascinate me and sometimes confuse me.

No authority, No inspiration. Pretty clear that it all came from their..... nevermind, tis bad to criticize, even if the criticism is true.

"Interview" on LDS Church website discusses homosexuality
By Peggy Fletcher Stack
The Salt Lake Tribune

The LDS Church's latest statements on homosexuality were not given over the pulpit at General Conference, in an article in the church's official publication, a pamphlet to be distributed to all bishops, a letter from the First Presidency or a press release.
Instead, they were quietly posted two weeks ago in the "newsroom" of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' Web site, www.lds.org, in the form of an interview between an anonymous public affairs official and Elder Dallin H. Oaks, of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles and Elder Lance Wickman, a member of the First Quorum of Seventy. The questions are wide-ranging and thorough; the answers complex and personal. The lengthy interview is, well, conversational. The two Mormon leaders - both lawyers - clearly represent the church's perspective but make no claims to divine or institutional authority.

Okay, here is Elder Wickman on the extent to which he church takes a position on Gay rights. Not as Liberal as my post implies, but still allowing for extensive protection under the law in ways that do not change the definition of marriage and family. I do not really feel a need to defend it, so I'll just let it stand as is. I am signing off of all threads at this point in the conversation, I have much I need to attend to, good night ya'll.

"One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be married. What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman. The First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself concerning any specific right. It really doesn’t matter what you call it. If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, “That is not right. That’s not appropriate.”

As far as something less than that — as far as relationships that give to some pairs in our society some right but not all of those associated with marriage — as to that, as far as I know, the First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself. There are numbers of different types of partnerships or pairings that may exist in society that aren’t same-gender sexual relationships that provide for some right that we have no objection to. All that said… there may be on occasion some specific rights that we would be concerned about being granted to those in a same-gender relationship. Adoption is one that comes to mind, simply because that is a right which has been historically, doctrinally associated so closely with marriage and family. I cite the example of adoption simply because it has to do with the bearing and the rearing of children. Our teachings, even as expressed most recently in a very complete doctrinal sense in the Family Proclamation by living apostles and prophets, is that children deserve to be reared in a home with a father and a mother."

- Elder Wickman

To !

I do not know if you are the same person, posting as Anonymous, who has been making rather histrionic statements, but this last question is actually worth a response, I think. Pardon me if you meant it rhetorically. You ask about why humans are unkind to one another? I could, and actually have at various times, written page after page on this topic. I'll spare you that, and give you what it boiled down to in my analysis:

People are unkind to others in an effort to control them, actively and passively, because the more control we feel in our own hands, the less we feel we have to fear from the universe.

Night all,
Phaedrus.

No matter what religion we are we are all of the human race. My question to all of you is, "Why are the HUMAN KIND SO UNKIND?"

Posting rotten comments about anyone, especially handicap people that are unable to show up at your house and smack you upside the head, is a perfect display of who you are. No wonder you posted as anonymous. Even a psuedonym is not enough to hide your filth. Run away.

Arguing about which religion is best is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win you're still retarded.

My Freudian Slip is Showing

in my post above i of course meant to say

"I often KISS my girl-friends"
rather than
KILL them.

In certain fundamentalist countries I would be killed if I kissed my girl-friends.

Honor Among Gays

BYU has just updated their honor code to say
"Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings."

My brother William, the eminent psychologist, tells me that most "normal" human beings have 'homosexual feelings", often at a subconscious level.

I often kill my "girl-friends" hello and goodbye, and feel affection doing so. Maybe that affection is obvious to others. Maybe if I did so at BYU I would be expelled for violating the honor code. It has happened.

Does the policy of BYU, the Church run school, promote a mature and informed and responsible relationship to sexuality?

It is of course a complicated issue. You mormons who are talking intelligently about the issue of gays iin the church might factor this in to your talks.

Thanks Emily

my friends have always described me as a "good-natured pretentious type."

Henry James:

Well, at least that was funny.

Emily
How do you know I'm pretending?
Is it any less believable than a man claiming to be speaking for God?

BTW, speaking as a literary critic,
I believe ANYONE who is *pretending* is "pretentious."

Henry James,

I know who your namesake HJ the author is and I think you're pretentious for pretending to be him. -Emily

Thanks JD for your usual wisdom.

I think I told Neal that Mormons are free to believe what they want about God's attitude towards homosexuals.

And Neal, I clearly agreed with you that Mormons are pretty much the same as much of the world in their attitude here. I clearly said they were about the same as the Catholics.

Fine for you to disagree with me, and vice versa.

I feel strongly about this, moreso than how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I see many injustices that gay people suffer all over the world, including but not limited to the LDS church.

I DO agree with Phaedrus that anyone who is SURE they know what God thinks is scary. clearly MY opinion. but clearly, people all over the world disagree all the time about what God thinks.

Emily:
Google me: brother of william, author of Portrait of a Lady. see if you don't end up agreeing with my self assessment.

Henry the Gay Lover

Anyone interested in hearing about the experiences and thoughts of homosexuals in the LDS church can visit this website.

http://www.affirmation.org/

For some reason I could not post it as a link, my apologies.

John D:

Thanks for striking a blow for civility there. Regarding your statement on LDS leaders lack of opposition to civil unions, can you list a reference site for that info? I' d like to review it.

Thanks,
P.

Thanks to emily and "Thankful" - I think I get it -- It's OK for a gay to marry and straight if the gay actually feels attracted to the straight. I doubt this applies to many, if any gays - perhaps to a bisexual.

Neal - if you have additional thoughts - I'd like to hear them.

Bravo to John D and Emily for chastising "Anon" -I've been following these discussions for several months and have rarely seen a religious person chastise one of their own kind, no matter how hateful their comments to an non-believer.

I did address anonymous’s tone, but not his content, I just want to say I find it egregious.

"When the two of you face His music, along with all the other liberals and gay-lovers, yu will get it."

As a Latter Day Saint who supports the church's position I want to say that I am a gay-lover. God wants us all to be gay-lovers and anyone who is not a gay-lover needs to repent.

"america is a Christian nation"

I hope not, because most don't think we are Christian! See the church spokesman Michael Otterson's thread on this topic. He would disagree with you.

"will never tolerate "equal rights" for homosexuals."

Elder Oaks makes clear the church does not oppose any rights for homosexuals, except the status of Marriage being placed on their union. People differ on whether marriage is right or not. The church does not oppose civil unions, affirmative action, or hate crime legislation for Gays.

Anonymous,

That is no way to have dialogue with those who think differently than us (threats of divine judgement, name calling etc). Please take an example from the many LDS who have engaged civily with those with whom we differ.

Emily:

Mormons don't believe in hell, only the telestial kingdom. These two will defanitely learn all about that. Maybe you are right about the name calling though.

To Anonymous:

There's no need to be mean and call names. We all see "through a glass, darkly" in this world, to quote Paul, and even if some people end up in hell, God's not going to gloat about it and neither should you.

pheadras and james,

You liberal little feaks. We Mormons have it right on this. Almighty God does not approve of gays, and He says so very plainly in his standard works. When the two of you face His music, along with all the other liberals and gay-lovers, yu will get it. america is a Christian nation, LDS or not, and will never tolerate "equal rights" for homosexuals. Period.

Hi E Favorite,

I hope you don't mind me interjecting a response to your question to Neal.

The church's stance is that a hetero marriage isn't a cure for those with homosexual inclinations however if one is genuinely able to develop an attraction and relationship to/with someone of opposite sex, marriage for them is aok.

In the scenario you pose, I have heard (though I can't say I know any personally) of agreeing and open parties otherwise intimate going that route and I think that is totally acceptable as free agents but obviously has it's concerns especially for children if things don't work out and isn't reccomended.

The more common scenario I think is the first which I have described. I personally do know a handful of others besides myself who have been able to come to a point of comfortably managing this aspect of themselves, developing genuine attraction to members of the opposite sex and are happily married in the temple to this day.

Hope that answers your question?

E Favorite:

It sounds like Neal won't be able to answer your question right away. I can't speak for him, of course, but I will say that as a member of the Mormon church I'm not aware of any "official" position on this matter. Personally, I have known of one (possibly two) case(s) where a gay man married a heterosexual woman and it didn't end happily for either marriage partner.

HJ:

What's up with calling yourself the greatest literary critic in America? I can only guess you're joking, but it's not very amusing.

"...quite frankly, I'll take Gods opinion of morality over 100 ethicists any day."

If ever there were a clear statement as to the menace of fundamentalism, it is this one. The belief that one grasps the unadulterated opinion of God, coupled with the perceived duty to act on the basis of this understanding, is behind so much of the self-inflicted cruelty to which our species is heir.

Hi, Neal -- I have a question for you - little different from Phaedrus' or Henry James'.

Would the LDS church accept the marriage of an open homosexual to a person of the opposite sex. e.g., could a gay Mormon guy marry a straight Mormon woman, as long as he promised to have sex with her and plan to have children?

Do you know of any cases of this?

I have just minutes before I go...

P&H

My arguments may be invalid to you but they aren't to me, or I would not have made them. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks you have proved nothing, except perhaps your own bigotry.

I have no problem with people wanting equity in their lives. There are plenty of inequities to go around, but marriage does not need to be redefined to accomodate gay relationships. That is what the Church objects to, and why it is taking a stand. It has nothing to do with hate for people of any orientation. If you would kindly read the material I directed you to earlier, I think you would understand where I'm coming from. My point is, there is no hate or malice in the Church's position on this issue, but you seem to constantly interject or insinuate that sentiment. This is your own negative device.

All the ethicists in the world can get together and decide whatever they want, but no one can deny me the right to believe as I wish and to speak up for what I believe. I afford you the same courtesy. And quite frankly, I'll take Gods opinion of morality over 100 ethicists any day.

Neal

P.S. You still did not address the scriptural justification for gay sex and gay marriage... oh yea, there isn't any!

P.S.S. No God is not a homophobe. He loves everyone equally, and He expects us all to obey His laws. Sometimes that may be inconvenient, but the choice is ours, as are the consequences.

Henry;

You may find something of interest in the comment section to the latest post on Burden of Consciousness blog.

regards,

P

Thankful

Thank you.

God, according to many people, comes to a different conclusion on homosexuality than you do.

Many of those of a different opinion are as convinced of their personal revelation and chest burning as Mormons are.

So using "God as the Objective Judge" is not so simple as you imply.

Love
Henry

Hi Neal,

Before you go any more rounds with Phe and HJ you may want to check out the Otterson archives and read the one entitled "We can't abandon fundamental moral laws".

Many LDS including myself hashed this topic out to death along with them and others.

It ended in a stale mate unless you count God as the objective judge.

Hope you enjoy your tip

Neal

I am sorry that you have found ever new ways to dismiss the positions that are different than yours.

You Westerners use terms like "pissing contest" that are unknown to this new englander. I presume that you mean you don't like the fact that I consider pheadrus to have shown many of your arguments to be invalid. I understand that would upset you.

We are involved in a discussion of serious ideas and values here, and P and I are not pissing in the wind.

We are outraged at the worldwiide injustices towards homosexuals. We admit the Mormon Church is not the only culprit.

If you asked 100 ethicists with no axe to grind about the morality of the Mormon position regarding homosexuality, you would find 91 that say it is not moral according to widely accepted human standards of morality.

And yes, according to the beliefs of many, including yourself, that inddicates that God may be a homophobe.

I don't find that funny. I don't find it trivial. I don't find it quite as morally despicableb as the Nazi's and the Jews, but I do find it as bad as the historical situation of the Mormons and the Blacks until 1978.

You are obviously free to believe whatever the hell you want. My brother believes the same thing you do. It pains me. But many things in the world pain me.

When they look like injustice or prejudice, I must say so.

Neal:

You write:

"Thanks for letting me know I've been intellectually filleted alive. I wasn't aware I was in a pissing contest with the greatest minds on earth."

It does not really have anything to do with you personally, or me personally, or the same with HJ or anyone else here. I admire that you have expressed your point of view, and that of your faith, as well as you have. And, I think that you have shown courage in doing so, and I respect your right to hold this set of beliefs, and to hold forth about them. You clearly have supporters here, and I suspect that you have expressed their views very capably as well.

I regret that this may have taken on a personal tone, as I did not intend that.

My issue (and I know I speak for Henry as well on this) is with the LDS and like-minded doctrines themselves, and then only to the extent that it effects the rights of others to enjoy the freedoms the founders intended. As a gay person yourself, I would think that you and I are fellow travelers in most instances.

I appreciate your willingness to engage with the likes of HJ and I, and while Henry may actually be a "great mind," I will assure you that I am not. I care about this issue, and others involving basic human rights, and put what resources I do have into the fight.

best to you,

Phaedrus.

P and H

To answer your questions:

1.) If you were married as a gay couple in Mass. you would have to dissolve your relationship and live the standards of the Church before joining, just as anyone else.

2.) Transgendered - not sure what the policy is here. I've never seen a discussion on that topic, although I'm sure there is one somewhere we could reference.

Thanks for letting me know I've been intellectually filleted alive. I wasn't aware I was in a pissing contest with the greatest minds on earth.

I think the motivations for your questions are indeed disengenuous and amount to nothing but baiting. You would obviously condemn any ideas that do not support your notion of gay rights. Your stance is immutable. Your notions the only ones with validity. You stand poised - God like - to strike down any who would dare say otherwise.

The problem with that is, specific religion aside, I just can't find ANY support for homosexual sex or homosexual marriage in the Scriptures. In fact, there is plenty of blatant condemnation for the idea. So if that means God is a homophobic, prejudiced bastard, where does that leave you? I would say, on the outside looking in. Enjoy the cold....

Neal

P.S. I'm on my way to the airport for a week-long trip so any pointless rebuttals may not be answered immediately.

A lot of times we humans try to put God in a box and there are many different boxes that we try to put Him in. Actually God is Pure Love and we do have free will. God does have a Plan and He has had it before He created anything either on the spiritual or material plane. God is a Trinity and Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews is God Incarnate whether People believe it or not. Jesus is not a second-rate prophet either. The original Apostles didn't understand very much at all until the Holy Spirit came to them on Pentecost but the one thing that they did get was when they said many different times that these are hard sayings, do we even understand that much. God does know everything and ultimately everything comes from God, for He created satan also and His plan is for the salvation of the entire human community. By the way what do you think being a Christian is? Actually it is carrying on the work of Jesus, as He said "Come follow Me". The True Living Triune Triumphant God is a searcher of hearts and minds not a searcher of religious affiliations. The Jews are the Chosen People for the simple reason that God chose Them this doesn't mean that they are better or anything just that they are the Chosen People. Judaism is not a religion but a covential relationship between God and a People. Christianity is not a religion either but a covenential relationship between God and a Person. If you say that you are a Christian, then I recommend that you be one. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Sorry Neal
any ad hominem's aside

on a purely logical, moral, sociological basis,

Phaedrus clearly demolishes your apologetics.

You can attribute my judgment to my prejudices. You can do that with anyone. But in my case, you are talking to America's greatest literary critic.

I mean, whew,
he really blew your arguments out of the water.

Love you.

Henry

Or how about this one:

A homosexual male undergoes a gender reassignment procedure and then marries a man. What is the LDS view of this?

My Dear Neal

I essentially agree with your descriptions of Church doctrine, policy, and practice.

And I understand the difficulty and improbability of the Church changing its position.

I also agree that the Church seems to have explicitly advocated tolerance for homosexuals, especially if they don't show that they are homosexual by actually having sex.

INTERJECTION: what if one is married in Massachusetts in the gay way, then converts to mormonism. is the sex still a sin?

My belief is that the LDS (and Catholic) position is an Immoral position.

Though I don't expect it to change, I wish it would, in both Churches.

You are right, I don't HAVE to be a Mormon. I waa for 130 years, but am not anymore.

My brother is a Mormon (not William). His 7 sister college graduate SLC bred Mormon wife is polite, but has what I consider a prejudiced attitude towards gays. I don't know if you can "blame" the church any more than society, but you can say that the Church is not as big a force for changing those attitudes as, for instrance, progressive Episcopalians and Unitarians and Quakers are.

And again, how about my married Gay convert?

Johnny, you write the truth eloquently and clearly. Kudos. However, personal experience suggests to me that your eloquence will permit evasiveness from Mormon apologists, examples of which may be seen, and celebrated, on this thread.

For instance:

Neal writes to HJ and I : "the extrapolations you conjure up are clearly the result of your own preconcieved bias towards the Church and its doctrine, and your "translations" of my statements could hardly be considered unprejudiced."

Phaedrus: No Neal, this is another of your false statements. It could only be accurate were these two conditions met: 1. IF I were actually "extrapolating," which I am not. I do not have to extrapolate, because the "doctrine" is clear and unequivocal. And 2. If I actually had a specific "bias" towards this LDS doctrine, as opposed to ANY doctrine stating the same discriminatory principles. I will say this again, clearly; ANY doctrine or law that treats two groups of people differently in terms of what it permits them to do based ENTIRELY on their race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality etc, is prejudicial, unjust and immoral. That goes for LDS doctrine and any other matching the characteristic. You simply cannot dodge the truth with this sort of "bias" ad hominem Neal.

Neal: "I fail to see the evidence for your so-called "discrimination" of Gays within the Church (and I'm speaking of policy and doctrine here). It is only discrimination if you are held to a different standard than others. If you are denied rights that others have. That is just not the case."

P: Then let me see if I can help you see it Neal.

Heteros can marry in the LDS church. Gays cannot. There really is no need to carry this further. By your own definition, the "label" 'discriminatory'is justly and logically applied to LDS doctrine and practice.

Neal: "Heteros who are not married are subject to the same moral standards as homosexual members. Those who don't live by them suffer the same consequences. There simply isn't any difference. The Church takes a stand on immoral behavior, but all the statements I have read treat homosexual immorality and heterosexual immorality equally."

P: Except that the church locks gays into this "immorality" by acting to prevent them from marrying. Anyone can see the lie at the heart of your, and the church's, stance on this.

Neal: "If you're not a member, I can see how the Church's stand on Gay marriage may seem discriminatory. The conflict comes because the Church sees this as a moral issue, and you see it as a political one."

P: Wrong again. The church's stand is what it is, independent of membership status or anything else. You make another ad hominem argument, strangely based in a "relativistic" approach to truth this time. Your attempt to restrict the church's stance on this to the moral sphere is also a canard, as the LDS are very active politically and legally in preventing gay marriage.

Neal: "The Black issue was altogether different ( but I don't claim to understand it) in that there were really no "doctrine" involved."

P: Simply disingeuous Neal. Had there been no "doctrine" involved, it would not have taken an act of the prophet, purportedly arrived at by divine intervention, to change the practice. The fact is, there is NO difference in the nature of the doctrine, only the adversely effected group. The LDS stance is heterosexist in exactly the same fashion as it was once racist.

Neal: "This is what we believe are Gods teachings, which is neither meant to be convenient or evasive. Its simply a matter of conscience which the individual must decide for themselves. The doors of the Church are open to anyone who wants to believe."

P: Which brings us back to where we left off, God's teachings. By the LDS standard then, God is a homophobe who favors disparate treatment based upon immutable characteristics. Not all religions take this view of God Neal. No amount of LDS or fundamentalist wordplay about "merely holding the homosexual to the same standard as unmarried heteros," all the while using political clout to deny gays the right to be anything other than "unmarried" is cynical and hateful. Not to mention transparent to anyone who cares enough to look.

As I walk into the chapel doors on Sunday morning, I am greeted at the door by Brother Jones, who hands me a program. I find my usual pew and sit with my family, listening to the beautiful prelude hymn, “O My Father” being played by the organist. I open my Book of Mormon and read through the story of Alma and the sons of Mosiah. My daughter whispers to me and asks if there are any stories of women in the Book of Mormon, and I struggle to think of any, but I assure her there must be some. I listen intently to the words of the opening prayer, “Our dear Father in Heaven…” ending with “in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.” The bishop’s first counselor, Brother Smith, stands and conducts the meeting, announcing the individuals who accepted new callings by the bishop. He announces the presence of our High Councilman, who gets up and reads a message from the men of the Stake Presidency.

We sing the hymn, “Praise to the Man” after which the bishop stands and invites 16 year old Chad Duncan to the podium, to announce that he has interviewed him and found him worthy to be ordained to the office of a Teacher in the Aaronic Priesthood. Big smiles and handshakes ensue.

Next we sing the sacrament hymn, “O God, the Eternal Father” after which I watch as the Aaronic-priesthood-bearing boys prepare, bless, and pass the sacrament. During the quiet time of the passing of the sacrament, my father leans over my 7 year old daughter and whispers to my 11 year old son, “That’ll be YOU in a year, son, passing the sacrament and holding the priesthood so well like those boys. See how reverently they perform their sacred duty?” Proud smiles for my son while Grandpa reaches behind my daughter's head to pat my son on the back.

Next comes a talk by Brother Green on the subject of fathers taken from “The Family, a Proclamation to the World.” He explains how fathers are to preside over their families using their priesthood as a sacred power to act in God’s name, which should not be taken lightly, it is That Important. He tells us all that abusing this awesome power and exercising unrighteous dominion over your women and children is not pleasing in the Lord’s eyes. You are instead supposed to use your power to help and serve others, and treat your women as if they are your equals. As head of your household and having the holy priesthood power bestowed upon you, you must remember you have a grave responsibility to make sure that you don’t abuse the power you hold. You must remember that women are daughters of God. They have worth in God’s eyes, and you must always remember to grant them respect and equality. God has given you your sweet wife as a helpmeet and a friend, so treat her well! If you don't then you have forgotten what the Priesthood Power means. I see the bishop smile and nod.

The next speaker teaches that if we follow God’s plan for us, we can become Gods and Goddesses someday over our own worlds. I find myself wondering what it means to be a Goddess ~ considering I’ve never heard about my Heavenly Mother at all, beyond learning that there is one, even though we know nothing about her. But for some reason it was set up so I can only learn about God and only know what He is like from all the scriptures and the conference talks and doctrine that focus on Him. I wonder to myself, does this mean that if I make it to the Celestial Kingdom and become a Goddess with my husband as God, I could also be as unmentionable as our Heavenly Mother is? Will our children be taught by Him to pray to Him only and never think of me? Will they be told to worship Him in all they do, and strive to be like Jesus (if that’s how our world plays out), but not strive to become like my girls, whom are rarely if ever mentioned in holy scripture? Will my spirit children be taught by my husband that He is all-knowing and will be the final judge of their hearts and lives in the end? Apparently we are supposed to strive in this life (men and women both) to be like Jesus. For some reason I’ve been given a male as my standard of whom to become like…..why don’t I have a woman as my standard if gender differences are truly so important within the church? Do these men in charge at church honestly think that becoming an unmentionable goddess is a dream come true for women??? I stand all amazed.

The meeting ends with the closing hymn, “How Great Thou Art,” followed by Brother Tallmadge saying his closing prayer to our Heavenly Father, ending in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

. . . . .

When I hear my daughter later that day telling her brother he’s lucky to be a boy, I cry.

Is it discrimination to deny a woman the opportunity to hold the priesthood in the Church and adminster the various ordinances which come with a particular office in that priesthood solely on the basis of her sex? The answer is yes.

However, the reason which is claimed for this discrimination is the same reason which was claimed for the same discrimination against members of the Mormon Church of known African ancestry up until 1978 (with a few historical exceptions in the early 1800s). The reason which is claimed is, "It is the will of God." Whether or not this reason is factual or justifiable is a matter of individual belief. Most non-Mormons will likely conclude that the Mormon Church is merely an institution of man, and that any discrimination is likewise has its origins and is perpetuated by man. Most (though not all) Faithful Mormons, on the other hand, will understandably conclude that such discrimination is as is claimed by the leadership of the Church--the will of God.

There are those within the Church who, because they are so committed to their religious beliefs and faith, unwilling, or perhaps in some cases, unable to see the discrimination that is obvious to an outsider who does not share their religious beliefs or faith. This does not change the fact that the discrimination exists. Nevertheless, those who are so deeply committed to their religious convictions may not recognize the discrimination, or they may care very little about it, as they are sufficiently content in the roles they are playing and how they are treated.

Unfortunately for those who do not share the same contentment, this blindness to discrimination can have an adverse affect on their own lives. This is due to the way certain social issues are viewed by these individuals from their religious context. One example of this is the matter of racial inequality. Another is sexual inequality. And yet another is inequality of those with differing sexual orientations.

The LDS Church has publicly expressed its views, not only on the use of the term "marriage", but on governmental and societal sanctioning or recognition of committed same-sex relationships by any name or classification. It is the Mormon Church's (as well as other religious organizations and sects) efforts to block government recoginition of same-sex unions by any name (not only the term "marriage") or extending the same rights, protections, and privileges to such unions as are currently enjoyed by participants of monogamous heterosexual unions which many object to. It is also the propensity of certain religious organizations to seek to enact or impose legislation upon the whole of society outlawing behavior it considers immoral. Those aware of the Mormon Church's polygamous history find it especially hypocritical that the Church seeks to do precisely what was done to it just over 100 years ago when the Federal Government outlawed polygamous marriage, by imposing the Mormon Church's current views on marriage not only upon their own membership, but upon those who do not share their religious convictions.

The Founding Fathers of this Nation conceived of a secular government which would not meddle in the personal moral and religious affairs of its citizens except to protect the rights of its citizens. Unfornately, 100 years after the Nation was founded, it violated the rights of Mormons by forbidding them from practicing polygamy according to the tenets of their faith when to do so would not infringe upon the rights of others. Today, the Mormon Church is perpetuating the very same injustice perpetrated against them by attempting to impose their moral standard upon the rest of the Nation and even the world. It is the propensity of the religious right to impose its religious views not simply upon their believers, but also upon those who do not share their religoius views which is so objectionable.

If individuals wish to practice discrimination in their private religious organizations, that is their perogative. If they want to excuse it as the will of God, that is a matter of personal belief or faith. If they want to deny it is occuring in their organization, or even declare it a good thing; that too is their perogative. However; when they seek to impose this discrimination upon those who do not share their religious beliefs, that is when I cry foul, and that is why I categoriecally do not trust members of such religious organizations in positions of public authority. One need only live in Utah to see how the influence of the LDS Church plays a huge role on legislation and politics. There are enough non-Mormons living in Utah to prevent Utah from becoming a virtual theocracy, but the influence of the Mormon Church is still felt very strongly, often to the detriment of the disenfranchised minority living here

Johnny

Terr

"Neal, the more I read your blogs the more impressed I am with you. I am sure you have had to do a lot of soul searching to reach your heartfelt understanding of the gospel."

Thanks. I'm definitely not the intellectual giant on this blog, but my ramblings are indeed genuine, as has been my spiritual journey (all of it on the back roads, unfortunately!)

Glad I found a kindred heart!

Neal

Phaedrus and Henry James,

I appreciate your musings, but the extrapolations you conjure up are clearly the result of your own preconcieved bias towards the Church and its doctrine, and your "translations" of my statements could hardly be considered unprejudiced. Those are your distortions - I stated clearly and unbiguously what the doctrine is. I make no apologies for the fact that many in the Church (and even more out of it) have unChristian attitudes towards homosexuals. That is not doctrine, that is human imperfection. You can clearly see that the Church leadership condemns this behavior and teaches love and tolerance for all members. (Just read some of the links)

I fail to see the evidence for your so-called "discrimination" of Gays within the Church (and I'm speaking of policy and doctrine here). It is only discrimination if you are held to a different standard than others. If you are denied rights that others have. That is just not the case. Anyone who lives the commandments and teachings has the same priveleges and blessings no matter what their orientation is. Heteros who are not married are subject to the same moral standards as homosexual members. Those who don't live by them suffer the same consequences. There simply isn't any difference. The Church takes a stand on immoral behavior, but all the statements I have read treat homosexual immorality and heterosexual immorality equally.

If you're not a member, I can see how the Church's stand on Gay marriage may seem discriminatory. The conflict comes because the Church sees this as a moral issue, and you see it as a political one. There's nothing either of us can do about that. The Church has clearly stated its reasons for opposition to that idea, and you can brand it with whatever label you wish, but the Church does not hate homosexuals. It does not preach that, and I find no evidence of that. Some individuals in the Church may act that way, but they are clearly not following the teachings of the Church if they do so. My own experience with Church leadership has been wonderful, and I have corresponded even with apostles on this subject.

