The Easy Way Out
I’ve skimmed the last few years of general conference talks, and a clear pattern emerges. We are repeatedly admonished by church leaders to “love and honor”, “reach out the hand of fellowship”, “seek out and befriend”, and “welcome into church” a particular group of people. Our leaders are speaking about gays and lesbians.
In every instance I can find, whenever we have been instructed on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, we have also been taught about our obligations that I quoted in the previous paragraph. President Hinckley sometimes said that he wanted to emphasize those obligations. Why does this matter? Answer: Because in recent weeks, every most of our discussions that have taken place in the bloggernacle e-ward have taken the easy way out. We make it pretty clear that we not only hate reject the sin, we hate reject the sinner, too.
When the topic is Heavenly Mother or the origins of the priesthood ban, folks who fancy themselves to be orthodox admonish the rest of us about going beyond what the church has explicitly taught. Why, then, are those same good and smart people so quick to go beyond what the church has said about the recent California supreme court ruling? The church’s official statement reiterated its position that male/female marriage has traditionally been the foundation of society, and that the California decision is unfortunate. That’s all. Our online community immediately went into overdrive, churning out all kinds of dubious slippery slope arguments that the church has the good sense to avoid.
I invite you to read through the hundreds of comments of the past two weeks, if you have the stomach for it. Then ask yourself these questions: Does it sound like these people are loving and honoring homosexual people? Is there even a remote possibility that any of these comments can be seen as welcoming, and as an extension of the hand of fellowship?
The church has taken an official position against same-sex marriage. It has simultaneously emphasized that its members are to befriend, love, and honor gay people. That is a tightrope than many of us find difficult to walk. Let’s be careful about taking the easy way out. Until we are prepared to keep both parts of that counsel, we probably ought to be careful about saying anything at all. In particular, we ought to be careful about styling ourselves as humble followers of the prophet when we choose to ignore half of what he says.
Oof Mark, some great thoughts here — thanks. Your last sentence is particularly challenging.
Comment by Steve Evans — May 28, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
Great post Mark. Thank you for sharing these thoughts.
Comment by Sue — May 28, 2008 @ 11:02 pm
Heretic! Burn him!
(Very nice, Mark. Great food for thought, and very challenging, as Steve says.)
Comment by queuno — May 28, 2008 @ 11:05 pm
Very good, Mark.
Um, do you by chance have links to the talks in question? Not that I’m going to use them to hit anyone over the head with . . .
Comment by Kaimi — May 28, 2008 @ 11:09 pm
Oooh. Found a couple of them, at http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 .
Comment by Kaimi — May 28, 2008 @ 11:20 pm
Word.
I always ask myself how I would feel and act if my son or daughter were gay. What would I want ward members to say in the presence of my son or daughter? What kind of comments would I want my son or daughter to read on LDS blogs? We can sustain our prophets’ counsel without needlessly creating a cruel and hostile environment.
Comment by sister blah 2 — May 28, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=69ac6e9ce9b1c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
Comment by Kaimi — May 28, 2008 @ 11:23 pm
I found “seek . . .befriend” here, talking generally about “those that were lost . . . the lonely or those who are less active.” I’m not finding it with specific reference to gays and lesbians (though they certainly could come under the larger category).
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=0a000d034ceae010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1#footnote17
Okay, enough scripture chase, back to work for me . . .
Comment by Kaimi — May 28, 2008 @ 11:28 pm
There’s a stake high counsel member in a neighboring state who works closely with my partner. He and his wife have generously opened their home to us as a couple, offered us a guest room with a double bed, and comfortably introduced us as a couple to their five children. I know that they solidly support the Church’s views on gay marriage but we agree to disagree and it’s absolutely fine. They have a daughter the same age as ours and we compare notes.
So these conversations are really tough for me. I like to think this couple represents the Mormon people in 2008.
But then I wonder over to Times & Seasons and am left temporarily comment-less. Clearly there are plenty of Latter-day Saints who have no qualms about closing their door on my “immoral,” “lesser,” “indecent” and “reprehensible” family because in our “selfishness” we are “obstacles to the preferable family unit.”
You’ll see no comments from me over there today. Anything I want to say would likely be quickly deleted by the moderator. Indeed, my very presence there might represent an “attack” on “revealed sexual morality.”
Comment by MikeInWeHo — May 28, 2008 @ 11:46 pm
Yes, I’ve never seen any point in commenting on threads where the moderator states at the outset that the conversation can only go the way he wants it to.
Comment by Bill — May 28, 2008 @ 11:51 pm
Mike,
I’m sorry that you felt unwelcome. Your choice not to comment seems prudent enough.
Which face is Mormonism of 2008? In my experience, both (and many more).
Bill,
Heaven knows, I’ve had my share of disagreements with Adam Greenwood. But it’s not like he has a monopoly on unidirectional discussions; those aren’t uncommon at most major nacle blogs. It’s somewhat of an occupational hazard, perhaps.
(And in my experience, most commenters’ assessments of the propriety of any particular unidirectional thread do tend to be highly correlated with the level of agreement that commenter has for that thread’s substantive position.)
Comment by Kaimi — May 29, 2008 @ 12:02 am
(The prior parenthetical is not intended as an assessment of Bill’s comment specifically — it’s a general observation only.)