For a homosexual living in a Gay relationship, I'm sure all of this is especially difficult to grasp. Most people don't want someone to tell them what they're doing is wrong or sinful, but we call a spade a spade. This is what we believe are Gods teachings, which is neither meant to be convenient or evasive. Its simply a matter of conscience which the individual must decide for themselves. The doors of the Church are open to anyone who wants to believe.

The bottom line is that membership in this Church or any other Church is optional. If you don't agree with it, you certainly don't have to participate. I personally wouldn't hold my breath that the Church will change its doctrine on this issue. The Black issue was altogether different ( but I don't claim to understand it) in that there were really no "doctrine" involved. Gay marriage is a radical institutional change, and goes against deep-seated doctrine of an entirely different nature.

Take care,

Neal

hey, I know all ya'll are wrapped up in Mormon vs Mainstream Christianity, but seriously does anyone else have any idea what that ECLATi thing is about, I have read alot about Mormonism, and respectfuly I choose to decline on the subject..I think that as long as 'people' are willing to fight over ideals that they themselves didn't write or even consider to be written by their own Prophets (the Jews towards their own, Christians of diffrent cultural influences, the sects of Islam, Mormons also towards eachother) that veiws will always be skewed..No one can 'change' someone's veiws, only God can, so let's just say 'Love thy Neighbor'...well unless they steal your lawn equipment...that stuff is the important thing be a person of servitude not attitude!!!

LOve all you guys and women see ya'll hasta mannana..

-ransom-

Henry James,

I appreciate the diplomacy of your post. Kind and respectful tones from a great writer. You also know why I have great esteem for Neal.

Thought about this a lot as I know you have too.

Theologically, we are at quite an impasse

For LDS the fullness of God's blessings -- having the life he has -- includes eternal marriage and ongoing parenthood

For LDS to somehow pretend this can be extended to homosexual relationships is a truly immaculate conception if you will. It simply cannot be.

We agree morality is contextual. With the LDS worldview, a change in our stance would be utterly dishonest and misleading.

Does not your presence here confirm life goes on?

Do tell me old friend what is the nature of the afterlife :)

Neal, the more I read your blogs the more impressed I am with you. I am sure you have had to do a lot of soul searching to reach your heartfelt understanding of the gospel.

The eminent Henry James writes:

" (I) hope that someday this too shall pass, as the black priesthood injunction passed. Just once, it would be nice if God led the way."

Henry, as another great American writer, Ernest Hemingway, concluded in The Sun Also Rises: "Isn't it pretty to think so."

Best to you and g'night,

P.

Someone once said, "Neal be da Man."

Neal is a nice man, but to the sensibility of this great literary critic, whose brother is a great philosopher, the dialog of Phaedrus supercedes Neal's apologia for moral integrity, logical incisiveness, and social/historical perspective.

Mormons have a great deal of company in their attitude towards homosexuality. The Church is not the Great Satan in its treatment any more than the Catholics and other fundamentalists are.

Just as the Church was not the only organization that discriminated against blacks from 1840-1978.

And I suspect it is overly romantic to expect established political entities such as Churches to be in the Vanguard of advocating for social justice for minority and disenfranchised groups, though one wistfully dreams that a just God will strike a blow for the powerLESS once in a while.

The one point Phdrs made that I will underline is that it seems barbaric to me to hold the position that it is fine for homosexuals to have their sexual orientation, as long as they never have sex.

Saying the same about Hetero's
(it's fine to be Hetero as long as you never have sex)
makes the barbarity and cruelty of the position, and it's prima facia violation of the most basic moral principles, painfully obvious.

Again, Mormons are not barbarians or evil because they hold their positions (i don't believe in evil of course, I believe in Moral wrongs, and the Mormons and their compatriot's are certainly morally wrong, in my view).

I share Phdrs's wistful hope that someday this too shall pass, as the black priesthood injunction passed.

Just once, it would be nice if God led the way.

what is that ECLATi crap?? I can't even understand that guy...all I wanted to say was really folks?? Really?? We are going to keep going around in circles on a subject that will not see any definant(sp) answers? The reason all of ya'll will keep shouting at eachother is because your minds are made up...scream all you want I hear only blahblah blahblah...If we as Christians spent more time following Christ the Messiah instead of screaming my God is better than your god....ya know i'll stop because it's not even going to help...

I do however want to ask Mr. Jacob Whatever what is all the nonesense about ECLATi really about how old are you..??

Neal, thanks for the response. There are some aspects of your content that require this rebuttal however.

Neal: "First, lets not put an arbitrary contraints on the discussion "Please do not attempt the defense that homosexuals are viewed in the same fashion as heteros..." I'll use any defense I want, if that's what I believe."

Phaedrus: This constraint is far from "arbitrary." The church acts to deny gays the right to marriage, then treats gay sex as "extra-marital." This is convenient perhaps, as most sophistry can be. However, the church discriminates against gays for being gay, just as it discriminates against women for being female. You can use the "extra-marital" tack if you like, but you part company with intellectual integrity in the process .

Neal: "Homosexuals in the LDS Church are, in a large measure, subject to the same prejudices as they are in the world at large. This is not because of policy or doctrine, but because of the aforementioned societal homophobia which spills over into any religion or organization."

Phaedrus: Translation: The LDS church is homophobic and heterosexist, but no moreso than the general population. And, this IS because of policy and doctrine, which is all that I am speaking to. I am not describing the behavior of this group of Mormons, or that group of Mormons, or merely a "spillover effect" from the larger social context. I am addressing LDS doctrine. As I have written elsewhere, Mormons are definitely mainstream in these practices, as almost all organized opposition to equal opportunity for homosexuals comes from fundamentalist religious groups.

Neal: "Church leaders have made extremely clear public statements affirming the status of the homosexual member. Those statements affirm that we are NOT second-class misfits! We can have all the priveleges and blessings of the Gospel."

Phaedrus: Provided that you abandon any pursuit of a loving and physical relationship, according to your gender attraction characteristics. This same condition is NOT placed on heteros though, and, thus, there can be no credible denial of discriminatory treatment of gays in the LDS church. There is only the defense that "God wills it."

Neal: "The Church opposes Gay Marriage. This is not because the Church hates homosexuals, but because of the effort to redefine what marriage is."

Phaedrus: The church was willing to redefine the criteria for holding the priesthood when it became too politically and socially expensive to practice that form of discrimination against African-Americans. Of course, this is merely the "secularized" language religious groups use to legally argue against gay marriage anyway. When this form of discrimination becomes too painful to maintain, the church may change its mind again, just not soon enough to avoid this additional historical baggage. Future LDS church members will one day be confronted with Mormonism's treatment of gays in the fashion that present day LDS are assailed over polygamy and the MMM. But, at least they will be able to claim a lot of fundamentalist company while doing so.

Neal: "The Church does not require that homosexuals try to change their orientation. Only that they live God's laws and commandments like any other member."

Phaedrus: Ah yes, God' law. This is really what it all comes down to. If people really wanted to practice Biblical law in regard to homosexuals, they would "go Leviticus" and kill them. So, not doing so is disobeying God's law as well. We practice softer froms of bigotry in western christendom these days.

If people believe that God really wants homosexuals to be subjected to what the Bible prescribes for them, then it should simply be said that these people believe in a homophobic God who created gay people in an inferior fashion and then sanctioned their persecution by those he created in a superior fashion. I am definitely relieved to see that, particularly in the younger generations, this particular aspect of the God conception is less hateful. These young people's God is a bit "kinder and gentler."

Neal -- YOU ARE THE MAN !!!

As a Mormon Woman who has dealt with having same gender attraction as well, I think you are dead on and appreciate you articulating this perspective!

Becky,

You write "Preside does not mean rule."

I could write a book about what "preside" doesn't mean, but what DOES it mean in Mormondom? The dictionary definition is "to sit in authority, as over a meeting, or, to exercise direction or control." My husband doesn't try to "control" me, and I think most Mormon husbands are the same way. I wish the Church would either define preside better or pick a different word.

Ms. Jacoby & Andrea

I am an LDS stay-at-home mother. I have been married for almost 5 years, and recently had my second baby.
I suffer from clinical postpartum depression, as well as Hashimoto's hypothyroidism. I used to have a blog on the internet. It was a way to vent. However, after a few entries, I realized that my blog was consistantly negative. The content was purely about how I didn't feel any support from my husband. I also noticed that I only wrote in the blog when I felt life was just too hard and my husband was such a jerk. 90 percent of the time I don't feel like that. I'm very sure that many of the women out there have days very similar to mine. It doesn't mean that it's the Church's fault. And Ms. Jacoby, using and citing them as your sources was extremely unprofessional.
Your whole premise that we as Latter-day Saint women are 2nd class citizens is degrading. Should you and anyone else who really wants to know the TRUTH about what we believe, including the producers of the documentery that just aired, talk to someone who really believes the gospel, not some disgruntled, embittered excommunicate, or some historian whose ego has been puffed up from an invitation to participate in a television broadcast.
Life is hard. Sometimes living the gospel is a challenge. That's because we are not perfect.
disclaimer: I'm not saying that there aren't LDS women out there who are dominated by their husbands, but that is not what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints endorses. Women are praised. The women in the church who are abused whether, emotionally, physically, sexually, NEED to seek help. Just because a man holds the priesthood does not give him the right to exercise dominion over his wife.
The Family a Proclamation to the World states, " By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation..." Preside does not mean rule. Maybe that's where you got confused.

Philadaeus

Glad you asked this, since I'm a homosexual myself..

"...After all, practicing homosexuals are identified en masse as "unworthy" in LDS doctrine, and are denied privileges heteros are entitled to based on their status. Practicing gays are truly treated as "second class citizens," (as you would say) or worse. Please do not attempt the defense that homosexuals are viewed in the same fashion as heteros who practice extramarital sex either, because Mormons are active in the fight to continue to deny gays the right to get married in the first place.

IF bigotry is a bad thing, then it is so, no matter the sanctioning body. Even if that sanction is seen as coming from god himself. Or would you say that some bigots are better than other bigots?

I believe that most Mormons are good people, who have suffered the effects of bigotry and discrimination. The curch rolled back its discriminatory treatment of blacks in the 70's. Therefore, I have some hope that this may be the first fundamentalist religious group to stop treating homosexuals so abominably. How about it?"

First, lets not put an arbitrary contraints on the discussion "Please do not attempt the defense that homosexuals are viewed in the same fashion as heteros..." I'll use any defense I want, if that's what I believe.

First let's address the social problems of homosexuals in a general way - apart from any religion. In general, homosexuals are misunderstood, feared, loathed and persecuted more than just about any other group on earth. There is no denying this - its just a fact. Given this fact, the public at large has many misunderstandings, misgivings and preconcieved prejudices for homosexuals coming right out of the gate. Anti-homosexual rehtoric, jokes, inuendos, and sterotypes are promulgated on most of humanity almost from the moment they are born. With this in mind, let's now switch over to the issue at hand.

Homosexuals in the LDS Church are, in a large measure, subject to the same prejudices as they are in the world at large. This is not because of policy or doctrine, but because of the aforementioned societal homophobia which spills over into any religion or organization. Unfortunately, even the nicest of people are not perfect, and are subject to these types of prejudices. For this reason many homosexuals in the Church remain silent - closeted. There are stories of abuse and rejection, which one would expect where ignorance predominates. There are also stories of love, acceptance, compassion and caring. These tend to get swept under the rug because they don't make good headlines ;-). In general, most Mormons know almost nothing about homosexuality nor do they have a frame of refrence with which to relate to it. It is, after all, an extremely family oriented religion.

On the bright side, things are slowly changing in the Church. Not nearly to the point I would like to see them, but the changes are happening none the less. There is more dialog about homosexuality in Church literature and from the pulpit. People are becoming aware that 5% or so of the Church is homosexual, and that these people are not some alien race who live far away in a forgotten land - they are the guy sitting next to them on the pew. Church leaders have made extremely clear public statements affirming the status of the homosexual member. Those statements affirm that we are NOT second-class misfits! We can have all the priveleges and blessings of the Gospel. (Please refer to www.lds.org, click on the News/Newsroom, and read the article on Same Gender Attraction.)

So, what does this mean, specifically to us homos? Here it is:

1.) The Church teaches that homosexuals can hold any office or calling in the Church, may attend the Temple, and recieve every blessing of the Gospel. I personally know homosexual members who are in Bishoprics and Stake Presidencies.

2.) The Church does not have a position on nature vs nurture. It really doesn't matter anyway, does it?

3.) The Church sees homosexuality as a challenge some people face in this mortal life. It will not exist in the next life.

4.) Homosexuals are expected to follow the moral standards of the Church. They do not discriminate in this regard based on orientation. Those who do not follow those standards - homo or hetero - cannot fully participate in the ordinances of the Church and may be subject to Church Discipline. They are still welcome in Church meetings, at Church functions, but cannot partake of the Sacrament (communion) and other ordinances. This is true of any member who is not keeping the basic commandments of God as we believe them. To the Church, this is an issue of behavior, not orientation. Homosexual behavior is considered serious sin (likened unto adultry)

5.) The Church does not espouse any particular "therapy" or "cure" for homosexuals. If an individual feels that his homsexuality is unwanted, he/she may seek any kind of therapy they choose to alleviate it. The Church does not require that homosexuals try to change their orientation. Only that they live God's laws and commandments like any other member.

6.) The Church opposes Gay Marriage. This is not because the Church hates homosexuals, but because of the effort to redefine what marriage is. The Church views marriage between a man and a woman as ordained of God, and as an institution which can extend beyond this life to Eternity. It is the foundation for an Eternal family. Therefore, any other definition of marriage is contrary to God's plan a purpose.

So there you have it. Slap whatever labels you want on it, but that is where the Church stands.

Here are a few quotes of relevance:

Gordon B. Hickley - LDS Church President
“We love them (homosexuals) as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church.”

Dallin H. Oaks - Quorum of the Twelve
"Marriage is defined by the Lord Himself. It’s the one institution that is ceremoniously performed by priesthood authority in the temple [and] transcends this world. It is of such profound importance… such a core doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, of the very purpose of the creation of this earth. One hardly can get past the first page of Genesis without seeing that very clearly. It is not an institution to be tampered with by mankind, and certainly not to be tampered with by those who are doing so simply for their own purposes. There is no such thing in the Lord’s eyes as something called same-gender marriage. Homosexual behavior is and will always remain before the Lord an abominable sin. Calling it something else by virtue of some political definition does not change that reality."

Read more by going to www.lds.org and choosing the link for the Gospel Library. Do a search on "homosexuality".

Neal

Phaedrus Reminds Us
of the

Mormon Categorical Imperative

If your gender category is female

you MUST be under the supervision of a man.

and you MUST NOT
be the leader responsible for the local parish or one of the Governing 15 of the Church.

Because of your Category.

As P says, you are free to say God wants it this way and all the mormon women are happy with it.

Chosen writes:

"Every corporation and every level of government has a final decision maker (CEO, Mayor, Governor, President). This doesn't make the rest of us "Second-Class"."

That depends upon your definition of second class. The ultimate point is that some Mormons are actively prevented from playing high leadership roles in the church, based ENTIRELY upon their gender. This is sexist, no matter how many Mormon women do not object to it.

In response to this fact, apologists can claim that this practice is what God wants, and that is that. But, they cannot validly claim that the practice is not sexist by definition. It does not matter if these controlling positions are glamorous or not, or overly demanding, or that they are not sought out, accessed only by a higher "calling."

Those arguments merely seek to side step the fundamental issue. The Mormon church discriminates against people on the basis of their gender, period. Argue about whether this is justified or not, but certainly not whether it is an accurate charge.

Sorry, a few of my words got clipped. In my second to last paragraph of my last post, the second sentence should read,

I must say that again I disagree, and I believe that when a person does believe this, he or she will be unable to resolve related issues. If people base their logic on a faulty premise they can't arrive at a correct conclusion. Often, it feels as if people are trying to rewrite the truth rather than discover it, such as trying to ignore algebra while redevelopping calculus. Should someone tell me...

Andrea,

The way I see it, it's not an issue of strictly biological differences. It's an issue of organization, and of division of responsibility. If you're concerned about power, rest assured that those who hunger for power in the Priesthood will find that they have little, and those who abuse the power they have will surely pay dearly for it. Those who wish to serve may do so in the way that God has ordained, which also means that a man can't request, demand, or lobby for a calling to any position. It's very unlike politics, where Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, or anyone else with ambition and aspirations can pursue an influential position.

Rebecca,

I feel like this topic should be in another blog, but here we are.

You said, "Gender self-identification is a large part of self identity. What a person calls themselves is important."

Exactly! That is precisely why I use the language I do. I am not straight or gay. I am a person. I must disagree with everyone who believes that people should be divided this way, and furthermore, I really think it's very harmful to engender such a division. Of the friends, relatives and aquaintances I know who have identified themselves as "gay", it's never been an issue. I treat them the same way I do everyone else.

I do want to be respectful to others. I have been able to show respect to people without differentiating by what sexual attraction they experience, what sexual activity they angage in, or what kind of lifestyle they choose. I am interested in having real conversation with people who think differently, but I guess it just seems awkward to approach someone and say, "So, tell me about homosexuality."

While I believe it is vital for everyone's benefit to treat people respectfully, I don't think it's appropriate to go out of my way to validate ideas that I disagree with. For example: On my university campus, I've seen ads that contain words like, "I respect your decision to smoke; please respect my decision not to." Personally, I don't respect anyone's decision to smoke any more than I would respect a person's decision to stick a hand in open flame. I don't think it's wise or good in any way, and I don't think the idea, "I'm going to smoke" deserves respect. Again, the person does deserve respect. The only time when I acted differently in front of someone who smoked that I can recall is when I stood upwind of the man while I held my baby daughter so that she wouldn't have to breath the secondhand smoke.

You also said, "sex and gender really have nothing to do one with the other. ;-) To put it his way, I know males (you know, people with male genitalia) who self-identify as female lesbians and prefer to be called "her". Their significant others are female, who identify as lesbian as well."

At first glance, this honestly seems absurd to me, but I've heard the idea before. I must say that again I disagree, and I believe that when a person does Should someone tell me that they are "Martian", I doubt that I could find a good reason to call them that, though I would try to seek understanding and certainly do my best to avoid offense while not betraying that which I believe to be true.

I'd appreciate hearing more of your thoughts. As this blog is really quite overloaded already, let me know if there is another forum where you would express those thoughts.

Years ago, Cokie Roberts asked an archbishop during an interview why the Catholic Church still does not ordain women. He replied that the Church doesn't have permission to do so. The doctrine is based on a claim about what the church's God wants. One who wants to debate that claim has two options, as I see it. Either the person presents a different claim that would allegedly have more validity, or the person questions the whole foundation of theistic religion. Do any of you have another approach?

The Catholic Perspective...

...which is what you rely on me for, isn't it?

I asked my Catholic friend today how rank and file Catholics felt about the fact that women can not be priests.

He told me there is lots of protest and call for reform in that regard, and that many people are leaving the church and becoming Episcopalians, who ordain women.

However, we should not that the offical Catholic Church is as bad (or as good, depending your point of view) as the Mormons in giving women access to the same positions of power as the men.

Many other religions are the same as Mormons or Catholics. One would have to be crazy to say that the Mormon policy Puts them Out of the Mainstream.

Unfortunately, it is more that it puts it IN the mainstream.

Yes, LDS women can excel in the positions they are allowed to hold.

Ms. Jacoby,

I disagree that women are "second-class". Those who agree with you have mentioned CHOICE in their responses.

Nobody in leadership positions CHOOSE to lead. All are CHOSEN and are asked to serve. Those unable or unwilling to serve have the opportunity to decline.

When a call is extended, the spouse is present and given opportunity to object. The support of a spouse is essential in all levels of service wether the person serving is a woman or a man. In the case of bishops, a great deal of emphasis is placed on the man's relationship with his wife and her view of him.

In business, people (men or women) seek leadership roles for a variety of reasons: honor, prestige, money/wealth, etc. In the mormon church none of these are factors for selecting a person for service. Also, simply being ordained to the priesthood does not guarnatee a man being called to serve in a leadership role. Since leadership in the church is 100% voluntary, all get paid the same...nothing, zero, zip, nada.

In the church, leaders have little say as to the amount of time they will serve or where they will serve next. Most bishops serve for a period of 5-7yrs. Following their service, they may never serve in a leadership roll again. The new bishop may ask them to serve as a teacher, clerk, scout master, etc.

I have sat in many leadership councils where nearly half of those present are women (RS presidents, YW presiedents, primary presidents, sister missionaries, etc). I can honestly say without hesitation that full and undivided attention is given to the input, suggestions and council they share. This input strongly influences almost all other decisions made by a bishop. In my opinion this is not "second-class status".

Every corporation and every level of government has a final decision maker (CEO, Mayor, Governor, President). This doesn't make the rest of us "Second-Class".

I say, anyone(male or female) looking to climb the religious ladder, the mormon church is not for you. On the other hand, there are more than enough opportunities to serve for anyone interested.

If you want to compare a woman's ability to bear children with something a man can do, it's more accurate to compare it with men being able to pee standing up or some other biological difference. The ability to bear children for a woman cannot be compared to a man's ability to hold a position of power in any particular society. Those abilities are in two different veins.

Neal says to Lincoln:

"Lincoln,

"...many will continue to view Mormonism collectively as a second-class religion."

After reading your comments many will view you as a first-class bigot!"

Neal, I assume that you mean to insult Lincoln with this comment, and perhaps rightly so. Perhaps Lincoln is denigrating Mormons unfairly based solely on the fact that they "choose" to be Mormons. Perhaps Lincoln is insulting Mormon individuals for having a religious belief that is different from the mainstream, as he sees it. You apparently believe that this is not a fair characterization, and he is wrong from a "truth-value" perspective, as well as a moral perspective, for believing this and for stating his belief.

Now, I am not entirely convinced that Lincoln's statement is bigoted per se, but assuming it is, how can you condemn his bigotry without also condemning the anti-homosexual bigotry one finds in LDS theology? After all, practicing homosexuals are identified en masse as "unworthy" in LDS doctrine, and are denied privileges heteros are entitled to based on their status. Practicing gays are truly treated as "second class citizens," (as you would say) or worse. Please do not attempt the defense that homosexuals are viewed in the same fashion as heteros who practice extramarital sex either, because Mormons are active in the fight to continue to deny gays the right to get married in the first place.

IF bigotry is a bad thing, then it is so, no matter the sanctioning body. Even if that sanction is seen as coming from god himself. Or would you say that some bigots are better than other bigots?

I believe that most Mormons are good people, who have suffered the effects of bigotry and discrimination. The curch rolled back its discriminatory treatment of blacks in the 70's. Therefore, I have some hope that this may be the first fundamentalist religious group to stop treating homosexuals so abominably. How about it?

Eric:

Thanks for getting back to me on my question regarding your assertion that a secular democracy must have a religious component as a matter of necessity. Your response contains the following:

"Therefore, for there to be secularism there must be religions/world views that relate to the variety of sects from which one may choose. Therefore no religion, no pie filling.

Atheism and Antheism are just the latest sects to make claim to, and at times to demand, the dominant position in the cultural structure of faith communities. They join a long string of oppressed religionists who have come into their own while trying their hand at the oppressors role."

As I suspected, your claim is largely semantic and conceptual. "Secular" requires "religious" in the semantic sense, only to the extent that both exist in a culture, and require delineation from one another. This is not at all the same as claiming that one depends upon the other for its "existence." If humans only had one arm, and it was on the right side, then there would be no need for the term "right arm." But it is silly to posit that the right arm could then not exist because there was no matching appendage on the left side.

The word "atheist" may depend upon the contrast with "religious," but the condition of actual belief does not. What you attempt to claim is analogous to saying "if everyone were atheist, no one would be atheist," when the truth of the matter could be stated as : "If everyone were atheist, there would be no need to make reference to their point of view regarding a deity."

Thus, your pie/filling analogy is a false one, and your argument that religion is a requirement for a government to be secular is not correct. If, overnight, all Americans gave up their belief in a deity, the US republic would not cease to exist.

Further, the term "sect" applies to religous groups and bodies. Atheists are not members of a "sect," although some theists attempt to claim that atheism is "just another religion." This is both specious (to some at least), and untrue.

To those that feel that women are 2nd class in the church because they can't be prophet or an apostle in the church, this same standard of thinking would have to be applied to the original Christian faith. Jesus was male and called 12 apostles (all of them male). This was not coincidence, but by design.

Men and women are different, but equal. Men cannot bear children, but this does not make them a lesser class. We have each been given our strengths and weaknesses and should imrpove those and allow them to complement each other. There is no need for a man to bear children because a woman can do this. There is no need for a woman to hold the priesthood because the man can hold this. Both are for the betterment of the family and complete a family unit.

Mglmom,

Mormon doctrines aside, the notion of "second-class citizenship" in society had little to do with motherhood itself. Instead, the old social order demanded that women become mothers regardless of their personal preference. As recently as the 1950s, women who did not desire children were regarded as mentally disturbed. The old social order demanded that wives be subservient to their husbands.

Any religious or secular doctrine that elevates one gender as an authority over the other is horrid and inhumane. Society has no business forcing roles on individuals. I suggest that the "nurturing and caring" that you describe flourishes the most when marriages are partnerships between equals and when women freely choose motherhood.

Neal,

Thanks for your post. You're right, you didn't say having a career meant one couldn't be a good mother. Often when members of the Church hear people criticize the Church's position on the role of women they accuse the criticizer of thinking careers trump family, and your response seemed to be in that vein, hence my post. But it's clear from your other comments that you take a more open minded view. I wish more members of the Church were like you.

Idaho Mom:
"I need to stop because no matter what I or anyone else pro- Mormon says, there will be others that just do not get it"

The point of these blogs isn't for you to have the final word.

??? and Katie:

In Rebecca's first posting she mentioned she was a Mormon as a teenager, so there you go.

The telling thing about this discussion of a woman's role in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is that it is ilustrates EXACTLY what is wrong with our world.

Without a mother who is nurturing and caring for her children and the society, it WILL fall. The 'second class' citizenship that has been spoken of is not the tennants of the LDS church, it is the belief of the world at large.

It is not the people who are in leadership roles in the world who make a difference. It is the people who are teaching or leading us to look inside ourselves to take inventory and make changes to ourselves that 'change the world'. Those people are women and mothers.

I lead and serve in the LDS Church. I am a follower of Christ and try to serve men and make sacrifices for others. But my most important role is to pass those VALUES on to my children in an environment of love.

Until the public perspective of motherhood and home are shifted, no man in any office in the world will ever change anything.

Read this if you have any doubt about a woman's role in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html

I have never posted comment or kept track of something like this. I need to stop because no matter what I or anyone else pro- Mormon says, there will be others that just do not get it. No matter what religion you are looking at there will always be people on the outside being negative. There will always be people on the inside who would not want to live any other way.

I wish that everyone would realize for every person who has left the Mormon church for one reason or another there are 10,000 who have stayed because of the peace it brings. I wish for all you doubters to find peace in your life. I think the main thing in life is to Love one another as Jesus Loves You. So for my final post I hope Karma treats you well.

Posted on May 3, 2007 23:04

Lincoln you wrote, "Mormon church leaders have encouraged the membership to disobey federal laws, such as the Supreme Court decision in Reynolds and the Edmunds/Tucker Act."

The Edmunds/Tucker Act was in 1887. After that act was in place, There were no more plural marriages. The marriages that were already in place stayed in place. What were all the women and children expected to do after 1887? The Husbands of these marriages continued to take care of all their wives. Can you immagine the position the wives would have been in at that time? I think it would have been devistating to all the children of those marriages if the wives and children were expected to take care of themselve.

Back to the point you made, "Mormon church leaders have encouraged the membership to disobey federal laws," Can you site any other time Mormon Church leaders have encourage Mormons to disobey federal laws?

Emily

"I hear different versions of what you said here all the time among Mormons. I grew up with the notion that mothers who are not full-time homemakers value their careers more than their families and are materialistic and selfish. I am active in the Church, but I really resent the notion that having a baby means there is only ONE lifestyle that is appropriate or me. I have a 3 month old son and am finishing my doctorate in biology. My husband has a very flexible job and we've been able to share most responsibilities with taking care of our baby so far. We both agree that taking care of him is harder than working. I plan to continue working, but this does NOT mean I think being a mother is not as valid as being a career woman or that I love my job more than my baby. I just think I am privileged to have my education and training and want to use them."