Comment by Kaimi — May 29, 2008 @ 12:05 am
Mark, I love the message of your post, but I have to call your attention to two quotes in it, with my own emphasis:
“every discussion that has taken place in the bloggernacle e-ward has taken the easy way out. We make it pretty clear that we not only hate the sin, we hate the sinner, too.”
That simply isn’t accurate of every discussion, and certainly not accurate in that it appears to be sweeping condemnation of all of those discussions. Off the top of my head, at least two that I have read were in defense of the ruling, and MANY of th comments defended gays and lesbians openly and forcefully.
“Is there even a remote possibility that any of these comments can be seen as welcoming, and as an extension of the hand of fellowship?”
Definitely. Many of them.
I have told Mike directly that I would LOVE to have him and his family sit with me and mine in church if they ever are in the Cincinnati area, and I know that sentiment is not close to unique in the Bloggernacle.
Again, I really like this post, but I can’t let those statements go unaddressed.
Comment by Ray — May 29, 2008 @ 12:08 am
I don’t know that an invitation to Cincinnati can really be viewed as welcoming, Ray . . .
Comment by Kaimi — May 29, 2008 @ 12:11 am
Btw, Mike, I hope your reference to “reprehensible” does not mean that you thought I was using that word over on T&S to indicate that’s how I feel. I was using it to speak of how others view and treat you relative to others - that they are inconsistent and hypocritical when they apply that standard selectively. I meant that IF they make that claim, based on that standard, they should apply it to heterosexual activity, as well.
I apologize sincerely if that was not clear and misunderstood.
Comment by Ray — May 29, 2008 @ 12:15 am
Yeah, you are right there, Kaimi - when it comes to this particular issue. I’m north of Cincinnati, however, so maybe that makes it acceptable.
Comment by Ray — May 29, 2008 @ 12:17 am
re: 13
I agree, Ray. My experience in the Bloggernacle has been fantastic. It has been incredibly moving and faith-affirming at times. Nobody has ever attacked me personally or directly, and I suspect (GASP!) that even Adam Greenwood and I would get along just fine if we ever met in person.
FWIW, I know may gay people who are equally ignorant about and hostile toward the Latter-day Saints. I defend the Church surprisingly often, oddly enough. (”No, they’re not really like that at all!”)
Comment by MikeInWeHo — May 29, 2008 @ 12:26 am
(I have such a soft-spot for you Mike. Really. You and my son can hang out and play with our Easy Bake Oven any time.)
Earlier today, I wrote an ascerbic comment over on the T&S thread, and I was so disgusted with the intolerance and lack of compassion, charity or even humanity (in some cases), that I deleted my comment and stomped off in a huff.
What I wanted to say was an angrier version of this:
I have three gay family members. Close family members- and my kids have never batted an eye at Uncle Mark and Uncle Todd- it’s just our family to them. Uncle Michael doesn’t have anyone special at the moment, but when that day comes he does, they won’t notice then, either, I imagine.
Children don’t inately pick up on the things grown-ups agonize over. I’ve noticed watching my own kids, they don’t notice skin color, hair texture, or who Uncle Todd is holding hands with- they notice and love people. It isn’t until we teach them our prejudices and show by our potential uncomfortable example that they learn to single out different. It’s us the emmulate.
If I were to behave like some commenters on other blogs thing I should, my children would quickly pick up on my bias, lack of charity, and see me as a hypocrite. No thanks. I’ll err on the side of love, every time.
Comment by Tracy M — May 29, 2008 @ 12:38 am
Is it a commandment to ‘honor’ gay people? I don’t hate them but I have found myself needing to repent of hating what they stand for. I think the biggest issue is perhaps they insist what I consider to be wrong and immoral to be normal and deserving of approval, even praise (honor?). Marriage is just one/the way to codify this approval through governmental means.
Comment by sam — May 29, 2008 @ 12:39 am
Sam,
I believe that the “honor” in Mark’s list comes from this quote from a President Hinckley talk:
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
Comment by Kaimi — May 29, 2008 @ 12:44 am
Seeking equal protection under the law, through marriage, is not asking for approval. There are many things published, of which I might not approve, but which still ought to be defended by the first amendment.
Comment by Latter-day Guy — May 29, 2008 @ 12:53 am
re: 18 Thanks, Tracy. That’s very sweet of you. The funny thing is this: In person, I’m the most ordinary guy around. My family makes the Osmonds look like the Osbornes.
re: 19
“What they stand for…”
What on earth do we stand for, anyway???! Affordable yet fashionable home decor? Matching accessories?
Comment by MikeInWeHo — May 29, 2008 @ 12:54 am
Mike, the Star-Spangled Banner?
Comment by Ray — May 29, 2008 @ 1:01 am
I don’t know that an invitation to Cincinnati can really be viewed as welcoming, Ray . . .
Bah. Cincinnati’s a dump. You really must go further north, to the Cleveland suburbs (not Cleveland, mind you.)
Comment by queuno — May 29, 2008 @ 1:28 am
Archaeologists in Egypt have uncovered a new gospel, in which Jesus goes out of his way not to mingle with sinners. Should be popular.
Comment by Ronan — May 29, 2008 @ 1:51 am
While I think Mark Brown’s post is clearly good advice and we should follow the prophets counsel in this regard, I don’t find it very convincing as an argument.
First, he seems to denigrate those who hold on to statements by prophets, which he presumably thinks should be disregarded (and I would agree with respect to priesthood ban, etc.). Then he finished the post by stating that we shouldn’t ignore or dismiss half of what the prophet says.