I don't think I said having a career meant you couldn't be a good mother. In fact, I mentioned my sister, who sounds exactly like you, and raised 3 kids while working full time in her medical profession. My Bishop's wife just barely quit her job as a Nurse Practitioner after baby number 4, although she still does enough to maintain her licensure. They're quite well off (he's a CNA), so money was not the motivating factor for her to work. I also know men in the Church who are stay-at-home dads and their wives are the breadwinners.

I think just like sex, munber of kids, and other private matters, the Church gives guidelines about this issue but leaves it up to the individual to make the decisions. And since each individual is different that leaves room for a lot of variation.

It's sad that some feel a need to pressure others about their choices, and that cultural pressure is uncomfortable and admittedly wrong. As long as YOU feel like you're doing the right thing, then that's what you should do.

The point I was trying to make was that those who DO stay at home with the kids are not somehow diminished by that choice. Most of the moms I know who stay at home love it and it IS their career! They wouldn't want it any other way.

Neal

Rebecca,

Glad our paths crossed and we could have our exchange. May you find joy in your religion, as I do in mine.

Neal

??? - Assume anything that you like about me. I am an anonymous stranger to you. For all you know I AM the therapist.

Maybe I'll make an assumption about you, an anonymous stranger. Believing that someone needs counseling because they have a differing viewpoint is rather narcissistic. And to put it on the subject of religion...not very CHRIST like.

Henry James - Thanks for sticking up for me while I was away. I don't take jabs from internet strangers too personally.

Neal - I have honestly enjoyed "speaking" with you. I knew at the outset that the only outcome was to agree to disagree. Especially when it comes to religion and the argument turns to, "This is what God says". *sigh* Tiring it is indeed.

The God I worship Loves everyone, for who they are, and has no need to distinguish a person by gender. I never felt that Love as a Mormon. And definately felt like my soul was being crushed right out of me just for being who I am.

What is my story? I am not disaffected or disgruntled. Merely a woman who left the religion of her upbringing, stayed pissed off at God for too long, and finally found a God that accepted her for who she is.

Once in a while I come across people and places that remind me of what I left behind, and I poke around a little. I'm done pokin'.

Rebecca

UUUGGGHHH.....I want to know to Rebecca! What exactly is your background?

It is all about attestations.

“I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.” Would your
anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:
x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran
x=Joe Smith

I'm amazed at the number of comments about the right to bare arms. I've had bare arms, off and on for years. I even saw a comment about the right to bare babies. Personally, I don't care if the babies are bare or dressed. I think it's fine to bear arms if one is hunting. I think most mothers would rather bear babies than have a bunch of bare babies running around; or maybe the other way round. But then, I'm just another sexist male; or is it meal?

Lincoln,

"...many will continue to view Mormonism collectively as a second-class religion."

After reading your comments many will view you as a first-class bigot!

Neal

Ms. Susan Jacoby,

I enjoyed reading your column regarding Mormonism's evolution as a religion. I agree with your assessment that the Mormon church continues to treat women as second-class citizens. I also agree with your assessment that a conservative Mormon President would not be good for this country. There are a number of other issues that concern me, including Mormon's historic disrespect of this nation's laws.

The Mormon church should be regarded with as much respect as any other church in the United States. In theory this is a true statement, yet on occasion, Mormon church leaders have encouraged the membership to disobey federal laws, such as the Supreme Court decision in Reynolds and the Edmunds/Tucker Act. Other religious leaders have not instructed their membership to directly disobey federal statutes and Supreme Court decisions. That is why many U.S. citizens would be concerned that Mormon Church President Hinckley could instruct the church membership to disobey federal laws again. Brigham Young and John Taylor were notorious for advocating disobedience to the "laws of men." This historic friction between the United States and a Mormon hierarchy with theocratic tendencies, has been an issue from the beginnings of Mormonism. I do not have any evidence that other religions have waged war against the United States in word and in deed, as the Mormon church has done in the past. Theoretically, President Hinckley could receive a new revelation to disobey the rule of law, and encourage the practice of polygamy again. This is a possibility under the current theological beliefs in Mormonism, especially with Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 remaining in full force. The Doctrine and Covenants are binding scripture in Mormonism, and Section 132 authorizes the practice of plural marriage, promising 10 virgins to righteous Mormon men. Given the doctrine of modern revelation, a distinct possibility exists that Mormon directives could take precedent over Federal law, as occurred in the past. What assurance does the U.S. public have that the Mormon church will not disobey laws in the future? A primary concern regarding Mormonism, is whether Mormons will choose to obey the Prophet or the laws of the United States should a conflict occur. This is a troubling issue, which has not been fully resolved.

Are Mormons afforded the same rights and privileges under the Constitution as other religions? Legally, of course they are. But on an individual basis, it is unclear whether Mormons respect other people‘s right of religious freedom. This is an interpersonal issue that is influenced by the institutional directives of the Mormon church. It rests on the ability of the church membership to make genuine friendships with people of other faiths, without the ulterior motive of converting them to Mormonism. Is it possible for a Mormon to make friends with a member of another religion, without the ulterior motive of someday converting that person to Mormonism? Yes, of course. But after watching the antics of Mormon missionaries on the PBS special, it is logical to conclude that many Mormons feel it is their duty to convert everyone to Mormonism. This concept is inherently offensive to many people who simply want to be considered genuine friends, without being viewed as a potential "convert baptism" in the future. Many creeds believe that they have the exclusive truth, not just Mormons. Many others are atheist or agnostic. Many other religions have developed a true tolerance for all humanity and do not feel the overbearing necessity of converting them to their own faith. Will Mormons ever be able to be genuine friends with non-Mormons without having the ulterior motive of conversion? This is a fair question, given the obvious harrassment of average citizens that was demonstrated by Mormon missionaries during the missionary segment of the PBS Frontline documentary. Maybe the reason Mormonism has not truly entered the mainstream yet, is that many people conclude, fairly or unfairly, that mormons are only interested in outside contact to the extent that they are fulfilling their duty as missionaries. This would be extremely shallow, superficial, and limiting, and would define Mormons as nothing more than scripted automatons. Mormons need to learn to have genuine friendships with people from outside their religion, on a wider scale. It is insulting to members of other faiths and non-believers, that Mormons believe they possess the exclusive truths of nature, when there is ample evidence in the history of the Mormon church, that it has just as many flaws (if not more) as any of the other faiths. Will the leadership ever encourage teaching true Mormon church history instead of a whitewashed version through its correlated lesson materials? Many Mormon's missionary zeal would diminish to proper levels if they fully understood the truly tenuous nature of Mormonism’s truth claims, from a historic perspective.

Before Mormonism is treated with the full faith and respect that other religions receive, it must demonstrate that it is deserving of such respect. The first step toward that respect would be a shift in emphasis away from converting every human being on the planet to Mormonism, toward loving every human being on the planet with the true Christian love, the love that Mormonism already professes to have. This shift will need to be generated from the upper levels of the Mormon church leadership structure. Until that happens on a broad scale, many will continue to view Mormonism collectively as a second-class religion.

I think when you talk about how women are second class in this religion the first thing that comes to my mind is "what. are. you. talking about?" Men can't give birth to children that could have a amazing mormon life. Men can't be in the life changing class called young women. We mormon women have a job and I think we do a mighty good job at it.

I would like to address the concern expressed about women in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being subordinate to their husbands or considered less crucial to the church because we do not hold the priesthood. My husband currently serves as the bishop of our ward (a congregation of about 500 members). My own experience serving and leading in the church has been consistent with his opportunities. I have served as the president of our women’s organization of about 200 women. I have also served as president of a stake (unit which oversees 6-10 wards) young women’s organization which services 200-300 teenager girls and approximately 50 leaders.

Men in the church hold the priesthood. The priesthood is an extra power that is given to them to bless the lives of members and non-members they are serving. There are basically two areas in which my husband receives different opportunities than I do to serve. Because they have the priesthood sometimes men are called to serve in positions of leadership with greater responsibility than the women of the church. They also have the opportunity to administer priesthood ordinances such as baptism or give blessings to the sick.

Concerning our opportunities to hold leadership positions in the church I would like to refer to part two of the PBS program. At one point in series the challenges for women of raising a family and meeting all the demands on their time was describe as being nearly impossible. It is true that we are very busy women. In some cases it can become overwhelming. And so I have pondered what my life might be like if women did hold the priesthood. I cannot imagine the stress involved if I were given the additional responsibility of overseeing an entire ward. I do not need to preside over a congregation to feel fulfilled. On the contrary, my service to my family and the joys of raising them far exceed any pleasure that I have seen my husband experience as the bishop of our ward. Sure there is a degree of pride that comes from being the one in charge. However, with notoriety comes pressure to be perfect. Let’s face it most of us women don’t need more expectations place upon us. And so I ask if women are feeling overcome with their current responsibilities why would we place greater challenges upon them. I am sure that there are women who could manage perfectly in these positions of leadership and not feel overwhelmed. However, for the rest of us such opportunities would create unnecessary burdens and surely there would be a few of us asked to serve with the high achievers. I for one am glad that current revelation has stated that the priesthood is held my male members only.

The priesthood is the ability to represent God on earth. When an priesthood holder places his hands on an individual who is deathly ill he speaks for God. He pronounces blessings of health or of patience in affliction or anything else the Lord tells him to say. That priesthood power blesses all of our lives; male or female. The fact that the Lord has not placed the burden of pronouncing that blessing on my shoulders is a wonderful relief. It is one less thing I have to do. I don’t think it really matters who does it. I am just thrilled that the power to act for God exists. I am glad that miracles happen in our day. I know they do. I have seen them. In the end they are His miracles. If a member of the priesthood is taking some kind of credit for the healing of someone he has blessed then he is wrong. He didn’t do it. God did. And so as I apply all my motherly nursing skills through the night with a child overcome with a fever and congestion, it is a great relief when my husband arrives on the scene to relieve me. However, the greatest relief comes when I can say, “Please give him a blessing “. Our roles are incredibly different. One is not better or worse but certainly different. The joy I feel from my church membership is felt daily and there is nothing I would want to change concerning church leadership.

Oops! Somehow I lost a part of that last big quote in my cutting and pasting. That big quote about the role of women was from M. Russell Ballard in the April 2002 Ensign in answer to item number 5.

My answers to items 2 and 4 were also clobbered. Here they are:

2.) Mormon doctrine comes from God by revelation through Prophets. Not from the popular voice. Not mine, not yours. That is our belief. A voice can, however, be the catalyst for inquiry into God's will on a certain subject. Emma Smith was such a catalyst, and her voice caused the Prophet Joseph to make an inquiry of the Lord, the result of which is the Word of Wisdom.

4.) While women are not present in every Council, they are present in many of them. They play an active role, and in my experience make many decisions and recommendations. Be aware that the MEN in these councils also answer to the authority of what we call the "presiding officer" (i.e. the Bishop) on the same basis as the women. The Young Mens President has no more authority to start a program or project of some kind than the Young Womens President does. Your portrayal is absolutist, when this is not the case.

Rebecca, I have to wonder what your background is? Ex-mormon? Disgruntled Mormon? Just curious.

Neal

Neal Thank you for your points. They are all said very well. and backed by facts. However I am sure that someone out there will try to dispute what you said.

Sorry, I forgot to post my name on the header of that last post to Rebecca.

And I agree with Henry about ???. That was uncalled for. :-(

Neal

Rebecca,

This is getting tiresome:

1. My apologies. But I think there was a woman behind the idea you aren't giving credit to:

>>>
Throughout the United States, women were denied the right to vote, and Emmeline Wells, as the outspoken editor of a popular Mormon newspaper for women, wanted to change that.

The Woman's Exponent, Volume 1, Number 1
"Millions of intelligent women are deprived of the vote simply because nature qualified them to become mothers and not fathers of men. They may own property, pay taxes, assist in supporting the government, rend their heart-strings in giving for its aid the children of their affections, but they are denied all right to say who shall disburse those taxes, how that government shall be conducted, or who shall decide on a question of peace or war which may involve the lives of their sons, brothers, fathers and husbands."
Emmeline Wells

In her push for the vote in Utah, Wells found a most unlikely ally: the Mormon patriarch himself, Brigham Young. He was certain that adding Mormon women to the voters' rolls would only strengthen his hold on Utah.

On February 12th, 1870, with Young's backing, the Utah territorial legislature granted women the right to vote. Two days later, they exercised it. Young's niece voted first, followed by one of his daughters.

http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/program/episodes/five/womansexponent.htm

2. Mormon doctrine comes from God, through prophets. Not from the popular voice. Not mine, Not yours. A voice, however, can be the catalyst for inquiry into God's will. In fact, Emma Smith was the catalyst for an inquiry by the Prophet Joseph that resulted in the Word of Wisdom.

3. Women are not present in all councils but they certainly are present and have a voice in many of them, and in my experience make MANY decisions and recommendatsions. And yes, they have the authority to teach, and actually do a heck of a lot of counseling through the Relief Society. And be aware that the MEN in these counsels also answer to the authroity of those who preside; which is usually the Bishop (in a Ward setting). The Young Mens president has no more authority to decide on, say, a Church program than the Young Women's president does. The Bishop decides. Your absolutism is your distortion on this issue.

5. You can't get over that word, can you?

Ensign, April 2002: M. Russel Ballard

>>>
"There are those who suggest that males are favored of the Lord because they are ordained to hold the priesthood. Anyone who believes this does not understand the great plan of happiness. The premortal and mortal natures of men and women were specified by God Himself, and it is simply not within His character to diminish the roles and responsibilities of any of His children.

As President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972) explained, “The Lord offers to his daughters every spiritual gift and blessing that can be obtained by his sons” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1970, 59; or “Magnifying Our Callings in the Priesthood,” Improvement Era, June 1970, 66). All of us, men and women alike, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and are entitled to personal revelation. We may all take upon us the Lord’s name, become sons and daughters of Christ, partake of the ordinances of the temple from which we emerge endowed with power, receive the fulness of the gospel, and achieve exaltation in the celestial kingdom. These spiritual blessings are available to men and women alike, according to their faithfulness and their effort to receive them...

...“Is a woman’s value dependent exclusively upon her role as a wife and mother?” The answer is simple and obvious: No. Although there is nothing a woman can do that has more far-reaching, eternal impact than to rear her children to walk in righteousness, motherhood and marital status are not the only measures of a woman’s worth. Some women do not have the privilege of marrying or rearing children in this life. Yet if they are worthy, these blessings will come later. Men and women who do have the privilege of rearing children will of course be held accountable for that priceless, eternal stewardship. Although there is simply not a more significant contribution you can make to society, to the Church, or to the eternal destiny of our Father’s children than what you will do as a mother or father, motherhood and fatherhood are not the only measures of goodness or of one’s acceptance before the Lord. Every righteous man and woman has a significant role to play in the onward march of the kingdom of God."

I don't see the word "subserviant" or anything remotely similar here (or in the quote you gave). The teaching of the Church is - equal, but with different roles. I think its you who don't understand what my Church teaches. If you want to be a priest, join a Church that ordains women. We don't, but not because women are "subserviant".

6. We weren't talking about sexual improprieties. "Speaking" vs. teaching - hmmm. Might not be a lot of difference if it was being done publicly. And excommunication doesn't "silence" anyone. Just look at all the web sites of malcontents out there! I think it unhinges the jaw!!

"As for doctrine of the church...I have yet to figure out exactly what that is."

All at your fingertips - http://www.lds.org

Happy Reading,

Neal

???
If there is a hell, you should be sent there for the remark you made about Rebecca.

She speaks plainly, sensibly, with moral clarity, and you tell her she needs therapy.

That is a sick thing to say.

what virtually all of the posts miss is the fact that Ms. Jacoby has raised an interesting point. We have seen a cult become a mainstream religion in about 150 years.

So - are the Mormons right or are they just a group of silly dupes? If they are right, how can the other religions also be right when they contradict each other? What is the criteria by which a religion becomes valid?

The "revealed truth" doesn't seem any too reliable, since there seem to be so many of them. Should we just take the word of Joseph Smith? If so, then how about the guy standing in the park? For that matter, if god has some truth to reveal he/she really ought to be more media savvy and in one stroke convert all who doubt. One event like that portrayed in "The Day the Earth Stood Still", and I'd be convinced, that's certain.

Rebecca, you seem a little hostile towards mormons. Is there a story there? Do you need to go to a therapist to work out some frustration. With all your feelings it only hurts one person. YOU. I will pray for you and all the other angry people out there.

Regarding Susan Jacoby's assertion that religious people can't be trusted in elected office: Harry Reid. I mean, good gracious, he's senate majority leader. You'd think that someone commenting on US politics would know that. Why is Susan Jacoby so afraid of religious people? Did Mitt Romney ban coffee in Massachussetts or something? These people have political records. We don't have to guess how they will behave based only on our fears and prejudices. Is she also opposed to Joe Lieberman because she thinks he will make us all eat matzas for one week every year? (That might be OK for me actually, I'm eating some right now as I write.) If this is what you think about religious people, maybe you should expand your circle of friends.

Rebecca wrote:

1.) No it is not, it is a historical FACT. See: http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/statehood_and_the_progressive_era/womenssuffrageinutah.html

"Brigham Young and others realized that giving Utah women the vote would not mean the end of polygamy, but it could change the predominant national image of Utah women as downtrodden and oppressed and could help to stem a tide of antipolygamy legislation by Congress. With no dissenting votes, the territorial legislature passed an act giving the vote (but not the right to hold office) to women on 10 February 1869."

2.) It is relevent. I am not naive to think I could change Mormon doctrine. Hello. I am a woman. There isn't a woman in the whole world who can do that. But as cultures change and personal views change, so does Mormon doctrine. I am just one voice among many.

4.) Really? Is there a woman present when a Bishopbric meets and is making crucial decisions for an entire ward? Is there a woman present when the 12 meet? Is there a woman anywhere in the mormon church who has AUTHORITY to "direct the teachings of the gospel"? Funny, I didn't think so. Not to mention every woman in every one of those meetings answers to the authority of the men who are present.

5.) Yes, let's dispense with subordinate roles! Never is there a time when a woman is not subserviant to a man in the mormon church, and that role will played throughout ETERNITY. Here is what your church teaches:

"The Lord has assigned to men the chief responsibility for governing over the affairs of the Church and the family."
"By fulfilling her role as counselor to her husband, a woman can reinforce her husband’s position as head of the home and encourage greater family unity."
"We can honor the counsel of priesthood leaders—our husbands, home teachers, bishops or branch presidents, stake or district leaders, and General Authorities. We should refrain from criticizing priesthood leaders and teach our children to do the same. Sustaining and supporting the priesthood is more than just raising our hands or saying that we support the priesthood. It is learning, praying, OBEYING, and serving in a good cause."
All the above quotes from: "The Latter-day Saint Woman - Basic Manual for Women, Part A" © 2005 Intellectual Reserve

You wrote:
And you don't have a notion of an "ideal woman"? c'mmon! Every group or society has that. Your ideal might be one where you're the CEO of a Fortune 500 company.

My ideal woman is a woman who is ALLOWED to be and grow to her full potential, in any way she chooses. You hear what you want to hear and bleat out the tired "you disparage motherhood". I never said that motherhood was not an important role. What I do say, is that it is not the only role a woman can play. Your leaders say to your sister, and every other mormon woman, that they are a one-purpose design and they say it often.

6.) "Disagree. You have to do something pretty public to get into a disciplinary council."

Not really. Adultery will get you there and it isn't too public usually. The majority of women who have been "disciplined" for speaking out for women did their speaking out via academic channels. With the exception of Sonia Johnson, who spoke up in front of Congress. These women weren't teaching, they were speaking. And as they had no authority in the mormon church anyway, the only reason they were disciplined is to silence them.

As for doctrine of the church...I have yet to figure out exactly what that is.

Thankful and Enidana

Thanks for the links and suggestions of reading materials on LDS.

The topic and question was about whether Mormons are mainstreamed in the US. By that question, I assumed that Americans would highlight and discuss on Mormons, both men and women, making contributions in the American public life - business, in the media, show business, in public office etc.

For LDS, not only the church, but its adherents, are asked to "mainstream" their beliefs by some posters and panelists into mainline Christianity to be American.

I had always thougth that Mormons are already mainstreamed, not only in America, but have impact and recognition in the world - Marriot Hotels, Mormon Tabernacle Choir, peace corps, etc by their tangible contributions.

While championing and insisting on the seperation of church and state, and religion should be private, the LDS is also accused of secrecy. A religious entity is not private but in the public square and hence, can be publicy questioned. But at the same time, adherents are desired to keep their beliefs private, to be practiced at home, or in the closet. Seperation of church and state is messy. If the church is asked to keep out of state, then church has every right to ask state not to interfere in chruch affairs, save those that directly affects public policies and crimes.

So many poster raise on gender relations, gender roles, and family values that are part of LDS tenets and practices, and the domain of the privacy of home as well as private arrangements and agreements between spouses - how many children to have, household chores, who works and who don't. It beggars belief to assume that non-Mormons don't do likewise in line with their beliefs or otherwise. It also beggars belief to assume that Mormons, like all believers, do not also practice their beliefs in varying shades and applications privately and at home.

I am very grateful for the Mormon women who shared their experiences and beliefs here. It was very enlightening to me. The voices I recognize and echoed by similar voices from Algeria to Japan.

Some, who purport to articulate, highlight and champion Mormons' women's rights and gender parity in all spheres of church and home life, in the same breath, ignored the voices of the Mormon women, who, by their right and choice, chose to be homemakers and adherents of LDS.

I learned the hard, humiliating and humbling way when called an insensitive, arrogant, presumptious feminist prick by a woman friend, (who has a PhD in biotechnology and was doing very well professionally) when I questioned her decision to quit her job to raise her children full time.

Being humiliated by illiterate, poor and sharp-minded village women in telling them what they need to do, should do and endeavouring to raise their "awareness" is another story. Them saying, if I, a woman, don't respect what they think and want, what more to expect of men. That cuts like ice in the heart, and that was the most polite thing said by them.

No good telling or insisting any woman she is "in denial" of being a second class citizen by law or by religion. She doth have her own mind, concerns and prioiries. What do women want? ask Freud. Just ask each and every woman.

When a Mormon woman says she is happy with her beliefs and choices, I believe her. Particularly as she lives in the United States where choices for women are the most open and wide in the world and protected by laws. A Mormon woman is not impeded by US laws from attaining whatever she want in mainstream America. What she do or did not do at home is her own business. If she wants to make a personal concern on church and/or state public, then, as appropriate and right. Her choice, her rights. We listen.

But overt and covert discriminations of Mormons due to their beliefs by mainstream America is another matter.

Neal,

I agree with most of what you said in your first posting, but I have to take exception to one thing you said in your response to Rebecca.

You write:
"And you don't have a notion of an "ideal woman"? c'mmon! Every group or society has that. Your ideal might be one where you're the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. What I hear you saying is that Mormon women who have an ideal of staying home and being a mother are somehow wrong and not as valid as being a career woman. I say POO-POO to that!"

I hear different versions of what you said here all the time among Mormons. I grew up with the notion that mothers who are not full-time homemakers value their careers more than their families and are materialistic and selfish. I am active in the Church, but I really resent the notion that having a baby means there is only ONE lifestyle that is appropriate or me. I have a 3 month old son and am finishing my doctorate in biology. My husband has a very flexible job and we've been able to share most responsibilities with taking care of our baby so far. We both agree that taking care of him is harder than working. I plan to continue working, but this does NOT mean I think being a mother is not as valid as being a career woman or that I love my job more than my baby. I just think I am privileged to have my education and training and want to use them.

Thanks Neal and Randall for your comments. You are both very different and yet in the gospel you have similarities. It's important for us to realize we are all individuals with a God-given right to make decisions according to our own consciences. That is also a main belief of our Founding Father's and we are fortunate to have Freedom in Religion (or as some feel - Freedom from Religion) in our great country!!

Randall,

"It's time to grow up and acknowledge that Mormons, just like any other group of people, are made up of multi-faceted, intelligent, and complex individuals. Some are smart ... some aren't. Some are bigots ... some aren't. Some are right-wingers ... others aren't. Some are ethical ... some aren't. To throw any label on an entire religious group based on a perception of their political or religious or personal uniformity is demeaning and, ultimately, foolish."

I totally agree. Thanks for your thoughtful and intelligent response.

Neal

Let's all say a prayer for our Relief Society Presidents

Idaho Mom,

I see your point more clearly now. Thanks for coming back to clarify :)

Anonymous That is definatly something I would not want to be. I do not know any mormon woman that WANT to be Relief Society President! But If I am every given that calling I am sure that I would be able to carry that load with the help of Jesus Christ. any woman that desires that load would be crazy

Idaho Mom,

I guess you better not be a Relief Society President either?

"I would not vote for any devout Mormon for president, for the same reason that I would not vote for a fundamentalist Baptist or a right-wing Roman Catholic.The religious Right, of which the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints is a part, wants to write its views into law and impose them on other Americans."

I am confused. On the one hand, the author states that Mormons have now entered the mainstream, and that we should all be tolerant of Mormons as well as other religions because, after all, they are no longer to be considered a weird cult but a part of the American mainstream. On the other hand, she states that the Mormon church is part of the "religious right."

Doesn't this attitude exhibit the kind of religious bigotry and stereotypes that the author decries?

It's simple prejudice to presume that any group of people, because of their religious affiliation, all think the same, act the same and exhibit the same characteristics, whether religious, ethical or racial. To tar all Mormons with the political brush of the "religious right" demonstrates a bias that is far more serious than anything that can reasonably be attributed to Mormons.

It's also untrue.

I am a Mormon, and am not part of the "religious right." Harry Reid is a Mormon and is definitely outside the "religious right." The BYU students who recently demonstrated against Vice President Cheney's recent address at the BYU graduation ceremonies are Mormons, but are not part of the "religious right."

I won't be voting for Mitt Romney for preident, but it's not because he's a Mormon nor because he's part of the "religious right." I simply don't agree with his politics -- such as they are. I also won't be voting for John McCain, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani or others ... not because I'm a Mormon and not because they're not, but because I disagree with each of them on fundamental political issues that have little to do with my (or their) religious background.

It's time to grow up and acknowledge that Mormons, just like any other group of people, are made up of multi-faceted, intelligent, and complex individuals. Some are smart ... some aren't. Some are bigots ... some aren't. Some are right-wingers ... others aren't. Some are ethical ... some aren't. To throw any label on an entire religious group based on a perception of their political or religious or personal uniformity is demeaning and, ultimately, foolish.

oops Man not mand

Being a Bishop or any other leader in the Mormon church is not a "privledge" or some glorious thing! It is a burden that is a heavy load. But mand is able to carry the burden with the help of Jesus Christ. So for women to want that burden would be crazy.

Mormon mother here

I do not want to be a bishop (leader of local perish) I would not want to deal with families in turmoil, or death of ward members, or the major decisions that come with being the leader of the ward. NO THANKS. I would much rather be a wife and mother. That is what I was sent here to do and I do not want someone on the outside looking in telling me that I want to be a Bishop. If being a bishop is want someone on the outside looking in wants, then don't join our church. As a matter of fact don't join the Catholic church or the numerous other churches that follow the bible and have male leaders.

Rebecca wrote:

1.) That's just your opinions on the motives of Brigham Young...

2.) There was no implication that religion frees one from opposition. Quite the contrary, as we have seen it may open the doors to it! My point is that a secular definition of something like "sexist" may have no relevance in a religious context. You may speak out as you wish about what you percieve as "immoral" and we will do the same. But you do not shape our doctrine.

4.) Funny, there are women teaching, counseling, and making decisions in every Church leadership meeting I attend. Nevertheless, as you mention, the Priesthood is a male calling. That is not changing, as far as I can tell.

5.) Let's dispense with the "subserviant" dribble. The Church does not teach that - just read any General Conference address. Different roles - equal importance.

You wrote:
"Poo-poo-ing away the idea that there is an ideal Mormon woman does not change the fact that the ideal Mormon is a goal of many Mormon women. Everyone handles this differently of course. And some probably get a little too wound up in it. But it doesn't change the fact that there is ONE way to be a Mormon woman, and a woman who is not meeting that One Way feels a lot of pressure and exclusion.

The Mormon church absolutely teaches that women should not work unless circumstances are such that they must. And those circumstances are limited. Poverty being one of those circumstances. Meanwhile, the poor and impoverished working women you know are most likely giving up 10% of their very limited income. Of course no one is complaining.

A woman's role in the Mormon church is CLEARLY defined as wife and mother. It is difficult to be a mother if one does not have children. You haven't been listening if you haven't heard the Mormon church heirarchy tell women to get back to their place of wife and mother, and stay there.
"

And you don't have a notion of an "ideal woman"? c'mmon! Every group or society has that. Your ideal might be one where you're the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. What I hear you saying is that Mormon women who have an ideal of staying home and being a mother are somehow wrong and not as valid as being a career woman. I say POO-POO to that! And if you think that raising children isn't important, and that the availablility and presence of parents in the home isn't important to that process, then you need to do a little more research. The Church encourages mothers to stay at home because it has such a positive effect on the outcome of child rearing, not because they want to supress women. And its a personal choice. I know plenty of women in the Church with careers. My Sister is a medical professional (with kids) and has been her entire adult life. She's also a counseor in the Releif Society. No one has spit on her yet for wearing a stethescope!

6.) Disagree. You have to do something pretty public to get into a disciplinary council.

How LDS people treat excommunicated memebers is a matter of personal conscience and accountability. The Church teaches that these people need to be loved and nurtured. I recieved a tremendous outpouring of love after my Church discipline. I have seen both extremes, the other of which you mentioned. However, what you generalized is not always the case and therefore misleading. It is certainly not the doctrine of the Church.

"What you are asking is to be left alone while doing and saying whatever you please. While the Mormon church sends out 50,000 missionaries, you don't want a couple dozen people in a public forum to voice a counter opinion that contains facts and truths that you don't happen to agree with."

Not at all. I'm just saying your opinions are just that - opinions. Your "facts" and "truths" may not be such to others. If you want to conjure up 50,000 missionaries to preach your version of it, by all means, be my guest!

Neal

Russell,

I said 'poo' twice, there...now thrice!

David H,

The fact that Susan used blogs written by suffering women as evidence was addressed earlier in this discussion. Your post was not neccessary.

I wrote a paper on a concentration camp for a class in college. I was told to seek out paintings as well as journals and poetry written by those forced to live in this particular camp. I asked my instructor, "I can really use journals as a source?" He said, "They are the best source to use."

Re: Comments that a devout Mormon cannot separate political beliefs from religious beliefs

Ms. Jacoby believes that a Mormon would not be able (or, as she inferred, “allowed”) to separate his political beliefs from his religious beliefs. She needs to come over to my parents’ house sometime. My family is devoutly Mormon. My father and I have served in leadership positions in the church, as have my mother and sisters (although, I guess their service was second-class).

I was raised a Democrat, and everyone else in my family remains staunchly Democrat to this day. However, after going on to earn advanced degrees in business and economics, I came to the realization that most of the Democrats’ economic and social beliefs are untenable, and I became a conservative Republican. I agree with my family on most religious issues, but I now disagree with them on most political issues.

And then there is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a devout Mormon with whom I disagree on every issue I can think of (wait…I think he’s pro-life). If Ms. Jacoby is right, one of us should be excommunicated soon. I’ll let you know if it is me.

Anonymous,

Thanks for your post.

"Using what animals do as a yardstick for what is and isn't natural for humans is not morally or ethically sound."

No, not always, but in the case of gayness, what animals do may shed light on whether being gay is a biological imperative or a personal choice.

I'll bet that even you think the male penguins' penchant for long-term gay relationships is a good thing and a model for human behavior.

Best wishes.

Andrea:

You said "poo" :)

According to Susan Jacoby, if it's written in a Blog, it must be true and fact.

This is a blog, so what I'm writing must be true and she will quote me as if this is fact.

I belong to the Church of Susan Jacoby. Because I am a male, I am a second-class citizen in her church/ideology.

There, I posted this to a blog, now everybody knows that Susan Jacoby perceives me, and therefore all men, as second-class citizens.

Rebecca

Bravo for your forthrightness and morality.

My friend Edith Wharton would admire your social analysis, and my Philosopher Brother William would find nary a point of reasoning to disagree with.

I didn't have the strength, being "dead" tired today, to respond to Neal today, so thank you for doing it even more capably than I, America's Greatest Literary Critic, could have.

DV, your ideas on morality, though commonly held, are wrong, indeed, opposite of the fact-based truth. The fundamental error is not just selection bias in your example but selection error owing to mistaking the dictates of a dictatorship for the practices of the population. Russia has NEVER been nonreligious, not even during Soviet rule, a time when the vast majority reportedly privately taught their children the religion of their forebears, e.g. orthodox Christianity, orthodox Judaism, or Islam. One of the troubles in Iraq now is the horrific crime rate in spite of the population regularly going to mosques and being told in the name of Allah not to commit those crimes. For some reason, looting, murder, and rape are common only in nations where a majority report being religious. My guess is that religion is the effect not the cause of "backward thinking", though, it's an historical fact that Christianity ushered in the Dark Ages by actively squelching not just science but social and judicial reforms inherent in democracy. This was done by means of torture, theft, lies, and murder. Africa like the Middle East remains enthrall to their many religions while Asia breaks out. Look for contrast at Scandinavia, Japan and Canada, countries where the vast majority report having NO religion, NO god, yet enjoy the lowest crime rates in the history of the world, with other Western nations except the U.S. gaining fast both in terms of low crime and low belief. Not just violent crimes, so it's not guns. Fewer people there cheat on their taxes or fail to pay their parking fines. They're better at returning library books Politicians tell the truth or they're out. In other words, morality is deep and wide where religion is almost nonexistent. According the the American Library Association, the most stolen book from public libraries is the Bible. The fact that religions try to teach morality doesn't mean they succeed. They do provide unconditional love and reasons to feel good about oneself in spite of one's crimes. This undermines the development of personal integrity instead fostering hypocrisy.

Rebecca,

Great post. I appreciate your use of "poo-poo-ing."

Norrie:

Some scientists say homosexual behavior in animals is not necessarily about sex. Marlene Zuk, a professor of biology at UC Riverside and author of "Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can't Learn About Sex From Animals" (University of California Press, 2002), notes that scientists have speculated that homosexuality may have an evolutionary purpose, ensuring the survival of the species. By not producing their own offspring, homosexuals may help support or nurture their relatives' young. "That is a contribution to the gene pool," she said.

Infanticide is widespread in the animal world, but we wouldn't say that it is desirable for humans. Using what animals do as a yardstick for what is and isn't natural for humans is not morally or ethically sound.

Bonobo chimps have sex at an almost hourly rate. There is obviously something there other than simply homosexuality.

Ok Neal, I was going to let it lie but, well, I can't. To your points.

1.) Utah was the first state to give women the vote as a political play by Brigham Young. The criticism over polygamy was getting very loud, and he threw the womens vote in just for the very purpose that you are using it. As a political thing to point to and say, "see, our women-folk can vote before your women-folk can!" Young fully realized that the risk to his own political position was not in jeopardy. Mormon women would vote for him just as well as a Mormon man would. On the other hand, giving the vote to women in the US as a whole, there was a much larger political risk involved for those in political power. As you say, it had NOTHING to do with religion.

2.) This is the U.S., anyone is "allowed" to voice their opinion on any topic. Religions are not isolated. The Mormon institution and individual Mormons engages in politics consistently and continuously. The Mormon church is often credited for the defeat of the ERA and continues to work politically against homosexual rights. There is not an implied privelege of removed opposition just because political activity is done under the guise of religion.

I agree that what a person feels about themselves is the most important thing. I also believe that sexism is IMMORAL, and I will speak out against it. That does not mean that I think LDS women or any other woman is a second class citizen. On the contrary, I say THEY ARE NOT, and should be accorded equality in all areas of society, including religion.

3.) This is your own personal feelings, which I respect. However, you cannot deny that there are many who have personal feelings that are not the same as yours.

4.) You miss the point. Men run the church. Period. A woman has no place in the institutional leadership. How HARD a job is has nothing to do with it.

5.) I don't know what church you belong to, but Mormonism does in fact teach that women are subservient to the Priesthood, and as it is an all male Priesthood, that means women are subservient to men.

Poo-poo-ing away the idea that there is an ideal Mormon woman does not change the fact that the ideal Mormon is a goal of many Mormon women. Everyone handles this differently of course. And some probably get a little too wound up in it. But it doesn't change the fact that there is ONE way to be a Mormon woman, and a woman who is not meeting that One Way feels a lot of pressure and exclusion.

The Mormon church absolutely teaches that women should not work unless circumstances are such that they must. And those circumstances are limited. Poverty being one of those circumstances. Meanwhile, the poor and impoverished working women you know are most likely giving up 10% of their very limited income. Of course no one is complaining.

A woman's role in the Mormon church is CLEARLY defined as wife and mother. It is difficult to be a mother if one does not have children. You haven't been listening if you haven't heard the Mormon church heirarchy tell women to get back to their place of wife and mother, and stay there.

6.) A Mormon does not have to publicly "teach" to get excommunicated. All a Mormon has to do is speak loud enough to be heard. It's ok to have critical views, it is not ok to voice them. Every Mormon who keeps critical views inside of them does so for one reason, fearful of the consequences. Be it excommunication from the church, or divorce from a spouse, or kicked out of the house as a teen, or losing cherished friendships. These are very real threats to a personal well being.

The "violence" felt at excommunication comes from the reaction of the Mormon community. An excommunicated person is vilified, shunned, gossiped about and avoided while at the same time being told that they are loved. This is called emotional abuse. Violence does not have to be physical, emotional violence is just as real. And it happens.

In general...

What you are asking is to be left alone while doing and saying whatever you please. While the Mormon church sends out 50,000 missionaries, you don't want a couple dozen people in a public forum to voice a counter opinion that contains facts and truths that you don't happen to agree with.

Rebecca

another way to say what Henry said:

Any boy can grow up to be President of the Mormon Church (even if he is Black).
No girl can grow up to be president of the Mormon Church.

Hi Andrea

Yes, you are right
second class means not having the same rights, responsibilities, and opportunities.

That is clearly what it means in the "Wide World."
But many mormons don't live in the Wide World.

They are literally speaking a different language than you are.

Clear statement
A Mormon Woman can NOT be president of the Church.
A mormon woman can not be the leader of a local parish.

Disney should make a movie about gay penguins now. I'd actually see that one.

Anonymous,

Is the human population starting to die out?

From the Kinsey Institute, 2005:

"Some animals form long-term "relationships" with other animals of the same sex, though researchers typically reserve the word "relationships" for humans. More common are occasional same-sex pairings and sexual contacts (which is also true of many animals' opposite-sex pairings, too). One example regularly cited is the bonobo chimpanzee, as both males and females engage in same-sex activity.

" Penguins have made news headlines several times in recent years as various zoos have found that they have male penguin couples who have spent years together -- and prompting some media to dub them "gay penguins." In some cases, the zookeepers tried to take these penguin partners and mate them with female penguins, but without success."

Regards.

Anon,

I'm not quite sure what roles you are talking about, and I think that's where I'm getting upset and confused about this topic. It's a little too vague and condescending to just say "different roles." Are you talking about biology, socially, economically...etc? I would really appreciate some clarification from anyone with this point of view.

Second class means not being given the same rights and opportunities as someone else.

Norrie wrote:

"I don't know about elephants and zebras, but I do know that homosexual behavior is quite common in animal species. Do you disagree?"

Yes, but 2 animals of the same sex have sex with each other is a far cry from 2 people of the same sex saying they are in love with each other and want to spend the rest of their lives with each other and have no interest in the opposite sex. That doesn't happen with animals. If it did, animal populations would start dying out.

"women are second-class saints"

Women and men play different roles, just as they have since the beginning.

Norrie:

Thank you so much for your response. I happen to agree with you that in a way, everyone personalizes their faith to fit in one way or another, and makes it their own unique experience. Or rather, that they should. Because if they don't, it can become stale and meaningless.

Henry James:

I only gave detail about some of the people I've spoken with as an example; the homosexual teen, speaking as an authority on homosexual teens in the area of the state where I live (because of the reasons stated above), was quoted just as any poll would be quoted in this forum. As I said, I wasn't aware that all the rest of my research needs to be documented here; simple searches on the internet can find it quite easily.

I never said anyone should TRUST me, and there are plenty of people here without a name; don't be so petty.

Oh, and I am not Mormon. I don't know where you got that idea.

I will offer this piece of advice to all women who are finding it difficult to choose.

Don't do what you think others would want you to do. Do what you want because it makes you happy. Do what you want because in the end, you will not make more of an impact unless you have done something or created something that comes from your heart.

Follow your dreams, and you will be all the better for it. Life is not about conformity. It is about life. Have one. Be who you want to be, do what you want to do. Let no person tell you that you can't have or do what you want.

Oh my dear M Cobabe, sex and gender really have nothing to do one with the other. ;-)

To put it his way, I know males (you know, people with male genitalia) who self-identify as female lesbians and prefer to be called "her". Their significant others are female, who identify as lesbian as well.

Think on that one for a while.

Neal,

Thanks for pointing out that the excommunication issue is overblown, I think that is quite true. I know quite a few LDS women in with unconventional beliefs (including my Relief Society president!) and they aren't being excommunicated. There has never been a witch-hunt for unorthodox beliefs in any Ward I've ever been in. Maybe some dirty looks for expressing "weird" beliefs in a Sunday School class, but that's as far as it goes in my experience. One of the main tenets of the LDS faith is that the holy sprirt can communicate with each person, so whatever the holy spirit tells you is true, IS true. I feel perfectly at liberty to have unconventional interpretations of LDS doctrines and am my membership in the church is not threatened for having them.

I agree with you that how women feel about themselves in the Mormon church is the most important consideration.

Mormon leaders have repeatedly told women to not work. One very defining moment in my life is when Spencer Kimball gave a talk in a women's conference where he said, "women, come home from your typewriters", and went on to say how there was nothing more important than having children and raising them "in the gospel". I was just starting my career then, and those words struck me hard. I felt very much that what was important to me was being nullified. Just as you read here of Mormon women who have chosen to be SAHM feel people try to nullify what is important to them. It works both ways.

The point is, to feel that a career gives you immense satisfaction as a woman in the Mormon church is unacceptable. I can give you example after example after example of Mormon women who I have known who had promising, budding careers, and left them to raise children. I respect their choices, but I have listened to them, to their struggles, to the things they have told me that their husbands and church leaders have said to them. It is like they are GUILTED into leaving something that they enjoy doing.

As I continue my friendships with these women, I see how they are squashed. How the light that once burned in them has dimmed. How all of their hopes and dreams have been turned wholly and completely to obeying the male heirarchy of the Mormon church. And sure, they tell me that they are happy at home, raising their kids, sometimes I believe them and sometimes I don't. Their struggle continues. And sometimes they ask me if I would give them a job, and I tell them, just say "when". And they never say it.

One thing that I know about all these friends of mine. They don't say a peep about their "worldly" desires to their husbands, or bishops, or any other Mormon for that matter. They keep it to themselves because they feel guilty over these feelings. They feel they will not be accepted by the community that they love.

I think it very wonderful to read from here of Mormon women who feel loved by the God they believe in. In my experience that is rare. To type out frantically that Mormonism is wonderful, and all criticism comes from the outside, and that no one can understand unless they live it, is a bit bizare to me. I lived it. A lot of people who are on the "outside" lived it. Every Mormon knows what happens to a person who criticizes from the inside, thus, all criticism has no where to originate but from the outside. So it becomes a bit silly to claim that no one on the inside is complaining, when everyone knows that inside criticism gets moved quickly to the outside. It is rather dishonest, that claim of "no one is complaining".

M Corabe,

I don't know about elephants and zebras, but I do know that homosexual behavior is quite common in animal species. Do you disagree?

Looking In

Let me attempt to be non-ironic for a moment.

Your "research", as you described it, consisted of conversations with friends, a number of whom are in the arts. There is nothing you *could* have footnoted. Your "research" is Un-Foot-Note-able, and therefore many would think it should be "given the Boot."

Are you saying that because a lot of information on the Web in unreliable, we should therefore trust YOU, whom we have never met and who doesn't even have a name? And whose research methods have no description other than talking to a bunch of friends, straight from the Horse's Mouth. The output may be more like that from the Horse's other end, we have no way of knowing.

Are you going to guide us to the reliable information on the net? Can we engage you?

I say, let people read a broad range of studies, do some questioning, discuss with many others, don't take the word of the Mormon General Authorities, whose conclusions run counter to a vast body of respected scientific research, but has the stamp of Revelation to endorse it.

Jihadist:

If you are interested in learning more about us "Mormons", perhaps you might look for any book or article written by Jan Shipps. She is not a member of our church, but longtime investigator into our history. Also there is a new biography written about Joseph Smith "Rough Stone Rolling".

I am wondering if the people who wrote concerning Elephants and Zebras realize that Elephants and Zebras know when they are male or female and they know what to do with their gender. That is why female Elephants and female Zebras have the babies.I just wanted to point out that little bit of info.

Curious,

On rereading your post, I gather I'm much more in tune with the Theravada than the Mahayana point of view, though, as I said, I want nothing to do with Buddhist sectarianism.

Henry James:

I didn't know I needed to footnote all of my sources, or give my research background as some sort of proof of my qualification to comment on this or any other topic. I certainly haven't seen you do that.

Yes, there certainly is a lot of information on the internet for people to look at to base their opinions on. A lot of it is real research. And a lot of it looks real and convincing, but is just someone's opinion. Many people who don't know how to do research don't know how to tell the difference. And many people don't bother to actually ask real people these questions to find the answers out for themselves.

Curious,

Thanks for your post.

First, I'm a "Buddhist sympathizer" rather than a Buddhist because I'm aganostic about all Buddhist beliefs except its ethical ones. I write as if I were a positive believer in what I'm saying because it has more force and impact. If I hedged what wrote with my mental reservations, my writing would be unreadable.

Second, "my Buddhism" is my own idiosyncratic, Westernized version which I've derived from my reading about Buddhism. It's a kind of "Buddhism Without Beliefs" (the title of a very good book). In particular "my Buddhism" attempts to jettison Buddhism's historical, oriental and cultural baggage, and all its rituals and particular versions such as Mahayana.

Many would undoubtedly say that "my Buddhism" is not Buddhism at all. But I think I'm really no different than any sympathizer or adherent of any religion. I believe that every Christian, for example, whether he realizes it or not, really believes in a Christianity that is idiosyncratically all his own, which has been cobbled together from his reading, learning, and other experiences. I think we are all "cafeteria Catholics" or Buddhists or whatever, with our own distinct personal belief systems.

So, keeping in mind my agnosticism as to Buddhism's cosmology:

*** I think Buddhist ethics are wonderful.
*** I like its view that people and animals have the same essential inner nature.
*** I think that Buddhist psychology is very accurate and am amazed that it developed at the stage of human history that it did.
*** As for Buddhism's cosmology, viz., the Bardo, reincarnation, karma, an infinite number of infinitely existing universes, the attaining of enlightenment, and so on, I am agnostic. I do try to act as if some these beliefs are true, because I find them helpful in my life.
*** I don't believe in a god or a godlike Buddha. Based on your statement of Mahayana beliefs, I'm either agnostic or nonbelieving as to them. "My Buddhism" is a westernized, simple, agnostic, appreciative Buddhism.

So that's where I'm at. I realize that many will dismiss this as pretty thin gruel. That's o.k. with me. "Here I stand - I can do no other."

Thanks for asking.

Jay, "even if they use the words for themselves, I never call people "gay" or "straight". I call them "people"."

Gender self-identification is a large part of self identity. What a person calls themselves is important.

If you REALLY want to support a person that has clearly indicated to you they identify as gay try this. Ask them how they identify themselves and what pronoun they use for themselves and provide the same information in return. You can say, "I identify as a straight male and prefer to use 'he'" (if that is in fact what is true about you) Then, use language that says you listened, care, and respect the other person's choices.

Really, it works wonders towards understanding.

A few points:

1.) Too many comments here are mixing political-style equality or rights with religious ones. They do not mix. Comparing the right to vote with women's roles in the Church is disconnected (Utah was the first state, by the way, to allow women to vote).

2.) Outsiders cannot define what is or is not "second-class", or what is allowable in any religion. By nature, the religion itself defines its own context. Those who do not agree with that religion are free not to participate, but they cannot legislate or dictate its practice. LDS prophet Joseph Smith put it rather well;

" We claim the aprivilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

If LDS women do not feel they are "2nd class members" then they are NOT! It doesn't matter how outsiders feel about it, it only matters how THEY feel about it.

3.) The Church policy on homosexuality is not discriminatory. I am a homosexual and an active member. I am not excluded from the Priesthood, the Temple, or any other activity. I teach Sunday School class to the teenagers in our congregation.

The rules of sexual conduct in the Church apply universally to everyone of any gender or orientation. The causes of homosexuality are irrelevant. Behavior is the only concern as far as the Church is concerned. Sexual misconduct by homosexual or heterosexual members is treated the same way. There is a distrubing and constant misrepresentation of this by the media and those unhappy with the Church.

4.) The Priesthood is not a glamorous office with "perks" - it means sacrifice and service. If you really think you're being left out of something, go talk to a Mormon Bishop and ask him about his job. He might just hand it to you! :-)I find it comical that those who know nothing of the effort and personal sacrifice working in the Priesthood requires are offering critcisms on this subject. Nor do they understand how much of the same type of work is being handled by the women in the Relief Society. Most Relief Society Presidents are as busy and called-upon as Bishops.

5.) A separation must be made between doctrine and culture. Women who feel overwhelmed to be the "perfect" woman in the Church feel that way because of cultural, not doctrinal reasons. Those types of pressures exist in any society with strong ideals and standards. As has been pointed out, the Chruch does not teach subservience of women , that women cannot work, that they must have 14 babies, etc. These ideas may surface as misguided cultural pressures, and vary from place to place. Most of the Mormon women in my rather poor rural area have to work to help make ends meet for their families. I haven't heard any Church leader ever say a critical word over this fact.

6.) The whole issue of excommunication is being overblown in this discussion and in "The Mormons" documentary. People, and in particular women, are not excommunicated punitively just because their views may differ from the Church. If they PUBLICLY start TEACHING views contrary to doctrine, then that becomes an option. The Church has a right to make sure doctrine that is taught is consistant. This is not unreasonable, as the result of allowing such activity is chaos. Church discipline is rare and is not "violent", as has been claimed by some. I have been involved in it myself and it was done with love and respect. The desire is always for the person to repent and come back to the fold. I resent the idea being promoted that the Church membership is somehow "threatened" with discipline. This is far from reality and the purpose of Church disciplinary councils.

In general, those who are not LDS can form whatever opinions they want of us, but in the end you have no say over our beliefs or practices, just as we do not dictate your own beliefs or practices. So, if you disagree with us, disagree respectfully. Get the facts straight. Seek a balanced opinion. What we believe and practice is just as valid to us as your beliefs are to you.

Neal

Jihadist,

Thanks for reserving some equal time for LDS to expound our beliefes. TO you and anyone interested in learning just a little a bit more, I this link to about a page and half long article, puts LDS beliefs into a helpful context.

It is written by President James E. Faust, second counselor to whom we revere as the Latter-day Prophet of God, Gordon B. Hinkley.

It is a talk entitled "A Restoration of All Things" and was given in our semi-annual general conference held in May 2006

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=da79e2270ed6c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

For anyone curious about the Book of Mormon. YOu can read it online in it's entirety at http://scriptures.lds.org/

Thanks to those who take the time to learn a bit more about us or at least hold off diffinitive judgements until you do.

I am a Mormon woman. I am divorced, have five children, am attending college and running my own business as a Realtor. I have never felf second-class in my church, even after my divorce. True, I have had moments of "why me" then only to realize; "why not me?" I have a wonderful heritage of strong women to learn from, ie: Eliza Snow, Mary F Smith, Emma Smith, Mary S Eyer, and countless others. It is a shared heritage through the LDS church, and one I am proud to be part of. I was asked the other day if I was upset that I don't hold the priesthood, no, I am not. I have too much to do, I wouldn't be effective in my calling. I trust my bishop and my leaders to give blessings, and guidance when needed. I also know, however, that the guidance I receive for my own family comes from the Lord, through me as an endowed member. I cannot, and don't want to, receive council for the ward, stake, or church as a whole. I don't want to receive it for my neighbor's family either thank-you, just my own as it pertains to me.

Also, just a thought, when Utah became a state, not only did the church stop the practice of poligamy, but the women of the church gave up their right to vote. The women of the church prior to Utah's statehood, had the right to vote and were encouraged to do so by the leaders of the church. They also ran businesses, held property in their own names, and had positions in local governments (those positions were replaced by men after statehood).

Our Relief Society is also the oldest and largest women's organization in the world. We are encouraged to help one another, educate one another and become self-sufficient in our families. We support and sustain each other in happiness and sadness. It is a huge strength and blessing being a woman in this church and having other women to lean on, to cry with, to laugh with and learn from.

Looking In

You say your son's friend is "yet another example of proof straight from the horse's mouth, "

This ws the FIRST example we have heard from you.

Now you tell us lots of your friends are gay, and they tell you the same thing.

Your research methods have risen immeasurably in my estimation.

People who don't know your friends have plenty of research material to look at on the internet, some of it *actually* scientific.

But we are all entitled to our opinions.

Norrie Hoyt wrote:

"Buddhism teaches that animals have an inner Buddha nature just as people do, and are on a path to enlightenment, just as we are."

Since you believe this, you must follow the Mahayana branch of Buddhism, correct? They practice the following:

Mahayana Buddhism deemphasizes the traditional nontheist Theravada ideal of the release from suffering and attainment of Awakening, to instead elevate the Buddha to an eternal, immutable, inconceivable, omnipresent God-like being and to create a pantheon of quasi-divine Bodhisattvas that devote themselves to personal excellence, ultimate knowledge and the salvation of humanity and all other sentient beings (animals, ghosts, etc.). In Mahayana, the Buddha is seen as an idealized man-god, present in all times, in all beings and in all places, and the Bodhisattvas come to represent the universal ideal of altruistic excellence.

Henry James wrote:

"But you base your view of innateness on one conversation your 15 year old had with another gay 15 year old, well-intentioned as both may have been?"

No, I give this as yet another example of proof straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. (his friend is actually 17). I have had my own discussions with my own homosexual friends, and have done my own research. The fact that my son took it upon himself to ask this question, and was given this answer, only solidifies what I have found out. My son and I are both involved in the arts; we have a lot of homosexual friends.

Jozevz,

That's not what the Buddha taught!

Regards.

This post emphasizes what a strength it is to be a woman in the LDS church, and it's a delight to read.

http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3714#more-3714

This is very interesting. Mormon women are being compared to Muslim women. I am not quite sure what that proves, except guilt by association, ad homineim dismissal of their experience.

I know many strong independent Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab with pride. They find the sneers of the western world at her choice blatant ethnocentrism; nothing noble really.

I would not be insulted to be compared to these women.

Mormons have been grouped with the Oriental Other since our inception, as panelist Sulayman Nyang has pointed out.

The Oriental other does not choose their lifestyle independently and is certainly not happy in it, even if they say so. The fact that there are people who seem to choose that life style can only be accounted for in:

1) Character deficiency
2) Intellectual deficiency
3) Agency deprivation

They cannot intelligently, morally, and independently choose it. That would compromise their 'other' status, and thus threaten the identity of the otherizer. Otherizing in the end is not about helping the other, but about affirming the superiority of one's own identity and world view.

That Mormons are still having the ad-homineim Muslim association hurled at them is fascinating. There is indeed nothing new under the sun.

So my dear, strong, intelligent, independent Mormon sisters, do not be too offended that you are being grouped with the a priori de-validated "oriental other", for so caricatured were the Prophets who were before you.

It is sad that you couch a few peoples issues to a whole people. we all struggle we all make mistakes. and to hillary the mountain medow massacer was committed by some mormons who obviously made a very bad choice and will pay for it. It was not committed by all the mormons. Every religion or belief has people who go and commit horrible things that is nothing new. why dont you go look up the thousands and thousands of stories where they have done wonderful things. I think you will find that the majority of mormons are law abiding, great people.

and the whole disscussion about women being 2nd class in the LDS church. You are wrong there is not one thing about the gospel they do not have rights to. the dont hold or use the priesthood but they enjoy all the same rights and priveledges as the men. and a women can go to heaven if she is worthy and unable to marry but a man can not achieve the highest level without a women.