How is the “orthodox” person bad for not going beyond what the prophet says, and then bad again for going beyond what the prophet says.
Comment by Bob — May 29, 2008 @ 3:31 am
Mark,
I add my voice to Ray and Mike. I joined BCC several months back, mostly because of the acceptance of diversity I found here. Yes, that diversity includes some hardliners and some people who have already tottered off the Mormon precipice, but that IS the point. Regarding treatment of gays and lesbians, I believe this community has done an admirable job of straddling a very difficult issue.
This issue played itself out similarly in my own family. A dear family friend came out of the closet about 12 years ago and sent ripples through my entire conservative family. However, their response embodied the recent instructions from church leaders. Our friend eventually left the church, fell in love and had a commitment ceremony at a different church. I was the best man. This event was difficult for my family, and many chose not to come. For some who did come, seeing the kiss at the end was over the top and left them with a bad spirit. However, they came, and they continue to invite the couple and their adopted son to family events.
They would still prefer that he be straight, but knowing a gay person as well as they know him has challenged many of their assumptions and has given them a much better appreciation of the difficulty of Jesus’ challenging injunctions.
This is an issue for which the church will struggle for many years to come. People of sincere faith and gracious fellowship hold very different opinions. The same is true of church leadership, and it is reflected in the softening of their stance. I, for one, am very appreciative of the current leadership’s willingness to enter the fray. Yes, I would have them move more quickly than they do, but I respect their approach that aims to sustain faith and cohesion while expanding room for other people within the stakes of Zion.
Comment by Randall — May 29, 2008 @ 5:48 am
My general bloggernacle participation has declined of late, but I still hang out here and at FMH. Frankly, I’ve been shocked at the level of support I’ve seen for the California Supreme Court decision here, even if it’s been subtle rather than overt. I’m inclined to think that most of y’all are probably going to Hell. Which is fine by me, because at least it’s warm, and I won’t be lonely.
Comment by Ann — May 29, 2008 @ 7:50 am
Bob, # 26,
There is a better than 50/50 chance tht I have not communicated clearly, so I’ll take another whack at what I meant, in an attempt to clarify.
First, I do not object, at all, to the idea that we should follow church leaders. I believe we are under obligation to take what they say seriously. I object to the recent ostentatious displays by people who claim to be following counsel, but who appear to my admittedly limited perspective to be disregarding half of it. That’s all. There was certainly no denigration intended, and the original post characterized these people as both smart and good. If that is denigration, let’s have more of it!
My larger point is that gospel living is often difficult. Think of our story about Adam and Eve. They had to struggle through and find a way to keep commandments that appeared to be in conflict. Almost all of us go through life with blinders on, and an awareness of that fact ought to help us be at least a little humble in our claims of righteousness.
Comment by Mark IV — May 29, 2008 @ 7:51 am
Mark,
I appreciate the frustration, and I respect you, but I think your post is another way of taking the easy way out. You chastise a whole group of people, “these people,” for evincing hatred of homosexuals yet you don’t tell us what you think is appropriate and inappropriate in these discussions. You don’t give examples of what crosses the line. Nobody knows if you’re talking about their comments or comments like theirs, so nobody can learn anything or be convinced of anything. And nobody can defend themselves, which is why I think you’re taking the easy way out. Absent specific, substantive criticisms, you’re engaging in little more than sanctimonious posturing. We know you think everyone except you is ignoring the prophet. That’s it.
Comment by Tom — May 29, 2008 @ 8:04 am
Mark,
Rereading your post I notice that maybe you do tell us what crosses the line. You say,
Is that all we should ever say on the matter?
Comment by Tom — May 29, 2008 @ 8:10 am
Mark,
Tom kind of has a point. We get irritated around here when people publish broad-brush rants against evil apostate bloggers without being specific. Name names, man! Publish your enemies list!
Comment by Ronan — May 29, 2008 @ 8:10 am
Tom, nope, you’re misreading me.
I acknowledged that this is a tightrope walk that is usually difficult for me. I don’t have any suggestions, either. I’m just expressing a hope that the overall tone of our conversations reflected more of the welcoming and fellowshipping part of the counsel.
Ronan,
Believe me, hermano, the first draft of this post was pretty vitriolic, and would have probably gotten me kicked off this blog. Same goes for the second, third, and fourth drafts. Pretty stupid, given that my goal was to create good will.
Comment by Mark IV — May 29, 2008 @ 8:23 am
Tom,
To address your point more specifically, I think I actually do offer a kind of test. Can our conversations be characterized as loving, honoring, and welcoming gay people? If not, then I believe we are out of order to some extent.
That applies to me as much as anybody.
Comment by Mark IV — May 29, 2008 @ 8:30 am
“In particular, we ought to be careful about styling ourselves as humble followers of the prophet when we choose to ignore half of what he says.”
Mark, I take it this means we can expect your post arguing against same-sex marriage in the next couple days, along with admonitions to Kaimi and Steve to do the same?
Comment by Matt Evans — May 29, 2008 @ 8:30 am
Mark, I too love this post, though ultimately I suppose your argument applies as much to me as those you’re pointedly called out. I too only buy half of the counsel from the church on this issue — just the opposite half.