Looking In

At first I thought you were kidding, but I guess you are not.

There is mountains of research on how Gay orientation develops.

But you base your view of innateness on one conversation your 15 year old had with another gay 15 year old, well-intentioned as both may have been?

Does your 15 year old son also do your stock portfolio planning?

Andrea,

It's good to hear from you. I hate seeing dead animals too, particularly cats, with whom I seem to have a particular affinity.

Like practicing Christians in relation to dead humans, I take comfort in the thought that everything will turn out all right for the animals, though by a different mode.

Being recently dead, the cat mindstreams are most probably now in the Bardo-state, and will soon reincarnate. Let's hope they have a good next lifetime.

Best wishes to you.

Norrie,

I thought of you this morning on my drive to work. Much to my dismay, I passed three feline hit-and-run victims. I wanted to cry, but then I thought of what the Holy Norrie says about cats (I forget which verse) "all will attain enlightenment."

Frank W.,

You unjustifably denigrate animals as lesser beings:

'We were either "created" in some sense by God (concieve of God as you will) for a purpose or are mere tool making animals, no different from any other. If we are just animals, there is no right or wrong, the concept of mercy is only the bleating of the sheep against the wolf, strength and survival of one's genes the only criteria. If we are animals, the whole concept of morality is simply an invention. "There's a sucker born every minute", and to take advantage is just the natural way of things.'

Buddhism teaches that animals have an inner Buddha nature just as people do, and are on a path to enlightenment, just as we are.

You, and all the adherents of Abrahamic religions, really ought to take a step back and consider the true nature of sentient beings in animal form.

Best wishes.

Frank W.,

You unjustifably denigrate animals as lesser beings:

'We were either "created" in some sense by God (concieve of God as you will) for a purpose or are mere tool making animals, no different from any other. If we are just animals, there is no right or wrong, the concept of mercy is only the bleating of the sheep against the wolf, strength and survival of one's genes the only criteria. If we are animals, the whole concept of morality is simply an invention. "There's a sucker born every minute", and to take advantage is just the natural way of things.'

Buddhism teaches that animals have an inner Buddha nature just as people do, and are on a path to enlightenment, just as we are.

You, and all the adherents of Abrahamic religions, really ought to take a step back and consider the true nature of sentient beings in animal form.

Best wishes.

I just wanted to comment on those who mentioned Susan's description of the woman must be a "Utah" Mormon.

First of all, I am a convert of the Church since I was 19 (16 years ago). I've been active the whole time and also served a wondeful mission within the United States.

I joined the Church in California but have lived in Utah for 5 years. I've also met members of the church while visiting Nevada, Wyoming, Missouri, Texas, Georgia, and Arizona. They have all been very nice.

I also had this image of Utah Mormons in my mind before I moved here, that they were not friendly.

Now that I've lived among them for 5 years, I would have to say that most Utah Mormons are just like any other member of the church. They are doing their best to live the gospel.

They are no more "staunch" (as someone described it) than any other member qualifying for a temple recommend (living basic commandments like paying tithing, living the Word of Wisdom, living the law of Chastity, and having faith in God and Jesus Christ, etc.).

Most are fantastic people, but some are weird or downright bad (look at any other church -- they have the same, they just don't know about it as much).

The major difference is your Ward boundary may only be a couple of blocks in some communities, and in fast growing areas with new development -- the growth is so quick you can't keep up with meeting everyone. Also, your workplace may have several members. This provides for an "interesting" environment to reside and work but also poses some challenges.

You have some active, some inactive, some friendly and/or outgoing, others not as friendly and/or introverted. Many have a lot of friends and family near by and may not feel the need to develop deeper friendships with others, thus the perception that they are not friendly. All of these illustrations are human nature.

In summation, I've struggled a little to find my place because I don't have family here in a new state when I've felt homesick (I felt this same way when I first moved to California and also wasn't a member of the church yet). I'm finally starting to develop deeper friendships. But despite this struggle, I've never been surrounded by nicer, good people nor been the recipient of more sincere acts of kindness.

So, I think it's important that as members of the Church we stop categorizing "Utah" Mormons and just get to know them and allow them to grow and, when needed, be more tolerant of others. (Some have never lived outside Utah and grew up in a seemingly perfect family. Though, this is a fallacy; there is no such thing.)

Let's all learn to love one another more fully. :)

It is funny to read the above posts and see which posts are negative and attacking vs. witch ones seem to be more Christ like. That in and of itself should prove which frame of mind in the correct way of thinking.

Andrea:

As I said, his friend is very active in local gay youth groups and activities. He goes to rallies and forums, meets with different groups, and knows quite well the stories of many of the youth in this area, as well as research that has been done. Of course, this is research that many of us "outsiders" don't hear about.

Looking In,

You can base the voice of our homosexual youth based on what your son's friend said?

How does this account for those born with a gender identity different than the body they were born in? Or those who realize they are gay after 30+years and after being married and having children? I think your son had the right idea, and it's great that he has a gay friend with whom he can talk openly, but he needs to increase his sample size.

Henry James wrote:

"In my limited view, anyone who justifies such discrimination against gays based on what they believe God said in the bible

is, to quote looking in, uneducated and uninformed. Acting out of ignorance and prejudice. Just my opinion.

Do you know that some people thought I was Gay? I was not, I was asexual. But I would have liked to have been."

Yesterday, my 15 year old son and his friend were talking about a "day of silence for gay rights" that his high school recently had, and they were both wondering why, if "they" say people are born gay, why God would create gay people when He says homosexuality is a sin. So, what does my wonderful son do? He goes and asks one of his gay friends at school about it. And do you know what this friend, who is active in gay youth activities in the area, told him? He told him that they are NOT really born that way; that most of them CHOOSE that lifestyle as a way of acting out after bad family problems, or after being sexually molested, or because it's their way to be different. This is the voice of our homosexual youth. They are choosing who to have sex with, sometimes because they have been deeply psychologically scarred, sometimes because they want to try it out, sometimes because gay people on TV tell them it's cool to be gay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_plates

Yes, the plates materialized...then they de-materialized

SNES
Your comment reminds me of the quote from Casablanca: "I'm shocked! Shocked to find out that there is gambling going on here."

But we need self-righteous purists like yourself to keep the rest of us on the high cultural level that I have defined by my novels and literary criticism.

If Mr Mouw would say something provocative, even intellectually provocative, he would attract more comment.

It is quite controversial to argue for the virtues of civility.

In Mormonism and most authoritarian religions, there is much TOO much civility, as opposed to pointed and "impolite" criticism.

It is sad to see a shallow, uncivil, attack blog generate so much reaction while thoughtful pieces, such as Richard Mouw's blog, go largely ignored.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/richard_mouw/2007/05/a_need_for_convicted_civility.html

The Mormon Categorical Imperitive

*Every* woman in the Church
MUST be under the supervision of a man.

Because of her Category.

Mormons: Do NOT read MY above post.

I don't expect you to listen to me.

I am writing for the Non-Mormons who might be reading here.

Yockel wrote

"Every woman in the church is subject to a man's supervision."

(and by the rules of the Church, MUST be)

but that doesn't make them 2nd Class citizens.

It only makes them subject to the decision making authority of a man

who can, ultimately, excommunicate them.

This is how I write fiction as well.

You have said that you do not want your political leaders to be influenced by religion. I strongly disagree. The world's troubles can be traced to people who were not influenced by the things that all religions teach...mercy, forgiveness, love for each other, treating others as we would be treated, the wrongness of murder, theft, plunder, greed, lying. Most religions teach that we are accountable for our actions to some higher power, that how we fare after this life depends on how honorably we conduct ourselves. A person who feels as if whatever one can "get away with" is okay if it enriches/empowers/indulges themselves is most dangerous to society.
We were either "created" in some sense by God (concieve of God as you will) for a purpose or are mere tool making animals, no different from any other. If we are just animals, there is no right or wrong, the concept of mercy is only the bleating of the sheep against the wolf, strength and survival of one's genes the only criteria. If we are animals, the whole concept of morality is simply an invention. "There's a sucker born every minute", and to take advantage is just the natural way of things.
But there is a God, and we were put here for a purpose, and our conduct will be examined in detail. And we are not safe with leaders who think that they are will not be brought to account for their stewardship.

"Her faith tells her she is obliged to accede to his wishes, but she is suffering from clinical depression and is exhausted as a result of caring for the six children she already has."

Echoing what Lindsaylu has already said, this woman's faith is certainly NOT telling her that, with disregard to her physical wellbeing, mental health and own convictions, she should accede to her husband's wish to have another child. She should not accede to have ONE child under those circumstances, let alone a SEVENTH. Both this poor, exhausted mother (and Susan Jacoby if she is going to write about the subject) should investigate church policy on this subject more carefully. It is absolutely clear that any couple considering having a child MUST keep the well-being of the mother uppermost in their decision-making process. That mother's terrible guilt may be a result of her own upbringing, or societal pressure, or her husband's own selfishness and insensitivity to her needs, but it did not arise from church doctrine or guidelines, this much I know.

Uh oh

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/05/02/polygamist.sued.ap/index.html

Your article is 90% perfect. I like the delivery. The other 10% was ruined because you seem to think that the angel Moroni is the only reason we have the church. 3 years before Moroni came, God, The Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith and answered (in response to Joseph's question of which church to join) that he should join none of the churches that existed. Moroni came later to give further instructions and finally the plates which were translated into the Book of Mormon...

Please, could you explain what the Mountain Meadows Massacre was all about? Why did the Mormons murder all those unarmed men, women and children in cold blood and then try to hide what they'd done? Even Mark Twain was sickened about the Massacre and wrote about it in Roughing It.

Also, as Senator Hatch has said, there are lots of "good" Mormons living in polygamy even today. Anyone who's doing to vote for him is a good person, eh? But as a woman you know that polygamy debases women and children ... could you explain why you didn't visit all around Utah first and ascertain for yourself there really is no polygamy occurring among mainstream Mormons?

Finally, Utah has the highest rate of anti-depressant use in the US, the highest rate of bankruptcies, and over 90% of the Mormon women I know have either been raped when they were kids (by their fathers, or uncles, or older brothers/cousins), by someone else they knew, or by their dates.

I think your article might have been "ethical journalism" if your article wasn't just another Mormon PR piece, but instead reviewed the ENTIRE history and current culture of the Mormon church.

Please, could you explain what the Mountain Meadows Massacre was all about? Why did the Mormons murder all those unarmed men, women and children in cold blood and then try to hide what they'd done? Even Mark Twain was sickened about the Massacre and wrote about it in Roughing It.

Also, as Senator Hatch has said, there are lots of "good" Mormons living in polygamy even today. Anyone who's doing to vote for him is a good person, eh? But as a woman you know that polygamy debases women and children ... could you explain why you didn't visit all around Utah first and ascertain for yourself there really is no polygamy occurring among mainstream Mormons?

Finally, Utah has the highest rate of anti-depressant use in the US, the highest rate of bankruptcies, and over 90% of the Mormon women I know have either been raped when they were kids (by their fathers, or uncles, or older brothers/cousins), by someone else they knew, or by their dates.

I think your article might have been "ethical journalism" if your article wasn't just another Mormon PR piece, but instead reviewed the ENTIRE history and current culture of the Mormon church.

Jihadist,

I feel the same way. My understanding of LDS is what I've seen in the horror stories, and the beautiful success stories, but I gather that the most realistic view is in the middle. Sometimes I wonder if some Mormon women say they made the choice to get married, have kids, and stay at home because then they can feel like they made a choice...when maybe they didn't really have one in the first place. I find it absolutely wonderful that so much focus is placed on the partnership between a wife and her husband, and that so much respect is given to women and wives and mothers...but I can't help but remember the stories of the women for whom it went terribly wrong.

As always, I look forward to what you have to say and I thank you for engaging me in this conversation!

TJ. Henry James.

Did the old testement scriptures mention anything about females holding the office of preist in the ancient jewish temple? Do Catholics have preistesses? For that matter how many evangelitical churches are there that have female pastors? Admittedly there are a few cropping up however that has never been the norm. Has any of the women of these organizations past and present were ever they can be found concluded in their hearts that they are second class citizens? I submit come the 2008 election for everyone that contends that its bad for a church not to have women in their heiarchy or preisthood let them be the first to vote for a women in the presidency while they have the chance to prove themselves impartial. Hillary is waiting for your votes gentlemen. Furthermore let me hear your call to install women in your pulpits regardless of what church you belong to. Let me see a female Pope for example. It is a bit of fokelore that they once did have a women as a pope even if it was a closely gaurded secret that she was indeed a women. Whether that be true or not remains to be seen. It is also something of fokelore that at the very beginning of the church women were a part of the preisthood while Joseph was still alive. What happened after he died and why they no longer have preistesses remains to be questioned. But the 18and 1900's was a time when men pretty much ran the world in every respect so given the times and the seasons its understandable why that posistion amoung women didn't last. Ah! one more thing. Taking into consideration the hiearchy of all the christian churches in america name one black man that sits on its presiding council as the head or president even in terms of business president much less theological. Take your time answering that one, it will take a while. Don't you people see! There is nothing uncommon about the affairs of this or any other church or human organization, there is some good and some bad... or as the apostle Paul put it with respect to humans... what I wish to do in spirit that is the good things is present but the things I do not wish to do are there also and these things i do. We can desire to our hearts content for there to be no discrimination, no sexism, and such the like. Very nice goal. Teach it to your kids one day it will be a reality when the old hide bound fossils of yester year die off and leave their ways to die with them. Leaving the future for the next generation to decide the good the bad and the ugly.

TJ. Henry James.

Did the old testement scriptures mention anything about females holding the office of preist in the ancient jewish temple? Do Catholics have preistesses? For that matter how many evangelitical churches are there that have female pastors? Admittedly there are a few cropping up however that has never been the norm. Has any of the women of these organizations past and present were ever they can be found concluded in their hearts that they are second class citizens? I submit come the 2008 election for everyone that contends that its bad for a church not to have women in their heiarchy or preisthood let them be the first to vote for a women in the presidency while they have the chance to prove themselves impartial. Hillary is waiting for your votes gentlemen. Furthermore let me hear your call to install women in your pulpits regardless of what church you belong to. Let me see a female Pope for example. It is a bit of fokelore that they once did have a women as a pope even if it was a closely gaurded secret that she was indeed a women. Whether that be true or not remains to be seen. It is also something of fokelore that at the very beginning of the church women were a part of the preisthood while Joseph was still alive. What happened after he died and why they no longer have preistesses remains to be questioned. But the 18and 1900's was a time when men pretty much ran the world in every respect so given the times and the seasons its understandable why that posistion amoung women didn't last. Ah! one more thing. Taking into consideration the hiearchy of all the christian churches in america name one black man that sits on its presiding council as the head or president even in terms of business president much less theological. Take your time answering that one, it will take a while. Don't you people see! There is nothing uncommon about the affairs of this or any other church or human organization, there is some good and some bad... or as the apostle Paul put it with respect to humans... what I wish to do in spirit that is the good things is present but the things I do not wish to do are there also and these things i do. We can desire to our hearts content for there to be no discrimination, no sexism, and such the like. Very nice goal. Teach it to your kids one day it will be a reality when the old hide bound fossils of yester year die off and leave their ways to die with them. Leaving the future for the next generation to decide the good the bad and the ugly.

Thanks, Ms. Jacoby for a perceptive piece on women in Mormonism. As a sixth-generation Mormon woman, I have chosen to step away from the Church for precisely the reasons you outline. After forty some years of activity and service to that institution, it is apparent to me that women do not have real autonomy or authority, and are silenced if they express their opinions in a way any male leader finds threatening. There is no venue or tolerance for serious dialogue about these issues.

I am fine with the fact that many Mormon women perceive things differently than I do, and love the roles the church provides for them. I do find it rather tiresome that so many of the LDS women who have posted here generalize from their particular experience. I too am a mother, have graduate degrees and a challenging career; my husband never orders me around and we have a great equal partnership. But that is no thanks to the church. Just because I got lucky in the larger Mormon culture does not mean that there aren't serious systemic theological and philosophical problems therein.

I am glad to acknowledge that the Mormon church provides many sincere women with deep happiness. It would be remarkable to have some of those happy, articulate women posting here acknowledge that for other sincere women, the church is a source of deep pain and a hinderance to a full and happy life.

Adding to my comments, we believe that neither Man nor Women can receive all that Heavenly Fathers has to offer after this life without one another as equals.

Eric Scott wrote: "Freedom of speech is what we distribute to the general unidentifiable masses. We hold a different freedom in reserve for those that have the esteemed privilege to a reserved space in the public square. For these paid public commentators speak it is not the freedom of speech that they exercise, but rather the freedom of the press. This freedom, which gives them far greater latitude in most of there endeavors, is granted at a price. The press is expected to be more balanced, more reasoned, more veracious, and more circumspect. It is for this reason that bloggers are not journalists, and why for that matter neither is most of Fox news, or Rush Limbaugh, or even a large part of national public radio."

Are you sure you're talking about the United States of America and not some other country whose press is essentially a propaganda arm for the government? No. When the Founding Fathers codified specific rights they felt needed mentioning in the Bill of Rights as protected from Federal (and in most cases, State and local) governmental infringement, they did not set aside special rights for a special class of citizens called "journalists". That is a fiction, no matter how old it might be, and no matter how distinguished in degrees or experience the author of it might have been.

Eric Scott wrote: "Why the higher requirement? Because public opinion is normative. He who has constructed the norms of a society have created the lightest consequence laws of the country and over time the continued application of normative process will lead to the codification of norms and the implementation of greater consequence. Just ask the civil rights movers and the prohibitionists."

How certain ideas become normative and eventually become codified into law by legislation has nothing to do with the rights or responsibilities of those exercising their (according to the Founding Fathers) "God or Nature given right" of freedom to express their ideas in durable form which may be distributed and circulated to the masses.

Eric Scott wrote: "It is one thing for some hothead to claim the disenfranchisement of non-Christians, even when there is partial evidence for this. It is entirely another to have those for whom we as a society have reserved a space in the public square to recommend the same be applied to a group no matter how small a minority or how different from the “mainstream.”"

The only difference is in the effectiveness of the orator or individual putting their ideas down in durable form. Your veneration of a special class of citizens called "journalists" is misguided and smacks of the Orwellian notion that "some animals are more equal than others" when it comes to rights. When one excuses the disenfranchisement of the smallest of minorities simply because they are different from the "mainstream", one has already become a tyrannt. From there on, it is only a matter of degree. One individual, one family in Idaho, one odd religious sect in Texas, and eventually, if not stopped, an entire religious ideology, an entire race or class of people, or simply anyone not fitting the official state recognized norm or belong to the official political party of the state.

No special rights for journalists. No special rights for any particular religious group or ideology. No special rights for anyone. Just Liberty. THAT's what the Founding Fathers imperfectly envisioned for our Nation. That's what our forefather fought, bled, and died hoping to secure and protect. Liberty and Justice for all. Not just the majority. Not just the specially privileged.

To Henry James who quoted Angela
"As an ex mormon i am likely to vote for Harry Reid but would never vote for Romney
and that is
because of his politics
not his Mormonism."

As far as I know from reading LDS liturature the Church itself is politically neutral and even when its members are involved in politics the Church itself cannot be looked upon for endorsement. Even with that said I cannot imagine anyone in such a seat of power as the presidency not use his religiouse trained consciousness to guide them when making decisions. Ronald Reagan had his fortune tellers and palm readers at the white house quite a few times. It seems to me that every day people draw on their tenents to make and face difficult and ordinary doings of life why would it be out of character for a president to do so? Maybe Bill Clinton would have faired better if he did rather then let his body do most of the decision making for him. As for Rommney thinking women are second class there is nothing further from the truth. As I have heard it said from a Bishop of the LDS faith who is my next door neighbor say "Adam and Eve stood together side by side to answere before the Lord regarding their transgression, they walked out of the Garden of Eden and tilled the soil side by side, they raised the human family side by side. We veiw our wives as helpmeats not slaves, they stand with us not behind us, we cannot enter into the Kingdom of Glory without them, if we abuse them or subject them in any way that is hurtful we can loose our standing because of it. Man cannot go there without his wife present also, as a companion, partner, and wife." He said this is what all married mormons are taught and its considered a grave error on the mans part to stray from that veiw and think that wrath and dominion in the house are allowable or excusable. It happens all to frequently but its not condoned or taught to be the way they should act with their women. I don't think that Romney can do any worse then any president we have had so far that acted on his conscious religious or not.

Henry James wrote:

Mormonism has a Law that women CAN NOT be
President of the Church.
Leader of their local parish/ward.

Mormons call it : holding the priesthood.

Let's be real: that is Second Class citizenship.

Henry,
I have been a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for 29 years and I can declare that men walk neither in front of nor behind women in this church. In fact, I believe that Motherhood is comparable in power and glory to that of the Priesthood. Men have to hold the Priesthood to enter the temple, women do not! We believe the Temple to be the most holy place on earth. We also have one of the largest women’s organizations in the world in the Relief Society, originally established by Joseph Smith in the 19th century.

Plainly speaking, having been in the church for 29 years and being in several different ward/congregations as I have moved, women have a lot more say than you may think. In fact, I would not be what I am if it were not for my wife. She gives me my strength and I am a much better person and Latter-day Saint because of her. Women in my experience are more spiritual and in touch with the spirit than men, maybe that is why God has given men the priesthood to bring them up to an equal level with women.

To end with, I heard a church leader declare that the "crowning act of the creation of man was the creation of the women." God created the light and the darkness, separated the land and the seas, mountains, streams, forests, animals, and everything else, and then man (see the Bible). Then in due order the crowning part of the creation, being that of a woman.

THERE

IS

NO

GOD

To Randy.

Indeed! Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and many groups of lesser popularity amongst society are by their stand in society faced with recriminations, accusations and fact faulting. I hear it often enough on TV, read it in papers, listen to it at work amongst co-workers. I find it difficult to imagine how one such person can be subjected to all this and not find themselves pondering the worth, and in most cases validness of their endeavor. I think that such a person perhaps questions the tenents more then more comfortable people who are in faiths that are mainstream because they don't have to offer an explanation for their way, they don't get asked why they are what they are. So in not risking a hyporcritical response they must certainly challenge their tenents and make peace with it if they are ever to be comfortable in their own skin. Whether or not however they question it in the privacy of their own studies or publically in a discorse with their clergy or in forum to stand the political challenge that may result from the questioning of such tenents depends on his willingness to take the heat... Is Mormon politics theocracy wise any different then that of the RCC during Martin Luthers time? During the Reformation that ended in blood baths for nearly two centuries? Yes it is. One no one has been burned at the stake for questioning the Mormon church and the Church in turn has not started a blood fued with people that chose to split away from it. Politics is dirty business and even in the Bible Paul dealt with those that would teach or question teachings in rather harsh ways. He through out several for what he called heretical teachings of the sect of Kerinthians. So there you have it. For any human organization there is there exist controls that sometimes act in suppressing ways. Sad but true. In time peoples views will change. As it has with our country, politics change too. Once upon a time, white men were the rule the vote and the makers and shakers, blacks were slaves, women were mere chattels scuffling along behind the menfolk. Today there are no slaves, and women vote, run for office and often times run ahead of their men if they have them at all. Politics good and bad is incremental to the times we live in. If we don't like it, we raise the next generation as we always have to change it by making the kids sensitive to the wrongs of the present so they will grow up and right the wrongs and make a new present, called the future.

Mayan Elephant,

Your recent posts demonstrate a lack of respect which precludes any productive communication between us. So I won't post anything after this.

But, I will give one last explanation. As I said before, for those who are open minded, there is a reason why the general authorities of the Church take care in choosing their words. In the fourth paragraph of Elder Oaks' second response, he makes a vital point. It is something I've thought about long before I ever read these thoughts from Elder Oaks. Personally (and this is different from most people I know, including Church members), even if they use the words for themselves, I never call people "gay" or "straight". I call them "people".

But for you, Mayan Elephant, I wouldn't recommend that you read the document. Anyone looking for faults will find them whether they are there or not. I doubt that you will find any new positive ideas. In the future, please don't twist my words or anyone else's (which you have very much done). I won't explain more of the above thoughts; I really wouldn't need to do so anyway if you were open to the ideas.

My final words: Anyone who wants to attack ideas regardless of their merit will do so. Conversely, anyone who honestly wishes to know the stance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on same-gender attraction can do so by reading it.

Yockel -

You'd better find some better sources to quote other than Margaret Toscano - whose findings and surveys have been discovered as greatly flawed and often one-sided!

Yockel -

Which "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", or "Mormon" Church do you belong to? Or, are you an imposter....posing as a "Mormon man" to others on here to make it seem like you know something when you don't?

I converted to the LDS Church a very long time ago - and NO WHERE in Church doctrine or practice or counsel have the men in the Church been told to be the sole decision makers on budget or "personnel" issues! PERIOD!

And, you are so flat out wrong about "male supervision" over the women in the church! The Relief Society, the nation's largest and oldest women's organization, is PRESIDED and ran by the women in the LDS Church - NOT the men! And, for a man to come to any of the Relief Society meetings, that man can not come without the consent or invitation of the women! PERIOD!

Lastly - it is NOT against LDS Doctrine or practice to be a feminist! I know a lot of women in the Church who have feministic views - and NOTHING is ever done to them! There have even been conferences at BYU where women have expressed femistic views - and, again, nothing was ever done to them! It is when anyone in the Church takes a particular personal view and claims that the Church believes in that same view when they come into conflict! PERIOD!

In the LDS Church - men are told that if they ever treat there wives with harsh word or deed - if men ever believe that they are better than their wives just because they are men or that they have the priesthood - if they ever abuse or neglect their wives to any degree - if they never consider their wives as equals in ALL things....."amen to the priesthood and authority of that man!"

I have witnessed at least three men in the Church who have been excommunicated for treating their wives in the manner that you've described!

You are NOT in a position to speak for the LDS Church, and I do doubt that you are a Latter-day Saint!

Lorin, would you assume that Muslim women who are compelled to wear burkas but claim to like it are not suppressed by their religion?

Sam Wilkinson, not that it matters but Adolf Hitler was actually a deeply religious man who considered himself chosen. And Stalin's biographers agree that his time in religious schools deeply shaped his personality and approach to the world.

You do have a point with regard to anecdotal evidence. I have to say though that it is quite common among Utah Mormons to have babies in spite of considerable health risks to the mother. It is no accident that Utah leads the nation in anti-depressant consumption.

There is survey data that one out of three Mormon women do feel disadvantaged in the LDS Church (see the work of Margaret Toscano). Given that it is taboo to criticize the LDS Church and its leaders, there is reason to believe that there are additional women who did not dare to share their dissatisfaction.

Susan,
You stated earlier that no matter what women of the church think they are still oppressed. I wonder why you get to make that assessment of them? If a woman CHOOSES to belive in the LDS Church, isn't her CHOICE proof of not being oppressed?

You seemed to rely so much on the blogs of women who are complaining of their percieved status but immediatley discount the thoughts of women who find your statements inaccurate and enjoy the happiness that being and LDS woman brings.

Obviously your not as objective as you think you are.

As a Mormon man, I would like to congratulate you, Miss Jacoby, for your perceptive analysis of gender dynamics in Mormonism.

Of course, women are second class citizens. Men hold the priesthood, women do not.

In Mormonism holding the priesthood means that men make the personnel and budget decisions. Every woman that holds a position in the LDS Church is subject to male supervision.

I am sure that there are a lot of women in Mormonism who are satisfied with their status but in light of the authorities' repression of feminism one can never be quite sure if such women speak the truth or are putting on an act.

The fact that feminism continues to be a cause for excommunication is a verifiable fact. Assertions of female liberty in the LDS Church, I am afraid, cannot be taken seriously in light of the LDS leadership's treatment of women advocates.