Comment by Randy B. — May 29, 2008 @ 8:34 am
To be fair, Matt, I don’t believe that Mark has styled himself as a humble follower of Christ.
Comment by John C. — May 29, 2008 @ 8:42 am
“To be fair, Matt, I don’t believe that Mark has styled himself as a humble follower of Christ.”
??
Comment by Matt Evans — May 29, 2008 @ 8:47 am
Matt E., you chime in for the first time in months, and that’s the best you got?
Comment by Steve Evans — May 29, 2008 @ 8:57 am
Steve, is the bar higher for infrequent commenters? I guess that would explain why you comment so much…
Comment by Frank McIntyre — May 29, 2008 @ 9:00 am
Mark,
I’m sorry, but you do much more than express hope that our conversations reflect love and respect for homosexuals. You said that our conversations, all of them, reflect hatred of homosexuals. You question whether any of the hundreds of comments written by “these people” can even remotely be considered to reflect the proper attitude towards homosexuals. That’s broad brush chastisement of other people.
I think I’m reading what you wrote just fine. I believe you, though, if you tell me that what you wrote doesn’t reflect what you’re trying to say. That happens to me sometimes.
Comment by Tom — May 29, 2008 @ 9:00 am
How about just following what Jehovah/Jesus Christ tought: love your neighbor as yourself.
Comment by Her Amun — May 29, 2008 @ 9:00 am
By which I mean, that Mark is saying he struggles with this issue too. He wasn’t holding himself up as a model of decorum or obedience.
Comment by John C. — May 29, 2008 @ 9:01 am
That being said, love does not preclude the fact that “gay marriage” is abominable and should be fought.
Comment by Her Amun — May 29, 2008 @ 9:01 am
Frank, I guess T&S must really be defunct if all you losers are commenting over here all the time.
Comment by Steve Evans — May 29, 2008 @ 9:01 am
…but to address your point, I comment frequently because I care, Frank. I CARE.
But seriously, Mark’s post is in a wonderful spirit and I don’t mean to detract from it any further. I would appreciate it if we all could try and to likewise.
Comment by Steve Evans — May 29, 2008 @ 9:03 am
Matt Evans, there is another solution: not to style oneself as a humble, literalist follower of church leadership. One can acknowledge that, like everybody else, one picks and chooses the messages that seem most important. Perhaps this is good, or perhaps it is bad, but it’s what we all always do.
Mark, good on you. This is inevitably a difficult and painful set of issues to discuss. I think one starting point would be for all of us to agree that many, many people’s hopes and dreams are crushed by existing marriage laws. I don’t think an honest discussion is possible unless that human cost is brought into clear focus. That doesn’t necessarily mean we have to change the laws; it does mean we ought to be very vividly aware of the people we’re hurting if we don’t.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — May 29, 2008 @ 9:05 am
Whenever BCC publishes a post admonishing cafeteria Mormons, I’ll be there!
Comment by Matt Evans — May 29, 2008 @ 9:07 am
As an example, the following comment, while not directly related to gay marriage, is inflammatory, bone-headed, and hateful. It did appear on a gay marriage thread and appears to be some sort of justification for excluding gay people from our lives.
You may, of course, read it in its original context here.
Comment by John C. — May 29, 2008 @ 9:09 am
Matt,
When I meet a living, breathing example of a Mormon who isn’t a cafeteria Mormon, I will hop right on that.
Comment by John C. — May 29, 2008 @ 9:10 am
John, there are many Mormons who accept all of the church’s counsel.
Comment by Matt Evans — May 29, 2008 @ 9:14 am
Pssst, Matt. We’re all cafeteria Mormons, and we’re all sinners. So there’s no need to take sides.
By the way, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, in his article entitled Same Gender Atraction in the October, 1995 Ensign, admits that while we LDS fold do an unusually good job of making our opposition to homosexuality known, we do a lousy job of loving and reaching out to gay people. So Matt, as a self styled follower of the brethren, I admonish you to get with the program and follow the prophet, just like me!!! It’s easy!!!
Comment by Mark IV — May 29, 2008 @ 9:15 am
What, like the cafeteria Mormons who parse beyond all recognition the church’s compassionate statements about illegal immigrants? Yeah, those cafeteria Mormons kindle my fierce anger.
Comment by Ronan — May 29, 2008 @ 9:16 am
Mark,
if you can point to any part of my recent SSM posts or my comments in the threads that shows hatred for people who are gay, please do so and I’ll remove the post. Also I’ll eat my hat.
Comment by Adam Greenwood — May 29, 2008 @ 9:18 am
Mark IV,
Don’t look at me, man. As a great man once said, “I’ve done everything the Bible says; even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! What more could I do?”
Comment by Sam B. — May 29, 2008 @ 9:20 am
Matt,
To answer your # 51 seriously, I will agree that many of us do try to accept all prophetic counsel.
The difficulty arises when we have to assign it a priority in our lives, because it can’t all be at the top of the list. What is more important, the counsel to store food or the counsel to avoid anger? My answer to that might be different from yours, given our different circumstances. That is why president Lee said that the most important prophetic counsel we can follow is the counsel that applies to each of us at the moment.
Comment by Mark IV — May 29, 2008 @ 9:22 am
response to #49. Elder Oaks makes similar kinds of comments. I normally find most bloggernaccle discussions on this topic to be seriously out of touch with the mainstream members that I have lived around my entire life. Essentially you can comfortably make a comment similar to the quote from JM #49 in EQ, in SS, from the pulpit, in a HC meeting and nobody will bat an eye at it. Or at least will publicly bat an eye at it. The reverse is also true of course. If Mark B attempted to fashion a SS lesson or a EQ lesson like his opening post it would be highly controversial and likely he would be openly challenged by numerous members.
From the public affairs interview at LDS.org
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At what point does showing that love cross the line into inadvertently endorsing behavior? If the son says, ‘Well, if you love me, can I bring my partner to our home to visit? Can we come for holidays?’ How do you balance that against, for example, concern for other children in the home?’
ELDER OAKS: That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer.
I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”
There are so many different circumstances, it’s impossible to give one answer that fits all.
Comment by bbell — May 29, 2008 @ 9:22 am
Matt,
If you are a victim of that delusion, its a matter to take up with your psychiatrist, not with me.
Comment by John C. — May 29, 2008 @ 9:23 am
So there’s no need to take sides.
If this post is any evidence, you don’t confine yourself to doing only needful things.
Comment by Adam Greenwood — May 29, 2008 @ 9:24 am
bbell,
That’s kind of Mark’s point: why is such hostility toward our gay neighbors acceptable in LDS circles, while Mark’s post would be unacceptable? Mark’s not trying to be descriptive of LDS attitudes: he’s trying to point out that they derive from one set of prophetic counsel while explicitly ignoring another set. How to negotiate between the two is the question; like many people here and on the other thread, I don’t find the approach quoted in 49 satisfying or, really, in line with our moral duties.
Comment by Sam B. — May 29, 2008 @ 9:27 am
Adam, please re-read my post, then return to the comments and tell me where I use the word hatred. If you can, I’ll eat my hat. If you can’t, you’ll not only need to eat your hat, but your straw man as well.
I maintain that our conversations have been heavy on rejection of homosexuality without the counterbalance of a loving and welcoming spirit that our leaders have placed us under obligation to project. Do you disagree?
Comment by Mark IV — May 29, 2008 @ 9:27 am
“Essentially you can comfortably make a comment similar to the quote from JM #49 in EQ, in SS, from the pulpit, in a HC meeting and nobody will bat an eye at it. Or at least will publicly bat an eye at it. The reverse is also true of course. If Mark B attempted to fashion a SS lesson or a EQ lesson like his opening post it would be highly controversial and likely he would be openly challenged by numerous members.”
Is it really the case that saying “I will not let gay people into my home” is less controversial than “We should show compassion to gay people”? If this is the case, isn’t that demonstrating Mark’s point?
Comment by John C. — May 29, 2008 @ 9:29 am
FWIW, bbell, your description of what is acceptable to mainstream members based upon your lifetime around them doesn’t resonate with me, based on my lifetime around them. I rarely, if ever, hear anything over the pulpit, in SS, or otherwise in church, about my homosexual neighbors and I have never heard it suggested in church that we should not allow our gay neighbors into our homes. In practice, in fact, I’ve never seen such rejection occur. So I have high hopes that the virulent comments I read about (and read) on the Bloggernacle represent a small (and fading) attitude within the Church. It certainly doesn’t reflect the attitudes I’ve seen from our leaders.
Comment by Sam B. — May 29, 2008 @ 9:33 am
You say that in recent weeks, every discussion in the bloggernacle has made it clear that “we hate the sinner too.”
Granted, “hate” is a verb and “hatred” is a noun.
Comment by Adam Greenwood — May 29, 2008 @ 9:33 am
Matt #51: John, there are many Mormons who accept all of the church’s counsel.
I don’t believe this to be an accurate description, Matt. I think there are many Mormons who have constructed an edifice in their minds that they label “all the church’s counsel,” and they accept that edifice. However, the construction in question is always partial. The church’s counsel is wild and varied, it covers a vast range of topics, and, yes, it has even contradicted itself from time to time.
Mark’s original post might just as well have gone back to the New Testament to look at Jesus’s choice of dinner companions. Hate the sin but not the sinner might be a starting point, but we ought to add to that the point that judgment and justice are God’s. It’s not even our job to decide which actions of other people’s are sins.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — May 29, 2008 @ 9:36 am
Is it wrong to make judgments about people making judgments, JNS? Is or is not Mark Brown judging the recent discussions in the bloggernacle?
Comment by Adam Greenwood — May 29, 2008 @ 9:43 am
Adam,
Thank you for your comment 64. Upon reflection, I agree that my formulation was too strong for what I meant, and I have amended the post to reflect that. Thanks for contributing in a substantive way.
Comment by Mark Brown — May 29, 2008 @ 9:47 am
John C, Mark, Sam
Please address the Elder Oaks comments. They undermine your position.
Comment by bbell — May 29, 2008 @ 9:48 am
Adam #66, interesting point. My personal preference in this kind of discussion is usually to phrase things in the abstract so as not to have to decide whether any particular person is sinning (other than myself; I’m a sinner, although I’d rather not be). But Mark’s post does have a kind of Old-Testament prophetic quality that I admire.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — May 29, 2008 @ 9:50 am
FWIW, bbell, your description of what is acceptable to mainstream members based upon your lifetime around them doesn’t resonate with me, based on my lifetime around them. I rarely, if ever, hear anything over the pulpit, in SS, or otherwise in church, about my homosexual neighbors and I have never heard it suggested in church that we should not allow our gay neighbors into our homes. In practice, in fact, I’ve never seen such rejection occur. So I have high hopes that the virulent comments I read about (and read) on the Bloggernacle represent a small (and fading) attitude within the Church. It certainly doesn’t reflect the attitudes I’ve seen from our leaders.