Johnny

I am afraid that you have once again betrayed a lack of insight. Freedom of speech is what we distribute to the general unidentifiable masses. We hold a different freedom in reserve for those that have the esteemed privilege to a reserved space in the public square. For these paid public commentators speak it is not the freedom of speech that they exercise, but rather the freedom of the press. This freedom, which gives them far greater latitude in most of there endeavors, is granted at a price. The press is expected to be more balanced, more reasoned, more veracious, and more circumspect. It is for this reason that bloggers are not journalists, and why for that matter neither is most of Fox news, or Rush Limbaugh, or even a large part of national public radio.

Why the higher requirement? Because public opinion is normative. He who has constructed the norms of a society have created the lightest consequence laws of the country and over time the continued application of normative process will lead to the codification of norms and the implementation of greater consequence. Just ask the civil rights movers and the prohibitionists.

It is one thing for some hothead to claim the disenfranchisement of non-Christians, even when there is partial evidence for this. It is entirely another to have the those for whom we as a society have reserved a space in the public square to recommend the same be applied to a group no matter how small a minority or how different from the “mainstream.”

Eric

Phaedrus,

The formulation is simple enough. In some ways so simple as to be invisible due to common assumption. It rests on but a few common principles.

First, democracy presumes choice. even the most weak of democracies, the single party democracies, presuppose that the populace has a choice. It is for this reason that tyrants hold elections where they are the only person on the ballot. If a majority affirm him then he was democratically elected. Seems nonsensical in a stronger (notice I said stronger and not strong) democracy such as ours. That said for there to be a democracy there must be at least a yes/no choice for the populace.

Second, "secular" is a religious descriptor. It describes the religiosity of the noun that it modifies. There for in conjunction with Sectarian democracies, Catholic democracies, Islamic democracies, and so on the concept of a secular democracy depends on there existing religion in the society.

Thirdly, the particular concept of secular is one in which the presence of religion is not determinative of identity and conscriptive of choice. This is in contrast to sectarian which describes a noun in which religion is the determinant factor both in identity and conscription of choice.

Finally, there is the cross-pollination of the two concepts. Where the phrase Catholic democracy clearly expresses that the populace of this society has many choices as touches governance religion is not one of them; in a secular democracy the final concept is that of a society where not only does the society have many choices, those choices extend to religious spheres as well and that while the choice of religion informs it does not dictate. This stands in contrast to the concept of democracy without a modifier which is silent on religion, and in contrast to asecular democracy which is democracy without sects, or religions.

Therefore, for there to be secularism there must be religions/world views that relate to the variety of sects from which one may choose. Therefore no religion, no pie filling.

Atheism and Antheism are just the latest sects to make claim to, and at times to demand, the dominant position in the cultural structure of faith communities. They join a long string of oppressed religionists who have come into their own while trying their hand at the oppressors role.

Eric

Jay,

I am not even going to bother looking at that POS again. You can pull out the highlights as you see fit, but I am losing patience for it.

off the top of my head, here is some of the counsel that oaks has for other humans. others can decide if it dimishes the status of those humans in any way.

-homosexual urges are like the urge to steal.
-parents should avoid being in public with homosexual children
-parents should not let their homosexual children stay in their home

the rest is just stuff that, after having completed the passing through the digestive track of a muture horse, somehow escaped from oaks' mouth.

oh, he says its good to love the homosexual but hate the sin. But, there is one key thing, he never says homosexual and he rarely includes women or lesbians in the conversation. Imagine three guys talking that long without saying those words.

Trudell:

anybody that would think believe any of the following stereotypes or think there is any truth to these comments, has been thoroughly conditioned to think and behave as a second class citizen. all the following are damaging to men, women, children and the community:

-LDS men have the priesthood because most men naturally are not as spiritual as most women and need a little encouragement.

-They aren't as service-oriented either so this gives them that opportunity.

-Women are very service oriented.

-They are made to bear and rear children and do all those things,

-some men need a little encouragement so they are given the priesthood.

-Men are better leaders as proven in almost every country where they lead.

Absolutely nothing could have been authored by ms Jacoby, Otterson, the Brother of Jared or the entire Whitmer Family to further prove what Jacoby was saying in her initial post. Unless there is a complete and total uprising among the masses to condemn comments like the above, as well as a change from the top brass to condemn the same comments, there will continue to be suspicion regarding the Mormon religion. Get used to it.

I stand all amazed...

This is perhaps the most intelligent and well thought out post on this whole page.

"Skylar:

During my 30-year membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have come to know that I was created that I might have JOY. My greatest joy comes from knowing that I am a daughter of Heavenly Father who loves me as an individual and a woman. I believe that God is not a respecter of persons. He does not value my husband, my father, my sons, or my brother more than He values me. My capacity to learn and serve as well as my capicity to love and lead come from God. As my creator, He understands me. I seek direction from Him as I develop my womanhood. I can live without doubt or guilt as I enjoy guidance from my Father in Heaven. As a human striving in the unrefined atmosphere of Earth, I do stumble. Studying God's will for me as expressed in scripture, prophetic teaching, and personal revelation becomes the balm for grazed spiritual knees. For me, the gospel soil has been rich and supported growth and fruitful development."

Thanks for posting that breath of fresh air Skylar.

As a Mormon wife and mother I enjoy the same freedoms as any other wife and mother, the same sorrows and joys, etc. We all (who worship God) worship our God just in different ways. LDS men have the priesthood because most men naturally are not as spiritual as most women and need a little encouragement. They aren't as service-oriented either so this gives them that opportunity. Women are very service oriented. They are made to bear and rear children and do all those things, some men need a little encouragement so they are given the priesthood. Men are better leaders as proven in almost every country where they lead.

...and frankly Andrea, I am a bit confused as I don't know much about the tenets of LDS. Must really find a good book to read up on the LDS written by Mormons.

Other people's beliefs and practices always seem "strange" or "bizarre" (both words used by some other On Faith panelists to describe Mormonism) because we don't know of or understand the beliefs and religious practices.

To StevenL. Go to Mexico and Central and South America. Ancient ruins with baptismal fonts. Thousands of ruins. Also, tools, artwork, pottery, etc. matches the same items from Jerusalem and that area. Same time period. Study it and you will find as I have that this is the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. I have and know it to be true, the Holy Ghost reveals truth and did to me and still does. I knew the Book of Mormon was true before I ever set eyes on it. As the missionaries taught me the plan of salvation, I understood that it was the truth. Joseph Smith is the Prophet of this dispensation, just as Adam was in his and Moses in his. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I could go on and on but you get the point. I have a testimony of this great work and if you come to our church you can too. Have a nice day.

Save the persecution complex, please.

Try living as a non-Mormon, or an ex-Mormon in Utah and then we'll talk about subtle and not-so-subtle descrimination.

As for investigating faith: Everyone's spiritual path is different and to apply a broad stroke in any direction is nothing but rhetorical nonsense.

...and Andrea, it was on topic - Mormon women to say what they think and and to share their personal experiences re assertions that they are discriminated against by and in their church.

Muslim women do say what the Mormon ladies are saying in this thread here, for or against, re issues and allegations of discrimination and sexism within our respective faiths.

It was asserted earlier in these posts that "Very, very few Mormons will ever sincerely question their religious beliefs the way they expect their potential converts to do with their own religion."

I would assert that virtually ALL Mormons, those early pioneers who were forced from their homes, those who died crossing the plains, those who today hear the subtle discrimination at the water cooler at work, have questioned their beliefs in exactly the same way someone investigating the Church would need to if they were to become converted. When an organization is subjected to as much persecution, ridicule and criticism as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is, those members are put in the position of questioning every tenet of their faith many times over on all levels.

Implying that long standing members of the Church have never questioned or studied their faith in depth is simply more blog spew theory that "if I state it, it will become fact."

Mormonism is not "pretty much like the rest of religions". Never will be. Study it by attending and you will find out. Go to LDS.org, put in your zip code or town, any where in the world, and you will see where to attend, what time to be there and who is the Bishop. Yes it is that organized.
As far as Romney, Look at his record, When running against Kennedy for Senate he supported what the people wanted concerning a womans right to choose. kennedy knew romney felt differently on this issue and pressed the issue in a debate. Romney said he would leave it the way the people wanted it. He appears to be the only candidate who believes the people should choose and has said let the states decide on this issue not the Federal Govt. He knows the Govt. is by the people and for the people.

Henry James:

I haven't given out a "testimony" in decades. That cracked me up.

What I observe, is that a lot of Believers have split their personal views from the institutional reality.

Sexism, racism, heterosexism...all -isms, have three layers. From the bottom up they are cultural, institutional and personal. Institutionally speaking, the Mormon church is sexist, heterosexist and WAS once racist (as the other two layers changed, so did the institution).

The Mormon institution is sexist, there is no way to deny it. Many a non-Believer recognizes the institutional sexism and broadly applies it to the personal aspects of a Mormon experience. At the personal level, experience and views towards gender equality varies. And often with religions of all sorts, the personal benefits, both perceived and real, outweigh what is going on at the institutional level.

With Mormonism, this is encouraged. Oaks stated that Mormon religious authority should not be criticized, even if the criticism is true. To me, he is saying, ignore what you don't like about the institution and work it out at a personal level and keep your criticisms to yourself.

When an outsider, or non-Believer applies the observed institutional sexism to a Believer's personal experience, the Believer cries, "You are not a Believer. You don't know what you are talking about." Which, is fundamentally true. No one can know another's personal experience.

That's how I see it. :-)

I am a Mormon woman who was raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I grew up knowing that I could choose to do ANYTHING with my own life. The choice I made? I chose to get married to an excellent man and have children. I have chosen to remain at home with those children because it is important to me that they be given every chance to develop themselves, that they might also be enabled to choose what they want for their lives. I am one of the few women that I encounter in much of society who has a college degree, and I certainly plan to continue my education up the academic ladder, as it works with my life. My own priority is my family. I suppose that may not be entirely unusual among women. But the fact that my husband's priority is also our family, and that he will support me in any decision that I make, certainly is extraordinary. Responsible men are few and far between in this world, and I don't believe that Mormon men who are willing to accept their god-given roles should be demeaned as men who abuse their wives physically or emotionally, any more than Mormon women who have CHOSEN their own lifestyles should be demeaned as I very frequently am for choosing to put my family and the future first.

As for the issue of women in the LDS church holding the priesthood? The organization of the Church, including the possession of the priesthood, is based upon service. I certainly have as much opportunity to serve in my own congregation (perhaps more) as my husband. There are no men who come home praying to be asked to become bishop -- it is a difficult, time consuming, and overwhelming job. And it truly is a job -- to which those men are donating their time, and absolutely not being paid. Women who want to hold the priesthood in order to hold these offices are looking for status, not the opportunity to serve. They would make terrible bishops. Again, I reiterate: women have as much opportunity to serve as do men, simply in different capacities.

Yes, we believe that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ, and that he translated the Book of Mormon from golden plates given to him by an angel. We also believe that God made men and women inherently different, and yet equal. If you doubt that you should possibly refer to you high school anatomy classes -- men and women are certainly different.

I am not usually interested in commenting on these blogs. I enjoy reading what the authors have to say but find the back and forth bickering in comments a waste of time. But I do want to comment on this blog, which I enjoyed reading. I consider myself an independent and thinking woman and I am also a mormon woman. I don't feel the terms contradict. I love being a woman! I feel very comfortable with my role and the teachings of my church. I have never felt like a second class citizen. My heart does go out to women who are feeling pressured, particularly to have a 7th child, but I feel that is an issue of the husband's interpretation of the teachings of the church. Families are a major focus of the LDS church and thankfully so. I work in the foster care field and see so much strife that comes with the breakdown of the family. However, the size of the family is up to the parents. I have one child. I have many friends with 2 or 3 children. None of us feel pressured to have more.

I am appalled by Susan Jacoby's comments on women being second-class citizens in the Mormon church. I am an active member of the Mormon church, a wife and a mother of three children. I have a bachelor's degree and a master's degree from Johns Hopkins. I worked for the federal government and for a high-tech company before choosing to stay at home with my children. When they are all in school, I fully intend to go back to work. My husband and I are equals in all ways. He has never told me what to do and has never behaved as if he were superior.

It irritates me to no end that someone like Susan Jacoby, who isn't a member of the Mormon Church, can read a few Internet postings from unfortunate and unhappy women and decide that the Church treats women as second-class citizens. She knows nothing of the matter. If she were to go into any Mormon church on Sunday and ask the women how they felt, she would find that very few consider themselves second-class citizens.

We Mormon women are not stupid dolls who do whatever our husbands say. We can and do stand up for ourselves. For the most part, we feel respected and honored.

Ms. Jacoby, please don't feel as if you need to speak for us Mormon women. We have a brain and we can speak for ourselves. Just because we go to church and believe in God doesn't make us idiots.

Thank you Rebecca for your "testimony."

it is not surprising that Mormon women who are still in the Church are not bothered by their role. If they were, they would do like Rebecca and my sister did, and leave.

It is FAR from surprising that Mormon MEN think their leadership role is fully justified, and that furthermore they place their women underneath a Pedestal (oops, I mean ON a pedestal).

I have no hope of convincing believers to change their mind on this.

For us Non Believers who understand rights and power and equality,

it is clear that the ability to hold the true leadership positions in the Church is restricted to Men. (Relief Society presidents report to the bishop, not vice versa).

A woman can not be President or an Apostle, and a woman can not be in charge of a local parish (a Bishop|).

All of us in the Non Mormon world know what that means.

I am not usually interested in commenting on these blogs. I enjoy reading what the authors have to say but find the back and forth bickering in comments a waste of time. But I do want to comment on this blog, which I enjoyed reading. I consider myself an independent and thinking woman and I am also a mormon woman. I don't feel the terms contradict. I feel very comfortable with my role and the teachings of my church. My heart does go out to women who are feeling pressured, particularly to have a 7th child! I believe there are situations where a man's interpretation of the religion is off base and I feel sorry for the women married to such men, but that issue is with the person, not the church or its teachings.

I'm mildly surprised that Ms. Jacoby thinks the PBS documentary is "reverential." I found it thoughtful, crafted to allow the viewers to draw their own conclusions. (And they did! If you look at the variety of responses published so far at www.pbs.org, they range from, "What a whitewashed presentation of this evil church!" to "What a biased anti-Mormon piece of garbage!")

The 2nd-class citizen business is in the eye of the beholder. As someone who left the LDS church decades ago, I've more or less come to the conclusion that all traditional religions treat women as 2nd class; most societies have done so historically, so why does this surprise us? As I read the protests of the Mormon women in the comments above, I was reminded of hearing almost exactly the same words from Orthodox Jewish women, traditional Muslim women, and evangelical Christians. The fact is, when it works, it works, and there are a lot of happy, loving families Mormon families with strong women (I put most of my relatives in that category). When it doesn't work... when an intellectual Mormon is told that his inquiring nature is liable to lead him astray, when gay or lesbians are told their nature is just wrong, when a single or childless woman is told she has not lived to her greatest potential... it's suffocating. I love and respect my Mormon relatives and I can be wistful about the sense of community and family ties that they have, partly as a result of adherence to religious beliefs. But I can no more adopt those beliefs than I can turn into an elephant.

Has there been any attempt by the Mormons to set up a theocracy out there in Utah? Is the church interfering constantly in the affairs of the state in Salt Lake City? I don't think so. Did Mitt try to make everyone a Mormon when he was governor up there in MA? For crying out loud MA is probably the most liberal state in the union and this guy was their governor. Yet Susan says he is a card carrying member of the vast religious right. Riddle me this: how did a member of the vast right wing get to be Governor in Ted Kennedy's and John Kerry's home state? As for me, I am not concerned about Mitt interfering with our cherished separation of church and state because I figure that the great liberal state of MA has already vetted him as most likely a liberal. Forget all the talk about being conservative this guy was governor of MA and I think at the time they became the only state in the union to legalize gay marriage. Mormon women seem to be strong women from the posts that I have read above. I think it is worth considering the man as head of the house and this may need further discussion ... but, alas, this will have to wait for some other time as my wife is looking over my shoulder right now and I have to go or I may not have a computer much longer.

Ms. Jacoby,

I found your illogical arguments, lack of research on the issues, and offhand remarks towards the president of the LDS Church disrespectful. It is obvious from these flaws in your piece that your motives are not to debate the issues in an honest, thoughtful, and respectful way, but rather to advance your own partisan views by casting the LDS and other “far-right” faiths in an unfavorable light.

First, you imply that your one example of a guilt-stricken woman who is feeling coerced into having her seventh child and who feels like a “second-class” citizen is representative of all LDS women. (Numerous responses to your article indicate otherwise.) You also reference “many Internet blogs” (a questionable source for which you give no citations) to confirm this assertion. If we are to judge an institution—religious or secular—by its members that struggle most to live its precepts and respect the “certain unalienable rights” of others, then we will find no organization on Earth worthy of our membership or adherence. Catholicism, Islam, Protestantism, as well as the Republican and Democratic parties can all be thrown out the window for their non-mainstream principles, for all have their extremist members: hundreds of sexually abusive Catholic priests, Saddam Hussein, Fred Phelps, Ann Coulter, and Michael Moore, to name a few. By this measure of judgment, the persuasions to which your writing seems to subscribe—agnosticism and atheism—might be the worst offender, for its membership roles include Madalyn Murray O’Hair, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler.

Secondly, your lack of homework on the issues is apparent. You cite that the two reasons members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were heavily persecuted was because of their belief in polygamy and because of “the annoying fact that everywhere they settled, they proved to be better farmers and businessmen than the locals.” Joseph Smith encountered insensible violence the moment that he declared he had received a vision from God in 1820, well before either of these two factors came into play. The real reason that mobs attacked and ostracized faithful LDS members was because they were close-minded and unwilling to learn the truth about what they initially did not understand. They relied on hearsay and slander to taint Joseph Smith as a gold-digging, sex-crazed heretic who only advanced his own interests. Even a superficial study of history reveals that this was clearly not the case. Despite his efforts to improve the economic status of his people, Smith never owned a home for his own family, though he could easily have requested that one of the wealthier members of the Church donate one for his use.

Finally, your glib remark about President Hinckley’s advanced age was particularly unprofessional. President Hinckley, who has contributed to the top leadership of the LDS Church for over fifty years, is held in high esteem by millions of Americans, both LDS and otherwise, not only because of his contributions to his faith, but also because of his guidance in directing the LDS Church to provide humanitarian aid all over the world (Katrina, Rita, the tsunami in Indonesia, and more recent disasters as well, see http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/accelwork/humanintereststory/1,7989,599-1-9-1976,00.html and http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/accelwork/humanintereststory/0,7989,761-1-3-2468,00.html for more details). Most view the combination of his age and his extraordinary activeness as remarkable evidence of his competence. Only time, which sanctifies everything, will reveal how capable you, I, or anyone else for that matter, will be at his age.

I agree with Ms. Jacoby in her assertion that Mormonism is no more or less rational than any other religion. Some people believe the only things that exist in the universe are those that we can see and feel or detect with the instruments we've been able to invent, and others have faith of some kind or another. Of course, Ms. Jacoby's point is that secularism should prevail, which I don't agree with, but neverthless she's sparked a good conversation.

Regarding the "second-class citizen" issue, which seems to be the topic of most bloggers, I think it's true that women have diminished status relative to men in some aspects of the Mormon church, but Ms. Jacoby is hyperbolic in her characterization of that status. This provokes Mormon apologists to take a stand in the opposite direction, claiming that there is no gender inequality whatsoever in the church. The truth is somewhere inbetween. I come from a family with roots in Mormonism that are wide and deep, and in my experience abusive marriages like the one she cites where the woman is forced into pregnancies are very rare. Most Mormon men are nice people, and most Mormon women are not doormats.

I know reasonable people will disagree, but I don't think men holding priesthood authority necessitates diminished status for women. I think people associate priesthood with power and status, and that this has created diminished status for women, but this comes from minsunderstanding what priesthood is about in Mormon theology (there isn't space to explain what a correct understanding is here). The leaders of the Mormon church could help create a culture where women's status is elevated without ordaining women, for instance, more women could speak in General Conference (the semi-annual service where the prophet speaks), more women could be hired as professional Seminary teachers for Utah high school students, and Deseret Book (the publisher for most books written by church authorities) could publish more serious books by women, to name a few things.

Women's place in the Mormon church is more complex that what Ms. Jacoby has described, it is neither horribly oppressed nor one of total parity with men.

Eric Scott wrote: "Johnny's post (Posted May 2, 2007 2:32 PM), along with others, has considered the question of freedom of religion, and stated that freedom of religion is a matter of freedom from religion. Unfortunatly Johnny is severly malinformed."

Actually, no. I'm not. I'm am aware of the history of these United States and the fact that when this nation was formed under the Constitution (after the Confederation of States failed), that there were States that still had official State religions. I am also aware that many of the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson in particular, worked to get those states to give up their state sponsored religions in the name liberty, considering it a tyranny for individuals to be compelled to part with their money to support a religious institution, especially one they may not agree with.

Eric Scott wrote: "I would posit that this one is so often forgotten because untill recent times it has rarely been threatened. However, when a person's religious beliefs disenfranchise that person, whether it be a Muslum in Turkey or a Mormon in the United States then is that freedom not only threatened it is destroyed."

This is exactly the point I was making. What is all too common in the rhetoric of the Religious Right is the disenfranchisement of non-Christians, and in some cases, "those who aren't 'true Christians'". Freedom FROM religion is no more or less important than Freedom OF (to) religion; yet there are those who would like to see Christianity established as the official state religion of the United States of America at the expense of those who are not Christian.

Eric Scott wrote: "When paid public comentators with the power to shape the opinions of thousands can with impunity dismiss, disqualify, or denigrate any individual because they choose to believe, then they cease to be intellectuals and libertarians and become the very oppressive dictators that they fear the religionist in question will become if given power."

Nonsense. Freedom of speech exercised in such a way is not oppression, nor the tyranny of a dictator, no matter how unpopular it might be, or how offense to some it may seem. It is only when such rhetoric is given the force of law and violence that it becomes oppressive.

Eric Scott wrote: "A secular democracy can not exist without religion, and religions, any more than a pie can exist without a filling."

Actually, it can; although I don't believe such a democracy would be particularly vibrant or diverse. I do not argue for the abolition of religion as it seems you might believe I have. Rather, I am arguing for a perpetuation of the separation of religion from the laws of our Nation, States, Municipalities, etc. Individuals and groups ought to be able to practice their religion without fear of molestation from others; but expectation that religious beliefs ought to be protected from public commentary or even vitriolic detraction violates the rights of others freedom of speech and expression.

My only problem with Mormonism is their belief in God. Other than that, I think they're perfecting respectable, misogynist homophobes (not to mention the American religion with the worst history of racism). ;-)

Seriously, I do feel sympathy for all the gay teens in Utah that commit suicide because they are shunned from their communities. Utah also has the highest rate of teen pregnancy. But being America, we all have the right to abuse our children with religion. God Bless Us All!!

Why are people so upset about Mormons? Yes, the origin of the religion is bizarre. Is there anything less bizarre about any other religion? Are there degrees of irrationality and belief? I'm sure Mormons have just as kooky (not less and not more) a worldview as any other religion. The dichotomy is irrational vs. rational, not one religion compared to another. All religious people (including my parents) are unable to justify their worldview in any logical system. They are all irrational, so why put down one vs another?

I am a former Mormon, not "anti". I still have many family and friends, who I love, that are in the Mormon church.

The role of women in the Mormon church is submissive to the role of men. Period.

The Relief Society is often brought up as an example of women autonomy in the Mormon church. It is a half truth. Each group of women is lead by women, this is very true. I in no way want to disparage the job they do. My mother was a Relief Society president when I was a teen and she worked her tail off. It was not an easy job. However, the female Relief Society leaders report to, are guided by, instructed, and when it comes right down to it, controlled by the all male leadership. The Relief Society is, in the official Mormon church heirarchy, an auxilary of the male priesthood organization. It is not an autonomous organization.

As for motherhood. Really, why would anyone think that people are putting down the role of mother? My mother was certainly the most important person in my life as a child. And I am that for my daughter. My choice to work full time in no way hinders that relationship. And to me, the idea that it would is ludicrous. It is about love. I strongly believe that a child who is loved, accepted, and given every opportunity to grow will most likely go on to live a healthy adult life. I have never equated that in any way to any sort of lifestyle.

What I saw as a Mormon, was a role being forced onto me that was based on a false premise. As a teen, the idea that my ability to have a child was equal to the male authority that was held over me at every moment was just not palpable to me. I never observed a woman lead a Sacrament Meeting (Sunday service) based on how many children she had born. I never saw a woman leader exclaim to me that I should listen to HER in all things because she happened to have had given birth to many children. I never saw a woman involved in any decision making process that had any consequence to the Church as a whole. Ever.

What I did see, is that any woman who dared to point these things out, she was kicked out. As a teen that had a powerful effect on my thinking. It is what caused me to start questioning everything. And as an adult, I call BS to anyone who tells me that there is gender equality in the Mormon church.

Alex,

The book of morman teaches that man is a god. This is the same lie Satan told Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. It also teaches that God was once a man that became God. It teaches that the souls of humans are eternal. This means that human souls are self existent. These are all false teachings that are not taught in the Bible. The book of Morman is doctrine of demons and not the word of the living true God who is not an exalted man.

Jihadist,

Thank you for that post! I know of an Islamic woman who works at a local mall. She wears the head scarf and all black, she has the most amazing eye makeup you'll ever see! Absolutely gorgeous. Anyway, I couldn't agree with you more on this statement:

"And yes, sometimes, women do seem to be their own worst enemies when it comes to their rights..."

I just finished reading Ariel Levy's book "Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture." It has nothing to do with this discussion, but it is all about how women constantly objectify themselves and claim it's progress...I thought of it when I read your post.

The discussion can get back on topic now!

You are absolutely right that women in the LDS church are NOT equals. Mormon men can be simultaneously Temple sealed to more than one woman in this lifetime - to enjoy in the next life as plural wives - whereas women can only be sealed to one man ever. Doesn't sound equal to me.

Joseph Smith, L.Ron Hubbard, David Koresh, The Reverend Moon, Jim Jones. Every bit of it, insults my intelligence.

Jay:

I won't go into too much detail here, but we do, already, have a "proper" enough understanding of homosexuality that we can say two things: 1. It is a naturally occurring phenomenon that is almost invariably not subject to any aspect of choice as to gender attraction, and 2. There is no "treatment" that has been shown to have efficacy in altering gender attraction over time. In fact, as far back as 1998 the American Psychiatric Association opined that these "treatments" were not only ineffective, they were also injurious to the "patient" in many cases. This has apparently been the case at BYU as well.

It is understandable why religious opposition to gay rights focuses on a supposed "lack of proper understanding" and the promise of effective "treatments." If gays do not "choose" to be gay, and if they cannot also be "assisted" in becoming heterosexuals, then it is more difficult to justify discriminating against them.

I am a devout Mormon in good standing with a Barack Obama for President bumper sticker on my car. I will not vote for my fellow devout Mormon in good standing, Mitt Romney, because I am a Democrat who disagrees with his politics. It is silly to think that a devout Mormon cannot serve our country as President, and I look forward to voting for one when I can agree with his politics.

Maurie Beck:

The theocratic aspects of Mormonism did make it suspect, no doubt. But that was not a constant in Mormon history. We were persecuted from day one, before Joseph Smith was Mayor of Nauvoo.

Terryl Givens argues that Mormons were actually the most persecuted sect in the 19th century. The only church that had an official extermination order leveled against it.

Many churches gathered, had deviant family practices and had mini-theocracies i.e. Oneidas and Shakers. The early 19th century was the time of heresy. Why were Mormons persecuted? Given's conclusion in the book "Viper on the Hearth" is that religion did play a large part in Mormon persecution. What so ruffled religious sensibilities were how our theology and practice reduced sacred distance, and reflected peoples own absurdities back at them.

In other words, there wasn't enough "time" to "sanctify" this convincing imitation of Biblical peoples. That was the constant irritant in Mormon history.

This comes up time and time again in the grievances of the persecutors: Smith and his angels! Smith and his visions! Smith and his miracles! Smith is adding to the Bible!! Blasphemy!!

Mayan Elephant,

I'm taking more than my share of space here, so I'll be brief. It's clear that the conversation is designed to address specific issues; it's a conversation between Church authorities and members of the Church's Public Affairs staff. That much is clear in the second paragraph. It's designed to answer specific questions that many have asked. The Church has placed the article in public view in a portion of the official site designated as a resource for everyone.

And a valuable resource it is. I suppose I'm mildly surprised and disappointed that you find something in it offensive, but only mildly. We can take offense at just about anything. Many people found the Son of God and his words and actions offensive.

Concerning Elder Oaks' words and my credibility, see my above post.

Personally, I hope that more people come to a proper understanding of homosexuality so as to be of help to people who experience same-gender attraction. Reading the words of these men in the article will help people to learn.

Eric:
What an interesting thesis:

"A secular democracy can not exist without religion, and religions, any more than a pie can exist without a filling."

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

BILL,

Very well said.

Johnny's post (Posted May 2, 2007 2:32 PM), along with others, has considered the question of freedom of religion, and stated that freedom of religion is a matter of freedom from religion. Unfortunatly Johnny is severly malinformed. As an old civil libertarian and law professor taught us back in grad school, Freedom of religion is not a single freedom, but rather a complex of freedoms.

Many remember the "freedom from religion" that is the basis for so many civil liberties suits thoughout recent times. Some even remember the Freddom amoung religions that was likely the motivation for representatives from states that all, but one, had offical state religions to write this freedom into the Bill of Rights. However, almost no one remembers the Freedom to Religion.

I would posit that this one is so often forgotten because untill recent times it has rarely been threatened. However, when a person's religious beliefs disenfranchise that person, whether it be a Muslum in Turkey or a Mormon in the United States then is that freedom not only threatened it is destroyed.

When paid public comentators with the power to shape the opinionsof thousands can with impunity dismiss, disqualify, or denigrate any individual because they choose to believe, then they cease to be intellectuals and libertarians and become the very oppressive dictators that they fear the religionist in question will become if given power. A secular democracy can not exist without religion, and religions, any more than a pie can exist without a filling.

Jay,

Looks like you should think twice before inviting people to read LDS propoganda before commenting. Some of em might know more than you do.

Jay,

The article you referenced is a staged conversation with Mike Otterson (On Faith Contributor) and Dallin Oaks and Wickman. Oaks and Wickman are lawyers. Within days of publishing that converstaion, Oaks admitted to the Salt Lake Tribune that the comments were neither qualified nor inspired. They were just his ideas, nothing more.

The conversation is offensive to the nth degree. It is controversial, but, the greater point of the conversation is that the author/subject, Oaks, considers it an offense to criticise him for having done it, even if the criticism is true. So, as an active mormom, Oaks has basically removed your credibility as well, as you really cannot read it objectively and comment objectively, according to your declared faith.

Mayan Elephant,

It is entirely possible to reason intelligently without criticizing anyone.

No dilemna there.

Susan Jacoby - There were two main reasons why Mormons were singled out for persecution in the last
century--their practice of polygamy and the annoying fact that everywhere they settled, they proved to be better farmers and businessmen than the locals and were perceived as unfair economic competitors.

I disagree with you about their persecution. Much of their persecution was self-inflicted and like many religious groups that live within a persecution narrative, they justified their sometimes excessive behavior as a reaction to their perceived suffering at the hands of a vicious world (e.g. Mountain Meadow Massacre). In a sense, it was a self-fulfilling prophesy.

When they decamped to new locations after being run out of town, they formed very tight-knit communities that voted as blocks. In addition, their economies were Mormon-centered and many non-Mormons were afraid the Mormons were trying to create a theocracy (which they were and which they finally did in the Utah territory). Secondly, they were not all great businessmen. In fact, the Mormons not only had their first schism in Missouri, but many were run out town because of a bank scandal perpetrated by Joseph Smith in which many Mormons and non-Mormons lost all their money.

Aside from that disagreement, I say let them have it.

By the way, Cal Thomas says "mainstream religions consider some of their (Mormons) doctrines not only extra-biblical, but bizarre." Cal seems like the pot calling the kettle black.

Cal also says, "He (Romney) should also articulate his view of the separation of church and state," I find Cal's position completely hypocritical. Many Christian Fundamentalists, such as himself, assert the constitution says no such thing about separation of church and state. Cal, do you really believe this, or are you just using it to question Mitt's out-of-the-mainstream credentials? Haven't you been promoting more religion in the public sphere? I don't see you decrying Bush's dismantling of this sacrosanct foundation of our open society as he appoints only true believers to fill all posts in his administration.

For those who actually do have an open mind:

Concerning same-gender attraction and people who experience it, take the time to read what the Church's stance truly is by going to www.lds.org, then looking under Newsroom, Public Issues, and Same-Gender Attraction. You will find a lengthy article containing the words of an apostle and a member of the Seventy. If you read it seeking to understand, you will have little of anything negative to say about the Church in this matter. If you don't care enough to read it, please do not comment on the Church's stance. (That pertains to members, too!)

Where gender equality and the Priesthood are concerned, here are my own thoughts: Proper gender roles are obviously part of God's plan. If man and woman were supposed to be the same thing, they would be, and we wouldn't find two different types of people. If men were supposed to bear children, God would have made them that way; it would be absurd for me to lobby within the Church for the right to bear children!

The Priesthood is for service and the growth of those who exercise it. I imagine that men serve in the Priesthood largely because they need it for their progression. Many men feel inadequate when they are called to serve in various positions, including that of bishop. This is not unlike Moses. I would guess that women have different needs for their eternal progression.

As my wife reminds me, with responsibility comes the demand for accountability. This applies to everyone, including Priesthood servants. It makes sense that men and women have different responsibilities, especially to those who are blessed to be married and who act properly with their spouse.

Hello Andrea

Susan Jacoby noted:

"That many Mormon women accede, gladly, to this second-class religious citizenship is nothing new in social or religious history. There are many Muslim women who defend forced veiling, just as there were many Hindu women who acceded to the religious custom of being burned alive with their dead husbands. That the oppressed may agree to collaborate in their own oppression does not make the oppression any less real."

Frankly I can't say for Hindu women. But for Muslim women in countries where veiling is not made mandatory by the state, such as Turkey, Indonesia and Malaysia, Muslim women voluntarily covered their heads with scarves.

Ironically, in Indonesia and Malaysia, the trend of wearing headscarves was started in the seventies not by the uneducated and semi-educated poor rural and urban women, but the educated, middle and upper middle, and upper class women.

The Malaysian and Indonesian governments tried to lay down rules against some of their women employeees that actually wear both the hijab and niqab, but resistance was tremendous from the women and supported by some of the more fundamentalist Muslim NGOs and political parties.

Naturally, the trend started by the educated and generally well-off Muslim women, most of whom were and are educated in the west, was emulated by other women. If one is to go to Indonesia and Malaysia today, one will see more Muslim women in scarves than not, but hardly any wearing the veil. It is a sort of ironic act by some women to wear tight jeans and t-shirts with a head-scarf on.

Muslim women in these two countries don't defend forced veiling, but the right of a woman to wear the scarf. I, for one can't insist my own sisters and female relatives not put on headscarves when they don't tell me to wear one. Nor do I want to get into any argument with them on this as what they are wearing on their head is the last thing they are thinking of in their minds.

And yes, sometimes, women do seem to be their own worst enemies when it comes to their rights in secular and religious life, when in fact, it was really their differences on issues, even women's issues. Women are are as divided on beliefs and politics as men are obviously.

In late 2005, the proposed Islamic Family Law of Malaysia was fought over by Muslim women themselves. On one side, the Sister in Islam led coalition of like-minded NGOs. On the other side, a coalition led by the Professional Muslim Women' Association. The former for "equality" of rights, the latter for "equity" of rights in marraige, divorce, alimony and child support in the proposed law.

It may not seem much of a difference, but fundamentally, what the Sisters in Islam led coalition were advocating is to maximize women's rights to be on par with men, which, in careful reading of the proposed Law's text, would, in fact, be at the general expense of men. The stance of the Professional Muslim Women's Association was to ensure that in assuring women's rights, the rights men to fairness and justice are as well, as fathers, husbands and ex-spouses. I got into a flap with some of my female relatives for supporting the stance of Sister in Islam, which they deem to be unjust towards men.
We agree to disagree. And I now have nagging doubts that they are right on "equity" in rights and justice.

Needless to say, the Islamic Family Law was held back by the Malaysian government for "further consultations" before implmentation, and to focus to be on strengthening the Shariah court systems to handle divorces in a fair and impartial manner as all sides wanted and agreed needed to be done.

A wee slice of one of the "battles within Islam" for you Andrea. Have to go to my office now and stare at four blinking monitors on minute movements of this and that:)

My very best.

Susan,

Well said!

Otterson loves to send people to the official site, in this case he linked to the political neutrality issue. I think the more contemporary information came last night. In a PBS broadcast, Dallin Oaks, Otterson's Employer and member of the Quorum of Twelve Male Apostles said, "It is wrong to criticize the leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true."

This presents a whole new dilemna for Romney, No?

Will Romney govern the same way, forbidding judgment of leaders? Will Romney defer to the church, because he has made an oath in the temple to do obey, and renews that promise every two years when he is interviewed by his church leaders? Is Romney independent enough to discard the words of Oaks as nothing but useless syllables from an Power-Drunk old man?

Until Romney can show some independence, and speak out against the leaders of his church for their universal judgment of women, he should be disqualified by the voters. Time will tell.

For thousands of years before Mormonism began, preachers have been teaching with ancient scriptures that condemn homosexual acts as sinful acts. It should come as no suprise that the Church which uses the same scriptures as other religions, can also interpret writing that states homosexuality as a sin.

Anyone who can read through their bible and pretend they do not see the numerous verses mentioning homosexuality as an abomination is deluded. No Catholics, Mormons, Protestants, Evangelicals, or any other group suddenly decided to persecute homosexuals by denying them marriage to their same sex or anything else. The bible clearly states marriage between men and women, not men to men or women to women.

No religion that is honest with itself can preach the truthfulness of their holy book and permit homosexual marriage if it's Holy book states multiple times that it's not acceptable. You cannot pretend those verses do not apply, and you cannot pretend that everything else in the book is valid except for those verses condeming those actions as sin.

A homosexual person can marry a member of the opposite sex, at least in the LDS Church. If they cheat on their spouse or otherwise give into homosexual temptation, they can be excommunicated, but so can a straight man or woman who strays from their spouse since Adultery is a sin as written in the bible which Mormons use, it is also punishable by excommunication.

I must wonder: if a straight man or woman gets excommunicated for having sex outside their marriage, why doesn't anyone raise such a hoopla about the Church "judging" or "persecuting" them?

Religiously speaking, do you think it's acceptable for a Church to discipline it's straight fornicating members (because it says fornication is wrong in the bible), but somehow it is "persecution" to take the same action against homosexuals who engage in the same behavior (even though the same bible states this action is wrong as well)??

Don't be a hypocrite. Just because you don't like a commandment or a rule doesn't make you immune to it.

It's all or nothing, people. No religion should be judged because it subjects all it's members to the very same bible or book of law whether they be gay or straight.

... The outcome of which LDS seek are individuals prepared to live a law of consecration and create a community of Zion.

Within this community BOTH males and females make personal sacrifices for what they believe is a much greater good both for themselves and for the whole. Naturally I understand that those who do not start with a premise of the reality of reaching these goals would have a hard time getting over such policies, priesthood and the ultimate “head scratcher” our historic practice of polygamy, let alone understanding how LDS adhere to them.

I think we can agree that in a very general sense that there are particular formulas that lead to exclusive outcomes most easily noted in math and science.

I think to understand a Mormon, is to acknowledge that we are operating within the context of what we believe is a complex ongoing formula overseen by a wise and loving Father with the goal to create a Zion ready individual, Zion ready marriages and families and ultimately a Zion society . This process has been compared to a “learning laboratory” in which naturally fallible human beings get A LOT of practice in repentance and in forgiving one another in all of these spheres.

Policies do change and remain I think, in both the contexts of the wisdom of God and fallible human nature at all levels. As both individuals and as a people we learn from our mistakes and new discoveries.

One of the apostles recently noted that (in my words) he believed the current 12 are the most united today then previous bodies of the 12 have ever been which is a far cry from the early LDS church. So I think we are learning and growing and pondering and then seeking the inspired next step or change all the time.

Again, I think I understand at least to some degree why others do not understand many things which are LDS current or LDS history . I am in ongoing process of understanding them at deeper levels myself. But I these very general ideas might help others understand Mormons a bit more.

I think under the basic definition of “discrimination” both men and women are discriminated against with in the structure and policies of the LDS church. Men cannot serve in primary or relief society presidencies. They are not invited to Enrichment nights and they are presented with a full time mission as a standard duty not as an option as women are -- in being a faithful Mormon.

Discrimination against women in the church has already been well explicated by others on the basis on their lack of formal priesthood holding and allowances for Bishop, Stake President, or Apostle status.

With that said however, I think that in Mormonism, morality does not hold “fair” (in the most basic sense) for the individual as the greatest end or goal. In my opinion, LDS theology can only be better understood in the context of a more communitarian ideology which seeks not only for individual right but for overall communal outcomes.

Mitt Romney wrote: "This is a very paranoid assertion to make."

Not really. Evidence suggests this is precisely the case as the LDS Church is known to have contributed considerable financial and organizational resources in conjunction with conservative religious organizations to ensuring that their shared "moral views" on various social issues would be enacted. In many, though not all cases, it has met with success. This is not paranoia, it is reality.

While I agree that it is laughable to suppose that Romney, or any other Mormon President would attempt to impose specific religious practices and observances upon the masses, it is anything but laughable, or paranoid delusion to suppose that he would not attempt to impose his religious or moral views upon the whole of society by enacting more legislation negatively affecting the lives of homosexuals and their families, or significantly reversing laws protecting a woman's right to choose whether or not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy during the first (and in some states, the 2nd) trimester, etc.

"Another big part of the LDS Church is the belief in free will."

While it's certainly true that the LDS Church pays lip-service to free will or "agency" as it is commonly reffered in their teachings, it's actions bespeak a different commitment. "Free will" is only regarded well if it is used to be obedient to everything Mormons believe to be a commandment from God. It's like saying, "Another big part of the LDS Church is Family", but failing to mention that only certain kinds of "families" are regarded as good.

It is interesting to read the myriad of comments in this blog relating to Mormons and note the “tone” of those writing in defense of Mormon practices and doctrines compared to those who attack those beliefs. The difference is so obvious and significant that it is mind-numbing. An observation based on long experience is that it is much easier to attack, ridicule and postulate when you have a limited knowledge of the subject. To quote anecdotal, personal evidence as the basis for broad accusations is tedious and humorous in its own stupidity.

While I only know a little bit about Mormon doctrines, I do know that I respect Mormons for the way they conduct their lives. That makes me willing to pause and listen and question …but not to attack. What I am growing to detest is the simple assumption that seems prevalent in the more “progressive” circles ...and in many of these comments, is that anyone who believes in Christ or in any religion is an ignorant and misinformed dupe who is led around by the nose by religious charlatans. To attack something you don’t understand, to treat the personal beliefs of another with ridicule, to not take the energy to get the facts is truly the mind/heart of an uneducated person and the seeds of an uncivilized society.

Susan Jacoby,

Well, you seem to have touched a nerve or two there. Good blog. Pretty shallow though.

I have never understood why people want to brand themselves better or worse than others, or first or second class. Is it the service they get or is it the service they see others get?

For me, I can't see how my wife - who is a better doer than me, is received more amiably in society, has produced more and done more with the results of our sexual liaisons (our beautiful children) than I seem to have, has produced a bigger return on her investment in life's processes than I have, has given me a better reason for living, etc, etc - could or should ever be considered inferior to me or anyone else.

Sure we have pain and difficulty - some of it role based - but we also have opportunities and freedom. Sure I bear the priesthood, but I can't be a mother. And she is fore-ordained to higher things as well as having "priestly" and other opportunities in this life.

And from what I can see continues to be a wonderfully skilled and able daughter of God with potential by the truckload to be even better yet.

I'm grateful to be associated with such a winner - as are most men in the church that I know regarding their own spouse.

I think you need to get closer to this subject before you present yourself as an authority on it.

Keep trying, though - you're much classier and generally on-target than many others.

"Phaedrus-

One could go on with this, but what is the point really? The LDS church determined to enhance its marketability by playing up its similarities to other fundamentalist belief systems. One can only hope it enjoys the company."

Wiccan nods to Phaedrus in thanks, refreshed by the artic breeze.

Perfectly phrased.

I'm sorry, I couldn't finish reading all the responses before I posted a comment. There was so much discussion about the details of Mormonism (are women really second class?) that I had to mention that we should focus on how the basis of Mormonism is demonstrably false. There were no tribes of Israelites in the U.S. 2000 years ago fighting it out - there would be mountains of archaeological evidence and there is none. Joseph Smith did not find golden plates with hieroglyphics on them and translate them with a seer stone - he was tested on this and failed. In addition, other hieroglyphics he "translated" in the same way were found and translated by experts (of which there were none in 1835 when Smith translated them). His translation was flat wrong and showed a complete misunderstanding of the documents. The problem with having a recent religion made up by a con man is that it can easily be shown to be false (it is harder when the religion is several thousand years old). How any intelligent adult can ignore this overwhelming evidence and still believe any of the "revelations" that guide the Mormon faith is a sad testament to our species.

Mormon Boy is right. I am a clerk in a Bishopric. (A Bishopric is an organization of the Bishop, two counselors, an executive secretary and a clerk.) We work hard and don't get a dime for it. I enjoy my work, but not because it gives me status, but because we are helping the members in the congregation. The best reward you can get from the members though is a simple thank you.

Good thoughts and comments.

Nobody underestimates the contributions of women as mothers, or in any other capacity. To allow our appreciation of their contributions to serve as justification for denying them any OTHER roles or experieces they might desire demonstrates a TRUE lack of appreciation for these individuals.

Phaedrus,

You elucidated the argument with a simplicity and clarity that it desperately needed.

"All that I am or hope to become, I owe to my angel mother." -- Abraham Lincoln

Behind greatness in the world and in our country, stands the noble mothers whose gentle love and quiet sacrifices help the world become a better place. Regardless of religion, the roles of mothers as teachers in their own homes cannot be underestimated.

Susan,

Your thoughts are certainly familiar to those individuals who have, some after decades of belief and practice, abandoned the LDS faith. There is no qualitative difference between the "supernaturalness" of Mormonism and any other theistic system. Joseph Smith's genius lay in his ability to inspire, to cajole, to invent, and then sell his invention. These are common characteristics of thousands of charismatic leaders throughout recorded history, religious and secular. To disbelieve Smith because his claims were bizarre, while believing Paul or Muhammed, is to apply your standard haphazardly.

As for the presence or absence of gender inequality in the LDS church, I would say this: If individuals are denied a desired organizational role based solely on their gender, then that organization may justifiably claim many positive attributes for itself, but gender equality is not one of them. Benign dominion over others is no less dominionist for its benignity. The power within of the LDS church is so concentrated at the top, that its leaders do not deign to share its financial information with those commanded to pay their tithing. That is a massive, some would say arrogant, concentration of power in the hands of a few, none of whom is permitted to be female. All of the smiling faces on every 19 year old missionary cannot dilute the truth of that point. For the LDS church to justify this state of affairs by equating itself with Catholicism, is a rather impotent justification, is it not? Should we be surprised that those females within the church find this practice palatable? Not really, because those who do not believe so are quite apt to leave the church, voluntarily or through excommunication.

As for its treatment of homosexuals, again, the LDS church endeavors to live up to the standards set by other hateful belief systems. In its excommunication of scholars who pursue information in uncomfortable areas of its history and dogma, the church lives up to the standard set by its peers once more, at the expense of free inquiry in the pursuit of knowledge. Conformity is more valuable than insight.

One could go on with this, but what is the point really? The LDS church determined to enhance its marketability by playing up its similarities to other fundamentalist belief systems. One can only hope it enjoys the company.

I have always found it humorous that people who attack the LDS church's position on Presthood, even care. Doesn't it come down to this?

If the church has the authority and proper organization it claims, then the decision is correct and no attack or complaint from "secular humanist" or "no they aren't Christians" individuals or groups matters. If the church does not have the authority it claims, then it does not have anything for the Women to receive, so why complain about it?

The attacks come down to the perception of POWER/CLOUT/CONTROL that outside (or once inside) individuals or groups THINK exists in leadership positions within the Church and has absolutely nothing to do with Priesthood. Having served in many "leadership" positions in the church, I can emphatically state that there is no POWER, no CONTROL, no CLOUT -- only anxiety and frequent sacrifice.

"Can I find someone this week willing to speak in Church?"

"We have a big service project scheduled for this Saturday, that will require at least 8 people, and only 3 are available, who should I ask to give up their Saturday to help? They obviously had other commitments or needs themselves or they would have volunteered already."

"You bet I can come to that meeting on Thursday... 'even though it's the third evening this week when I can't be home with my family'"

"But," the critics will say, "at the highest levels it's different." How so? Wouldn't a person 96 years old deserve to retire after so many years of service? Apparently the Prophet, Gordon B. Hinkley doesn't think so, and I'm glad.

It's work, work, work; serve serve, serve; and plead, plead, plead. And all too often it's cry, cry, cry; when some struggle to keep the covenants they have made.

There is no wordly POWER/CLOUT/CONTROL in the Priesthood, only service, and women do that all the time, whether they are LDS women or not.

I hope that I haven't missed a posting that covers this, but the explanation about second class citizenship is very simple.

In the classical liberal tradition (of the enlightenment) ability or merit (things controlled by an individuals will) are the only factors that can rightly limit what an individual can do.

The thinkers revolted against "ascribed status" or the idea that because of some detail of your birth, over which you have no control, that a society could place arbitrary limits on people.

I have no doubt that Mormons like all others are good people and treat one another respectfully. However this is not the question.

Women are denied participation in some aspects of Mormon society not based on their fitness or ability to hold them, but on the basis of their sex.

A mormon woman can't choose to be a mother and a priest, because of her sex.

Childbearing is a biological reality, ascribed status is a HUMAN choice.

Bottom line, When a society or organization places limits on uncontrollable factors such as sex or race, they are, by definition not given equality of opportunity.

Equality of opportunity in our society is synonymous with Freedom, to have a chance to do what you want with your life limited by nothing other than your ability and ambition.

Mormonism, limits equality of opportunity by denying women the priesthood and so in this one respect denies women's freedom.

If Mormons choose this, fine, but let's call discrimination, discrimination instead of pretending that it does not exist, or worse that it is synonymous with freedom.

Petros,

I don't believe that representing Jesus is Susan's goal in life. Sorry.

"The religious Right, of which the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints is a part, wants to write its views into law and impose them on other Americans."

This is a very paranoid assertion to make. Kennedy had an uphill battle over his Catholicism, yet when he was elected, did he plot his every move with the Pope? Of course not, and look! We made it out of his administration without new religious laws banning businesses from operating on Sunday to honor the Sabbath, baptisms of all infant children, and mandatory confessions every other Sunday. It is laughable to insinuate that a Mormon President would do any of those things.

Paranoia and delusion run rampant with uncharted territory and Susan Jacoby is a perfect example of that.

Another big part of the LDS Church is the belief in free will. If the Mormon Church was as controlling as Ms. Jacoby suggests, there would be a secret Mormon gestapo reviewing members' income tax returns to insure they were paying an honest 10% tithe as they should, or a 10 page application requesting proof of need for those members who attempt to utilize the Church Welfare Program, or babysitters to ensure Missionaries are actually listening to Spiritually uplifting music instead of the billboard top 100 hits.

Gordon B Hinkley is a 96 year old man, not a cunning dictator. 180+ years since its founding and the Church is still widely misunderstood and feared, members still facing persecution, but becoming more respected little by little. Do you honestly think if Mitt Romney was elected he would use the White House as a way to force the Mormon lifestyle on the country, or that Gordon B Hinckley would actually be pulling all the strings behind the scenes?

I can't think of a faster way for the Church to undo 180 years of progress and positively ruin any chance Romney would have at re-election than to outlaw cigarettes, coffee, and cleavage popping belly shirts.

Get real.

Petros,

Couldn't Galatians 1:6-9 just as well refer to you? Come on. Your assertion of the scripture is all based on your OPINION that the "Mormon" gospel is a false gospel. Sure, you are entitled to it, but don't think that we are convicted by that scripture.

Susan et al.,

You have taken it upon yourself to define "discrimination" in your own terms to suit the purposes of your attack on a good people and a powerfully enobling religion, especially for women. Women ARE NOT discriminated against in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and you all can argue with this fact until you are blue in the face. It won't change what so many people have already convincingly and factually put forth in this discussion.

Thanks for taking time to address the "Mormon question" though, I think it's good for people to discuss their various viewpoints. It might just help someone someday.

Dear Susan,

You are a false teacher and do not represent Jesus Christ who is the way the truth and the life.

The Morman Message is a false Gospel. All so-called teachers and scholars who approve of the Morman Gospel do not know Jesus and are false teachers. The apostle Paul had the following to say about those who preach a false Gospel.

No Other Gospel

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed (Galatians 1:6-9).

The idea that women aren't second class citizens in the LDS is ludicrous.

It has nothing to do with which is better, child bearing or leadership and everything to do with the fact that women don't get a choice. They can't decide they want to have children and leadership or leadership and not children.

They get to have the children.

That's it.

What I Heard...:

"I believe I heard somewhere that the explanation about polygamy after death..."

I heard this too. But then I heard a lot of things that were made up, perhaps by well-meaning individuals, which turned out to be BS. Manure covered in chocolate sauce is still manure, but I will grant you that it might make it a little easier to choke down.

Don't misunderstand me, however. If consenting adults want to enter into polygamous relationships of their own free will, without force or coercion, or threat of eternal damnation if they don't, I don't think anyone has the right to prevent them from doing so. Of course, I believe in a lot of other radical things too, like same-sex marriage, the right to keep and bare arms, and the decriminalization of anything that doesn't directly harm another person.

Just a few thoughts:

First-

I think from this conversation it is clear that one element in a system that appears to be structurally unequal, does not necessarily result in the experience of feeling unequal.

It reminds me of the distinction Feminist anthropologists make between symbolic inequality and actual inequality. I have read studies of Mormon families that indicate Mormon marriages are actually more egalitarian than non-Mormon marriages in practice.

There may be a portion of symbolic inequality in Mormon ecclesiastical structure, but it sounds like in non-Mormon marriages there is more actual inequality.

Second-

People who hold strong to the idea of absolute structural equality in every area will never be satisfied with Mormon practice until its structure conforms to their models.

The suggestion that this makes Mormon women 2nd class citezens is especially insulting to women who are strong, independant and choose to belong to this community because they believe it offers the most benefits over any other community.

Third-

Mormons find great meaning in the doctrine of the Eternal nature of gender identity. This is actually our theological backbone. The Priesthood/motherhood dichotomy is one expression of this, of which most Mormons are proud.

It evokes a sense of interdependence between husband and wife for Eternal Salvation and brings spouses closer: it makes every aspect of their relationship profoundly spiritual.

Fourth-

Given the great meaning Mormons take from Eternal Gender identities, outsiders shouldn't be surprised that most believing Mormons do not want to exchange this for what they see as a hallow structural change.

to those who think that Men are in charge in the Mormon church, please call my wife and inform her. She apparently didn't get the memo.

Maybe she was too busy completing her MBA and taking a responsible position with a fortune 500 corporation to take notice that she was "second class". After that, she abruptly decided to stay at home with our newborn son. Again, her decision, not mine. She mananges to stay busy in her "second-class" life now by raising our son and voluntering. I'd trade places with her any day but instead I work long hours at a difficult job because apparently I'm in charge of things.

Give me a break.

Since when is an internet post from a clinically depressed women with an apparent lack of communication with her repressive husband a realiable source? It is indeed a sad tale but I'd wager it more the result of provincial western thinking and a lack of education in Mormon beliefs (which elevate the position of mother and wife rather than denigrate).

I believe I heard somewhere that the explanation about polygamy after death has to do with the fact that there will be more worthy women than men in the afterlife because women live more righteously than men do, thus leaving a "shortage" of righteous men for the dead single women waiting to enter Heaven.

Mormon doctrine stipulates that family is of extreme importance with a husband and wife at the center of that family. No one can enter the highest level of Heaven without a partner, so men will have to marry multiple women to curb the unequal ratio of men to women, allowing all righteous parties access into Heaven. Women can't marry multiple partners because that will only further contribute to the shortage of righteous husbands.