Can I ask where you’ve lived?
Because I heard this repeatedly growing up in Ohio, heard this frequently at BYU, and heard it stated on a couple occasions here in North Texas. The frequency is growing less and less, but I heard this repeatedly from the pulpit and in classes taught by priesthood leaders (not just run of the mill GD teachers).
bbell lives less than a gallon of gas from me, so I imagine he may have heard it in his stake as well.
Comment by queuno — May 29, 2008 @ 9:51 am
Mark (#56),
There actaully isn’t very much tension in the church’s counsel, so it really isn’t tough for Mormons to strive to heed the counsel to store food and to control their anger.
The willingness of members to openly reject or oppose church counsel is a feature of the bloggernacle that turns off many members I’ve talked to. They see the failure to follow church counsel as a weakness.
Sam B. (#60),
If Elder Oaks thinks it’s okay for parents to say, “Please don’t do that,” to their own child asking to bring a gay partner for the holidays, it would appear seem he’d also think it okay for John Mansfield to decline a party celebrating a gay or cohabitating couple’s house warming.
Comment by Matt Evans — May 29, 2008 @ 9:51 am
Come to think of it, I heard it also in SLC, in California, and in South America (perhaps most virulently there).
Comment by queuno — May 29, 2008 @ 9:52 am
bbell, regarding Elder Oaks’s comments, they present us with a dilemma. Was he speaking for himself, or for God? Are these words inspired? Nothing in the quote you present resolves this issue.
Jesus didn’t seem to usually go out of his way to avoid associating with sinners. According to the old, oft-recommended test of comparing statements with the canon, we have some reason to be careful here.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — May 29, 2008 @ 9:53 am
bbell,
No, they don’t. They demonstrate the point. That there is another approach available is Mark’s point. That we need to oppose sin while remaining compassionate to the sinner is difficult (which is Mark’s point). Erring on the side of opposing sin can be bad; as can erring on the side of compassion. If you want me to choose between Elder Oaks asking his gay relatives to not come to visit and Christ sitting with prostitutes and publicans, I can’t. I have to try to find a way to satisfy both. Choosing one over the other is where sin is generated in this scenario, I think.
Comment by John C. — May 29, 2008 @ 9:55 am
There actaully isn’t very much tension in the church’s counsel, so it really isn’t tough for Mormons to strive to heed the counsel to store food and to control their anger.
Brilliant example of my earlier point, Matt. If you personally define the extent of church counsel, you can make it narrow enough that there’s no problem for you in accepting it all. But really church counsel consists of many hundreds of thousands of pages of sermons and publications going back nearly 200 years. There’s a lot more there than food storage and controlling anger, and, yes, there are contradictions and aspects of counsel we now see as wrong.
Even food storage is becoming a murky issue, since the church has been in a process of backtracking from the universal one-year recommendation, by the way.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — May 29, 2008 @ 9:55 am
bbell,
Unless I’m seriously misreading him, he’s basically addressing the issue of what to do if a gay child comes to spend an extended period of time; he’s giving members permission not to let them sleep together in his house (which, I would assume, LDS parents would also do if their straight child came home with a boy/girlfriend).
Now you address where he says, Don’t allow your gay neighbor into your home. (Hint: he doesn’t.) Or better, please address how you can be consistent with Pres. Hinckley’s admonition (in Kaimi’s #5) to love and welcome our gay brothers and sisters, even if we don’t approve of certain of their actions.
Please realize that I’m not suggesting that there’s an easy solution. But I am suggesting that the solution proposed in #49 is a bad solution and, if Church members are comfortable with that and not with the concept of loving and welcoming our gay brothers and sisters, they’re not following prophetic counsel and they need to repent. (Note that I’m also not following all prophetic counsel–it’s hard to do, in my experience–and I need to repent, too. In fact, a good portion of prophetic counsel is just that: that we, as individuals, as a church, as a community, as a nation, and/or as a world, need to repent.)
Comment by Sam B. — May 29, 2008 @ 9:55 am
Greenwood, dude — you can strain at syntactical gnats and try to discredit Mark all you want. Are you really trying to argue against the substance of his main point — that the tone of many of the anti-SSM comments and posts in the bloggernaccle, including yours, represents the opposite of extending the hand of love and fellowship to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters?
The leaders of the Church have made clear that while the Church institutionally opposes SSM, the members may freely take a different political position and that one’s position on this particular question is not a benchmark for righteousness or temple-worthiness. No such caveat or qualifier exists for the injunction to treat even those we consider to be sinners in a Christ-like manner.
I completely support the Church’s choice to take the political position it has, and the Church supports my choice to take a different one. The Church does not support the choice of any of us (myself) to to act like self-righteous, self-satisfied, superior jerks.
Comment by Brad — May 29, 2008 @ 9:56 am
Brad, you’re a scholar and a gentleman.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — May 29, 2008 @ 9:57 am
Well, thanks for taking what I said seriously. I don’t think that opposing SSM shows a ‘rejection’ of people who are gay anymore than it shows a ‘hatred,’ but baby steps, baby steps.
Comment by Adam Greenwood — May 29, 2008 @ 9:57 am
Geez, Mark, I pointed out to you twice that you said that we are all displaying hatred of homosexuals and only after Adam Greenwood points it out do you agree. Is it the sweater vest? Because I can get a sweater vest.
Comment by Tom — May 29, 2008 @ 9:58 am
Matt, 71,
When you described the church’s official statement posted on lds dot org on stem cell research as incoherent and stupid, did you see yourself as being in opposition to prophetic counsel? I’m asking that as a serious question, not in a spirit of calling you out or finding fault. I guess that is what I mean about us all picking and choosing.
Comment by Mark Brown — May 29, 2008 @ 9:59 am
LOL Tom, actually it was the combination of you, Ray, and Adam that caused me to reconsider. But thanks to you, too!
Comment by Mark Brown — May 29, 2008 @ 10:00 am
What was the point of the original post? I’ve forgotten as I’ve plowed through the comments.
“Do unto others” seems like a pretty good rule to me.
Comment by Ray — May 29, 2008 @ 10:01 am
.
ann, no need to worry, Mike says there will be glow sticks and we will be there to keep you company.
love,
m
Comment by mfranti — May 29, 2008 @ 10:02 am
queuno (#71/72),
Southern California, BYU, Brazil, New York, and Virginia.
Matt (#60),
Certainly John may not attend housewarming, etc., parties. I don’t attend parties all the time (mostly because I’m not invited, but sometimes because I’m busy or I don’t like the person). But in the refusal to let a child come for the holidays, or the refusal to attend a neighbor’s celebration, we are choosing between counsel that is in tension with other counsel; I think choosing not to invite a child (or not to attend the party because the couple in question is gay) is the worse option. Certainly Elder Oaks allows members to make that choice; I am not convinced, however, he is advocating it. (Similarly, the church allows us to get divorces. It unequivocably does not recommend it, however.) If you read his last sentence, though, that seems to me to be the clincher: there are so many different situations that there’s not a one-size-fits-all solution.
Comment by Sam B. — May 29, 2008 @ 10:02 am
And Tom — get that sweater-vest!
Comment by Brad — May 29, 2008 @ 10:02 am
crap!!! my link didn’t work.
Comment by mfranti — May 29, 2008 @ 10:02 am
What kinds of hats are we talking about eating here, anyway? Porkpie? Bowler? I mean, the stakes need to be good.
Here is my beef with the trend in this conversation: I see Mark’s post as being largely about compassion and a call to treat others with more love and respect. I see many of the commenters as insisting upon the need for solid moral standards and doing what is right in the face of iniquity. Neither perspective is wrong, quite frankly, but what is wrong is for any of us to use these sentiments as a wedge and a divider.
Using our words as weapons against each other to score some sort of internet victory? I’m as guilty as anyone, but just going back and re-reading this thread I feel a little stricken. If anything this thread is illustrative of just how far away we are from Zion, personal purity and good intentions notwithstanding.
Comment by Steve Evans — May 29, 2008 @ 10:03 am
Dude, Brad, yes, of course I am. I reject the idea that opposing gay marriage or thinking that gay relationships should not be promoted means rejecting our brothers and sisters who are gay or lesbian. Simple as that.
I simply don’t see anything in the gospel that says ‘hate the sin, but don’t oppose public validation of the sin in public policy discussions without adding how much you love the sinner.’ For the most part that formula strikes me as pretty cheap and artificial, like those anti-mormons who preface their stuff with a statement that, of course, they love their Mormon neighbors.
Of course its possible to take a Westboro Baptist approach in public, which would obviously be hating the sinner, but for the most part the way we love the sinner is how we conduct ourselves towards people we run across in our daily lives. Jesus ate with the Pharisees but to my knowledge he never went out of his way to talk about how much he loved them while condemning their pharisaism. Talk about straining at syntactic gnats.
Comment by Adam Greenwood — May 29, 2008 @ 10:03 am
JNS #65, the difference is that the views of the devout members are always contingent on the church’s counsel. They’re views are so contingent that they’re baffled by people who claim to know the church is wrong. If the church were to counsel them to do four hours of community service weekly, they’d strive to do it, and if the church said it was immoral to have debts of any kind they’d sell their house. If the church tells them to support gay marriage amendments, they’ll support gay marriage amendments.
That conformity maddens outsiders, of course, and is the basis for many religionists-are-fascists-in-waiting arguments, but it exists in numerous caferteria-rejecting Mormons. I’d estimate that the moral views of a majority of recommend holding Mormons are “church counsel contingent”.
Comment by Matt Evans — May 29, 2008 @ 10:04 am
#83 was posted after catching up on the comments - but also after not reading the last dozen or so that appeared when I posted it.
The internet can be SO fun.
Comment by Ray — May 29, 2008 @ 10:06 am
As the comments fly quickly, I would suggest reading #88. Steve nailed my concern perfectly.
Comment by Ray — May 29, 2008 @ 10:08 am
Adam, I never argued that opposing SSM in itself means rejecting our gay brothers and sisters. I don’t think that for a second. My argument was about the “tone” of the posts and comments opposing SSM, not the fact of their opposing it. If I’m misreading the tone of the posts. If you intended (or can in good faith impute the intention to others) to convey a spirit of outreach and loving fellowship with your posts and comments, then I humbly withdraw my criticism.