In this case, women are held in higher esteem than men but cannot have multiple husbands because of unrighteous men.

"Most educated and informed people today believe that an individual's homosexuality is the result of his biological nature, which was conferred on him by God (or evolution or some other cosmic force)."

I guess I'd better throw away my Master's degree then. I believe that there are two parts to our being--a spiritual part and a biological physical part. While our bodies get diseases, have weaknesses, and physical predispositions it is our immortal spirit within us that has our identity. A homosexual disposition is a biological inclination. Other inclinations include a weakness to alcohol. For example, some will be hooked in one drink. It is the nature of your fallen world in which our spirit is placed to work to overcome these temptations of our natural self with God's help.

It does not make one evil to have been tempted with things we are prone to, but our spirit is retarded when we act in violation of God's law. Some of these violations include extramarital sexual relations, sexual perversion, and homosexuality. Spiritual strength comes when we either avoid temptation or we overcome the weaknesses that we have given in to. There is great joy in overcoming. When we sincerely work to overcome, there is divine help, or grace, if you will, to enable us to complete the transformation. All are capable of mastering self, but it does require effort--for all.

Anon, you say: "he can acquire as many as he wants for the rest of his existence... while she is able to experience only one man for all of her existence--then she will wake up...maybe. This is "equality" of the sexes in the Mormon Church."

Pretty wacky -- I just can't bother myself with gender inequity in Mormom afterlife. Life on earth is already complex enough.

Most Mormons today will deny that their Church is sexist in its doctrines and/or practices, just as they have and will continue to deny that their Church has been racist in its doctrines and/or practices. This denial is typically couched in terms which ultimately amount to, "it not the leaders of the Church, it is God's teachings". The irony is, Mormonism's sexism stems largely from a traditional patriarchal interpretation of Christianity. Mormonism's sexism can largely be justified by scriptures found in the Bible which viewed women as chattle and of barely greater status than minor children.

Perhaps the greatest complaint against Mormonism's treatment of women can be directed toward its practice of polygamy for the first 80 or so years of its existence. This practice, while decried by most (though not all) Mormons today still maintains a doctrinal basis (despite the misleading claims of President Gordon B. Hinckley to the contrary).

The Priesthood authority in the Church is described as the power and authority to act in the name of God. As such, those possessing greater authority are regarded and revered more than those possessing lesser, or no authority. Furthermore, the highest leaders in the Priesthood are regarded as having higher status than the highest leaders in the women's auxillary organization (Relief Society). Husbands have traditionally been regarded as the heads of household, rather than co-equal partners with their wives. Only within the last 20 years has wording been removed from Temple ceremonies requiring wives to covenant to obey their husbands.

It would be accurate to say that just as the Mormon Church has become increasingly less racist over the years, it has likewise become increasingly less sexist as well. Of course the faithful will have their own perspective on this, if they even think about it at all.

Do you Mormons who talk about the place of women in the church

understand
what Susan Jacoby means

when she says

the place of women in the church
is a prima facie case of discrimination.
??

On Gays: Mormons (and Catholics) have the right to have the policies they have regarding gays.

In my limited view, anyone who justifies such discrimination against gays based on what they believe God said in the bible

is, to quote looking in, uneducated and uninformed. Acting out of ignorance and prejudice. Just my opinion.

Do you know that some people thought I was Gay? I was not, I was asexual. But I would have liked to have been.

To Joe Blow:

You must be correct. In order to get insight of the inner workings of the LDS Church, lets NOT trust those who live that life every day. Afterall, we must all be mindless drones, lying jerks, right? I've probably passed you 100x on the street and never stood out as an android. Maybe I helped you with a flat tire one day, or held the door for you coming through the grocery store.

It is much better to rely on the cyncial judgements of someone who not only has no knowledge of LDS relationships, other than what is reported on TV and internet blogs but who hates all organized religion period.

That would be like asking a vegetarian to write an unbiased article on the wonderful health benefits of eating red meat.

My point is, us Mormons have infiltrated your society unbeknownst to you, living among you and working with you. Maybe we did something to make your day just a little bit nicer and you had no idea we were one of those lying Mormons.

Norrie:

So everyone who believes in the Bible is uneducated and uninformed?

A divine nature is given to you by God, not evolution or cosmic forces. Divine refers to something emanating from a deity. Since God considers homosexual acts a sin, homosexuality is not divine in nature.

Mike Otterson:

Your point about the LDS Church's official position of neutrality when it comes to member holding office, is a good one and totally lays bear Susan's conclusion of never voting for a devout Mormon, but alas it will fall on deaf ears as bigots are never swayed by reason.

The Mormon and Catholic Churches should be sued for sex discrimination and federal funding/non-profit status for these two establisments stopped until they do.

Let me just say that I hold the priesthood, but it is no blessing to me if it is not a blessing to my family, to my church, and to others around me. I cannot bless myself by it. There is no self-sufficiency in holding it independent of others.

Holding the priesthood involves responsibilities and promises, and while women are not bound by the responsibilities that the men holding the priesthood are, they receive the same promises anyway. The spiritual opportunities are the same. It is just that the spiritual responsibilities are born differently.

It does not mean that women do not teach, instruct, receive inspiration, etc. in the church, but that certain functions in the church have been put in the hands of worthy men. The support my wife gives me, combined with the blessings of the priesthood I give back to her draw us closer together. She completes me, just as I complete her.

Susan,

I would HARDLY compare Mormon housewives to Hindi wives who more than obligingly allow themselves to be burned alive with their husbands' dead bodies or Muslim women who are not permitted to even speak to other men or show their face.

That comparison is more insulting than your 2nd rate citizens remark.

What some people fail to realize is that Mormons faithfully believe in certain traditions. 12 Apostles like in times of old (all men), Prophets (all men), and the belief that Jesus is indeed a man as is God Himself. THe decision to permit women to hold the priesthood is not a decision for the Prophet to make. Everything is done through prayer and revelation. Where the next Temple is built depends on prayer and revelation.

The Priesthood isn't the Prophet's property to give away; it is a divine gift from Heaven. Almost all women understand this concept and therefore do not have an issue with it, knowing that the priesthood requires a great responsibility, don't mind giving their husbands some major responsibility for once.

Women who ask why they can't have the priesthood are beginning to doubt one of the building blocks of the Mormon religion - the cornerstone of many religions, because they have decided not to accept the divine nature of the priesthood, but begin looking at it like it is an exclusive membership to a club that the Prophet is denying them access to. That in turn, starts to unravel the spiral - doubting the Prophet is a Prophet of God, and so on and so forth.

If you begin to deny the nature of your religion and then decide to publicly criticize it by publishing books and magazine articles, you run the risk of being excommunicated. You can't be a Mormon and believe that the Prophet is the one actually denying you the Priesthood. That is removing the divine power of God from the equation and making the Prophet into a regular powerhungry sexist male, not a Spiritual conduit to God. It would be like a person saying 'I'm Catholic but I deny the existence of the Holy Trinity.' I doubt the 95 or however old he is Prophet is a sexist powerhungry male.

As a sidebar, I think it is ridiculous to compare every possible thing between men and women and then complain about whatever it is men have that women don't, regardless if you actually want it or not. Men have a penis, are you all riled up at nature (or God, if you be a religious type) because you weren't granted the same? Human nature is set up in such a curious way that a male alone falls short in some area without a woman and vice versa. A man cannot reproduce without a female for example. Women provide the emotional response while men usually fall short in that area, but have physical strength women cannot match. We can't have everything the other sex has because nature did not intend us to be that way.

Looking In,

Most educated and informed people today believe that an individual's homosexuality is the result of his biological nature, which was conferred on him by God (or evolution or some other cosmic force).

Something to be aware of. Mormons do not live just for the present; everything is for the future, as they believe, "Eternal Life". They don't practice polygamy now, because it's against the law of the land; however, if a man's wife dies, he can be sealed for eternity to another wife; and another, if the second wife dies, and so on. Whereas a woman can be sealed to only one man for eternity. (These sealings are done in the temple). Think about this: A Mormon man does have a little place in his mind for this great opportunity that will be forthcoming in the next life; his wife may not be aware of the thoughts in her husband;s mind, however--not in this life; but when she wakes up and finds in the next life her husband, her dear priesthood holder may already other wives, if she died before he did; and he can acquire as many as he wants for the rest of his existence, according to the doctrines of the Mormon Church (D&C 132); while she is able to experience only one man for all of her existence--then she will wake up...maybe. This is "equality" of the sexes in the Mormon Church.

its a private organization and they get to set their own rules for themselves. if you are a member of the organization you either follow the rules or leave.
as to pologomy - i think the penalty for pologomy is to allow pologomy. anyone stupid enough to have more than one spouce is nuts and they deserve what they get.

B.J.,

But if gays who are Mormon have to remain celibate, then they are not allowed to "embrace their own divine nature and station", wheras zebras and elephants are allowed to be fully elephants and zebras.

I don't think we can honestly take the word of Mormons on whether or not their own church is sexist.

I grew up knowing a number of Mormons, have known them all my life, and live near a ton of them now in Arizona. Any remotely objective observation will obviously see that women are second class citizens in the LDS church.

Question for the Mormons, if Joseph Smith wrote in the D&C that plural marriages are the will of god why can that piece of religious doctrine be ignored? And if it is ok to ignore that little snippet, why is it not just as logical to ignore the entire LDS sricptures?

Norrie wrote:

"Does the LDS Church allow gays to be gay and embrace their own divine nature and station?"

Homosexuality is not divine in nature, since sexual activity with another of the same sex is a sin according to the Bible.

Alex,

I'm no spring chicken, but please, elaborate. If this is about biology, please note that I am not talking about procreation. I am talking about social opportunities, employment opportunities, and religious opportunities.

Technicolordreamboat,

I hate to break it to you but there have always been opportunities that men and women have that are mutually exclusive of each other. The fact is, men and women need each other. Neither is self-sufficient without the other.

You can still be gay and LDS. This requires a celebate lifestyle just like those who never marry are to remain chaste and virtuous.

Norrie,

Hmmm...good point.

Carrie,

You wrote:

"True equality allows elephants to be elephants and zebras to be zebras. It allows all things to embrace their own divine nature and station."

Does the LDS Church allow gays to be gay and embrace their own divine nature and station?

About this second class thing...

I'm a feminist. I don't want to be like a man, I am so happy with being a woman. But you better believe I'll get riled up if I'm not presented with the same opportunities as a man. There should not be a door that is locked for me, but not for a man. I think it is wonderful that so many Mormon women choose to stay home to raise their families, nothing would make me happier that to do that same thing when I start a family. However...regarding the priesthood conversation...

Is the priesthood not open to women because they don't want it? Or do they not want it because they know it's not open to them?

So, the second class argument is not about forcing women to stay home. It's about not giving them the same opportunities as men.

The church does strees being neutral in politics. They want members to become informed and make intelligent decisions. These can greatly vary. If you look at the difference between Matt Romney and Harry Reid you can see a great difference in their political views. These views do not affect their standing in the church. Each member is encouraged to study politics and each politician and vote according to whom they feel will do the best job.

I do not consider blogs "evidence" that the majority of Mormon women are dissatisfied with their lot. These blogs, like all blogs, merely offer a forum for individuals.

The fact is that the Mormon Church's refusal to allow women priests is indeed a prima faciae form of discrimination, no different from (as the Mormon president said in his interview) the policy of the Roman Catholic Church. Women are also second-class citizens within the Catholic Church.

That many Mormon women accede, gladly, to this second-class religious citizenship is nothing new in social or religious history. There are many Muslim women who defend forced veiling, just as there were many Hindu women who acceded to the religious custom of being burned alive with their dead husbands. That the oppressed may agree to collaborate in their own oppression does not make the oppression any less real.

The fact that the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints excomuunicates women who have criticized its practices speaks for itself. This is a church with laws and customs that discriminate against women on earth, regardless of the fact that men and women are considered equals on the path to heaven.

Interesting discussions about your article. The thing that struck me is the debate about women being classified as 2nd class citizens. I guess it depends on your perspective. I don't see the desire from women in the LDS church to hold the priesthood. I have enough meetings to attend and holding the priesthood would only give me more to do! I support my husband in his church responsibilities and he supports me in mine. I guess it is a hard thing to understand if you are not familiar with the LDS culture.

In regards to the question someone posed about the TV show "Big Love". I have never watched the show but understand it is about a family living a polygamist lifestyle. This would have nothing to do with the LDS church. Polygamy is not practiced in our church anymore. I find it interesting that PBS documentary goal was to dispell the sterotypes of the Mormon church. When talking about the Mormon church they spent a great deal of time talking about "funtamentalists" who are not members of our church. It is like someone doing a documentary on the Catholic Church with a segment on the Lutheran Church. All in all I think the documentary was well done.

Re: freedom of/from religion under the US Constitution:

Whatever it is, the Constitution guarantees every American the right to practice and believe in whatever religion the want, no matter how nutty. However, the Constitution's guarantee does not in any way enjoin anyone to hold that any religious belief is founded upon truth.

In other words, I will respect your right to believe what you will, but that doesn't mean I am required to believe that what YOU believe has even a shred of truth about it, nor is my right to free speech curtailed - I can tell you exactly what I think of your religious beliefs and suffer no penalty under law.

Gotta love that Constitution!

IN the LDS Church, being ordained to the priesthood is not a career that produces income and power, but a call to service and specifically to seek to emulate Jesus Christ, particularly in humbling oneself to perform service for others. Living up to the ideals of holding the LDS priesthood "breaks" men in the sense that horses are "broken" and tamed, and the sense that Christ taught all his disciples to have a "broken heart and a contrite spirit", rather than one that is proud and self-aggrandizing. On the last evening before his arrest and trial, Jesus humbled himself to wash the feet of his apostles. Mormon boys and men are taught to provide humble service to others, starting with their spouses, their children, their parents, and branching out to their neighbors, both inside and outside the LDS Church.

Joseph Smith taught that any man who attempts to use his position in the priesthood to "gratify his pride, his vain ambition" loses all authority and is rejected by God. Smith emphasized that the "ONLY power and influence" of the priesthood is maintained through meekness and "love unfeigned", and that every man ordained to the priesthood should seek to be filled with charity, the pure love that Christ felt toward all others.

Just as marriage can tie a man into a relationship that civilizes and matures him, the LDS Church uses the priesthood to build a second order web of relationships and service that amplifies the civilizing and maturing functions of marriage.

Mormon males DO NOT sit around in "wife beater" shirts and drink beer and watch football games while their wives haul laundry and change diapers. Mormon males don't get together with their buddies to smoke, drink and play poker. Mormon males don't sit at home while their wives struggle to take the kids to Sunday School.

Mormon males are instructed that "no other success can compensate for failure in the home" and that they 100% share the responsibility for feeding, clothing, changing diapers, comforting, nurturing and teaching their children.

It takes time to overcome the cultural baggage that interferes with the culture that God wants us to be part of, and the transformation in some cultures into Mormon culture has been even more difficult. My mother is Japanese, and I have worked in Japan for five years, and if you want to see second class citizenship for women, you should check out a culture that is hardly influenced by Christianity at all and has totally gender-neutral pronouns. The LDS Church has taught Japanese Mormon men to tell their wives they love them, to share in the care of children, to give their families priority over hanging out with their office buddies. That leavening influence is being felt all over the world as the LDS Church brings more families into its culture of equal love.

So the difference between Mormons and most of the world is that the world is trying to turn women into typical selfish men, while Mormons are turning men into typically unselfish people like their wives.

Anon,

Thank you for addressing "Big Love."

I watched a few episodes of that show because I really liked the actors in it, but most of the time I was thinking "what now?!"

I know hundreds of lds women who would write the same thing that's already been said here. Women are not second class citizens in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

They hold important leadership positions in all areas and within all levels of the church (ward, stake, general). They have all the rights (of blessings) given men who hold the priesthood.

I agree with the animal comparison given above -- they are equal, just different. Some women think they have to be the same as men in order to have value. Well, I disagree with that. This notion segregates themselves and makes their status as a woman inferior in the sense that they are not good enough as a woman.

Roy:

Are women second class citizens in the Catholic Church? They cannot hold the priesthood or become a Pope, they cannot even marry a Priest. To single out Mormonism because of this is pathetic.

As a convert from the Catholic Church to Mormonism, I am insulted by all the assertions on here that women are second class citizens in the Mormon religion, which is false. If my husband told me he wanted 10 kids I'd tell him to keep dreaming.

Mormon women are smart, strong, loving people - not weak and inferior to their spouses. After reading this asinine article and some of the responses, I felt it was necessary to inform all that not unlike the rest of society, Mormon women live in the year 2007 - not 1800 when it was the societal norm for women to abide by their husband's every desire, stay home and raise 20 kids, cook, clean, and sew - basically what we today would consider to be second class citizens.

Yes, many Mormon women stay home with their kids instead of working out of the home but that isn't because their husbands threatened them with a belt whipping if they didn't obey. Get real. My husband (also a Catholic convert) and I make life decisions together as do 99.9% of all Mormon couples - where to live, how many kids, how to raise them, who should work, etc. I say 99.9% because there is always the whacko in any situation or religion who is way out in left field with their own interpretation of things.

The Prophet encourages women to stay home with the kids if it is financially possible, but in this day and age it is becoming increasingly difficult to rely on 1 income. I work at home so I can stay with my kids and help bring in some money. I am in NO WAY a "second class citizen" and any assumption that I am is downright insulting.

I feel for those Mormon women from the supposed blogs that Susan claimed to read. They must have gotten some bad apples for husbands, but Mormonism doesn't have anything to do with it. I'm not a Utah Mormon in case you can't tell, but I would bet those bloggers are Utah Mormons.

Mormon women seem to develop a Donna Reed complex where they have to be perfect in every way. Many UT Mormons I've met are like this. It isn't the Church telling them this, it is their own expectations of themselves that they have to be perfectly made up every day, have a spotless house, dinner hot on the table when hubby comes home, all 12 children homeschooled and fluent in 5 different languages...then they look at their Molly Mormon neighbor who in outward appearances seems to be the Perfect Mormon Mom, and pressures build like a competition. What she doesn't know is Molly Mormon feels exactly the same way.

Truth is, their husband will love them whether they are in an evening gown or sweatpants. The kids will love them whether or not she bakes cookies for their lunch every day. Heavenly Father will love her just for trying to be the best Mother and Wife she can be -- whether she actually suceeds or not.

Bottom Line: Mormon women aren't Stepford Wives by any stretch of the imagination.

As for the highest level of Mormon heaven, guess what?? Men can't get into it either unless they are sealed to a woman. It works both ways.

Oh, and Big Love is complete BS. I actually lost a non-Mormon friend because of the show. He felt the need to degrade me and my religion in public among our peers because of the crazy things he learned about Mormons from that show.

Would there be such a high concentration of blogs written by suffering LDS women, and movies, and Dateline specials etc about suffering LDS women if there wasn't a real problem?

I also don't agree with the thought that if a women is suffering it's a mental problem. That Victorian line of thought has long been discredited.

Ben,

Maybe I just didn't read Jacoby's post that way. I always think a primary source is best. It may not be advocated entirely by the church, but they do have the responsibility to to educate all members of their rights and where those rights end in respect to their spouse. So, I do see it as a religious problem, not because they advocate it, but because they don't do enough to stop it, and in a society such as the LDS' where the church is central, the responsibility lies in the hands of the church leaders. The same can apply to the Catholic church.

Andrea:

Ben's point is that there are many hurting, disillusioned people of all faiths all over the world, writing blogs. The fact that Ms. Jacoby found some written by Mormon women does not mean they represent the treatment of all Mormon women. They represent the feelings of those depressed, maybe clinically depressed, women who need help. I'm sure I could find some blogs like that written by Wiccan women, and determine that their faith must treat all Wiccans horribly (put any faith you want in there). Don't fall into Jacoby's trap of stereotyping.

Andrea,

Their stories may be sad, but that does not mean they represent the whole. What about the poor catholic boys? are you implying because of the major tragedy of their abuse we can now safely conclude all Catholics believe in sodomy? I don't think so.

Do they deserve attention and should the LDS church clarify to these failures of husbands that this is not the right way? Sure. And this has happened.

I'm not arguing that these women don't exist or that Mormon men are all perfect husbands who treat their wives with respect. I'm simply pointing out that it is a logical fallacy to conclude that the LDS church thinks women are inferior because of one woman's suffering.

Though I do not agree with what is said and implied in your essay, you have given us essentially the same treatment as other religions. For this I thank you. Though I am one of those deluded believers in God, I always enjoy your contributions.

Though comments such as, “The beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the institution's official title, are no more--and no less--irrational than the beliefs of any other religion”, may not sound complementary, they make this Mormon feel all warm and fuzzy.

We are used to much harsher treatment.

Ben et al,

I think the point we may be missing is, yes, Susan based some of her judgement off blogs she read online, but...the women who wrote those blogs experienced it. They are the experts of their own lives and bodies. To discredit them is to do a grave disservice to what they went/are going through because of their religion. I find it sickening that you consider these women's stories anecdotal.

An old friend became an agnostic at the age of 10 when a Mormon missionary came to his front door. When the missionary told him all about the angel Moroni and the golden sheaves – buried in New York, no less - he realized that anyone could make up a crazy story and if it happened long enough ago, you could get people to believe it. (I learned recently that the comedienne Julie Sweeney had the same reaction to the Mormon story, as an adult).

While my friend’s reaction seemed logical to me, I still for many years thought it was a shame that he had also discarded what I perceived as the “real” story - the one about Jesus 2,000 years ago. Of course, when I finally started thinking about that story I realized my real knowledge was very sketchy. And when I started researching it in earnest – it fell apart like a house of cards.

It’s so easy to recognize someone else’s silliness and so hard to recognize one’s own – especially when the whole culture believes the same thing – or at least doesn’t question it – or is discouraged from questioning it and admonished to take anything that doesn’t make sense “on faith” as if believing in the otherwise unbelievable is a great virtue.

Johnny

You are using lame generalizations that avoid addressing the reasonable defense many members have made that Susan's criticism about women as second-class citizens are based on anecdotal evidence off of the internet.

Obviously it's true that everyone gets defensive about their own beliefs, but there has been valid argument that her attacks are unfounded. If she wants to make claims about the church she needs to come up with something more convincing than an internet blog to be taken seriously.

Are there domineering men within the church? Of course. Does that mean that we all are or that we teach it as a church? Not in any way.

Do all Catholics sodomize young boys? I don't think so, but using Susan's logic I have some great anecdotal evidence to back up the fact that they do.

Hey Almond,

Glad you watched "The Mormons" as I did too.

I think your question of "What's fascinating to me is how does something like Mormonism take off, whereas most new religions flop and sputter out?" is telling as to what was lacking in the documentary which I believe is the narratives of the people who converted to this budding movement.

Why do they say they joined and stayed to endure all the hardships and the bizarre? The Mormon people are sort of followed in the film but their inner thoughts and reasons remain unexplored -- why did it make sense to them from their perspective? Was Joseph just that charismatic? If you can get answers to these questions, I think you’ll get a much better picture and answer to your original question.

I hope Mormons familiar with that grand narrative will take the time to share it depth with those interested as it was that was ironically so absent from the historic portion of “The Mormons”

Second class? I don't think so. I'm a Mormon male priesthood holder and just glad to be here. I feel lucky that I got such a wonderful woman to marry me. Everything I do is focused on the family and making sure my wife's needs are met. Together we have 5 children and we are learning and growing as we find our way through this life.

Together we have defined our roles family and it works well for us. I happen to be the bread winner and she is the primary nurturer. She patiently teaches me how to raise our kids and I help out as long as I don't mess things up. ;) Our greatest joys are shared when we are together as a family.

The bottom line is that in raising a family, there are many different responsibilities. It is not coincidence that men and women have different talents and abilities but rather it is a divinely inspired plan. I know my primary role and responsbilities and she knows hers. She picks up my slack and on a very rare occasion, I'll cover for her.

I believe that only in forgetting myself and serving others will I actually grow in a way that the Lord intended. She believes the same thing and the net effect is one of two people serving each other. We are happy.

Freedom OF Religion IS Freedom FROM Religion; to suggest otherwise is to suggest one may have another's religion forced upon him against his or her consent. Freedom of Religion for the Christian is Freedom FROM being compelled to non-Christian religious observance, and for the Jew Freedom FROM being compelled to non-Jewish religious observance.

As to Mormonism...

It is understandable that many members of the LDS Church are defensive over the criticism leveled against their religious beliefs and practices. Those whose religious beliefs comprise a significant portion of their personal identity will naturally respond to any general criticism level at their religion as though they are the victims of a personal attack. This would be true whether the individual is Mormon, or Muslim, Pagan or Jew. It is likewise true of those whose identity is comprised in large part by their political ideology, their ethnicity, race, or national origin, etc. Keep this in mind when reading the reponses from Mormons (or any other group in other discussions) who feel they have been unfairly criticized, misunderstood, or maligned.

Also, it should be recognized that when one is on the defensive, one is less likely to recognize, much less acknowledge faults or failiings within themselves or their group, especially when such observations or criticisms originate outside their group. Mormons are certainly not alone in their propensity to discount and discredit the criticism of outsiders, and most especially, former members. This same propensity exists for members of most groups whose individuals derive a significant portion of their identity and self-esteem from their membership and standing with their group. Don't be surprised by the comments of defensive Mormons denying what may seem obvious to everyone but themselves. Those most defensive have the most invested, and therefore, the most to lose should their good opinion of their group be eroded or lost. Those who have sacrificed years of their lives and countless opportunities for the promise of something better always fight the hardest to protect the hope of that promise. Sometimes, that means covering their eyes and ears in denial to anything that might cast their beliefs in a negative light,

Don't expect the average Mormon to accept, or even consider, any criticisms of their religion to have any validity unless such criticisms come from their leaders. It is an authoritarian religion which has inculcated its membership with a persecution complex which innoculates its membership from virtually all outside criticism no matter how objective. As they are fond of saying, "It is the Church is Perfect, not the people (Church Members)." Very, very few Mormons will ever sincerely question their religious beliefs the way they expect their potential converts to do with their own religion.

Roy

Why can't carrots grow on trees?

Bearing the priesthood does not make a man better than the woman, it makes him different. Maybe it makes him better in other religions, but you misunderstand the LDS position if you think we believe that.

Also, men have the same limitation as women as far reaching the "highest level of heaven". It is together only that we believe it is possible.

tere has summed the view of Mormon women in a well educated and unbiased way.

I am a Mormon wife and love my position. I am respected in my home and church.

President Gordon B. Hinckley stated
"I respect women, my mother was a woman, my wife is a woman, 50% of the people I know are women, and the other 50% were raised by women."

Thank Goodness for the role of women in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, because we have raised wonderful men who make wonderful choices in business, homes, Church and in the communities where we live. I am sorry their is the wrong concept the women in the LDS church are 2nd class citizens. If you have that opinion you need to do as I say to my children before trying a new food. "Try it you might like it." or don't knock it till you try it." Meet and associate with Mormon women you will find we are equal with men in the church.

If women are not second class in the Mormon church, why cant they hold the priesthood? Why cant they go to the highest level of Mormon heaven unless they are sealed in the temple to a man?

Susan,

Another terrific post. Your voice of secular sanity and reason is always appreciated on this forum.

I too watched the PBS documentary this week and basically I had a similar feeling. The patina of age makes the major religions look mysterious and mythological, whereas it far too easy to see the goofy charlatanism of Joseph Smith for what it is.

In a way Mormonism is very informative. We get a modern glimpse of how a major religion is created before history has obscured it.(In my mind I imagine the "prophets" of the old religions having been in Joe Smith's shoes long, long ago). What's fascinating to me is how does something like Mormonism take off, whereas most new religions flop and sputter out?

On a personal note, I have a great friend who is Mormon. We just don't talk about religion. I think their beliefs are kooky, but we are awesome friends so I just keep my mouth shut.

Henry,

Is the fact that Women hold the capacity to bear children, and men do not, something that makes men "second class" humans?

The priesthood is, in our faith, as tied to, and exclusive to men as bearing children is to women.

To claim a woman has, or can recieve, the priesthood, is as silly as those who have "sex change" operations. They don't change what their DNA is. Likewise in claiming priesthood for women. They simply, according to eternal law, cannot hold (o