That said, my point about caveats and qualifiers still stands.
Comment by Brad — May 29, 2008 @ 10:08 am
We had a gay member start coming out to church after his long term partner had died of AIDS. He was also starting to exhibit many of the symptoms himself. Our bishop counseled us from the pulpit to befriend and welcome this man back into our ward. I’m glad he did. It was a blessing to all of us to get to know this man before he also died.
That, plus getting to know gay coworkers and acquaintances, has helped me to be more compassionate, to the extent that if asked to work actively for a defense of marriage act or law again, I will politely decline. One of the most meaningful experiences I have had was to meet with a group of bishops, and hear from a man who had been a singles ward bishop in Seattle for several years. He talked about the gay members of his congregation, their struggles, and how they tried to help them fit in. He showed me how better to try and bridge the gap that Mark is talking about in his post. We obviously have a ways to go, and I don’t want to condemn others who are maybe faithful, with good intentions, but farther back on this curve. I know I still have a lot to learn about the example the Savior set for us.
Comment by kevinf — May 29, 2008 @ 10:08 am
btw, I fixed your link, mfranti.
Comment by Brad — May 29, 2008 @ 10:09 am
Steve E., #88,
a good reminder. Let me say the following, and I’ll bow out:
1) We should hate the sin and love the sinner, including when it comes to gay marriage and gays.
2) It is OK, even praiseworthy, to put up arguments on the internet against giving legal validity to gay marriage, or to condemn giving legal validity to gay marriage.
3) It is OK, even praiseworthy, to remind the Saints that we are required to love and embrace our brothers and sisters who are gay, and to urge us to think of ways of making that clear even in our internet postings.
4) It is not OK to argue that the majority of bloggernacle posts against gay marriage have shown a refusal to love and embrace our brothers and sisters who are gay.
5) It is not OK to make posts that do show such a refusal (i.e., invective against gays as a class, condemnation of the *state* of homosexuality and not just the *action,* etc.)
Comment by Adam Greenwood — May 29, 2008 @ 10:11 am
Matt (90),
How are you defining “devout” members? People who interpret and prioritize Church counsel the same way you do? Because your argument implicitly suggests that anyone who disagrees with some view (presumably yours) isn’t devout; I think that’s a wrong and a bad definition of devotion, even if it were the definition used by the majority of the Church.
A better explanation, I think, than debt = sin means sell my house is, if the Church counsels that debt = sin, they fast and pray (1) to determine if that is the Lord’s will and (2) if it is, to determine how they best should act to follow the counsel.
Comment by Sam B. — May 29, 2008 @ 10:11 am
Brad,
Tone is pretty subjective. Are you saying that if we sound vehement or angry in our posts about gay marriage, that shows we hate gays, or what?
Comment by Adam Greenwood — May 29, 2008 @ 10:13 am
Oh, sorry, forgot I was bowing out. Brad, have your say here and I’ll email you if I have more.
Comment by Adam Greenwood — May 29, 2008 @ 10:14 am
Thanks Adam.
Comment by Steve Evans — May 29, 2008 @ 10:14 am
Mark #81, the stem cell research statement I ridiculed began with words something like, “While the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelves Apostles have not taken a position on stem cell research, . . .”
We never figured out who in the church PR department decided to make a statement not supported by the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve. Thankfully, the statement had a short life — all evidence of it was removed from LDS.org a little while later.
Comment by Matt Evans — May 29, 2008 @ 10:15 am
This is a wonderful post. Thank you for posting it. There is a reason many gay and lesbian members of the church are leaving. It is because we do not have “ears to hear” the second part of what the prophets are asking us to do, which is reach out, rather than put down.
Comment by green mormon architect — May 29, 2008 @ 10:16 am
Matt,
The majority of devout, recommend holding Mormons I know would never ridicule any statement posted in an official church forum, short-lived or not. Welcome to the dark side, mate.
Comment by Ronan — May 29, 2008 @ 10:18 am
Adam,
I recognize that tone is subjective. Still, subjectivity can only extend so far. It’s impossible to read Mansfield’s comment as attempting to convey a spirit of outreach or loving fellowship to those he believes to be sinners. (Can a resurrected deity still “roll” in a proverbial “grave”?) This is why I asked what you intended by your posts. Clearly, I have read them as not intending to convey love and fellowship. I have read them as, at a minimum, indifferent to the question. If mine is a misreading, I’ll bow out as well.
Comment by Brad — May 29, 2008 @ 10:19 am
Sam #97, feel free to replace “devout” with any other shorthand word for “church counsel contingent” members. My purpose of this tangent was only to show that there are, indeed, members who do not pick and choose which counsel they will follow. They try to follow it all.
Comment by Matt Evans — May 29, 2008 @ 10:20 am
For the record, Matt, my second and third paragraphs in #77 were directed more at you than at Adam.
Thoughts?
Comment by Brad — May 29, 2008 @ 10:21 am
As for Elder Oaks’ statement, there is only actually one firm injunction, viz., “that’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration.” All these “counsel-contingent” Mormons would do well to note this, I would think.
Comment by Ronan — May 29, 2008 @ 10:21 am
As do I.
Comment by Brad — May 29, 2008 @ 10:22 am
Matt,
I think that saying that your stipulation of “counsel-contingency” is a false flag. As I don’t know any active members who aren’t cafeteria Mormons, I don’t know any active members who feel they can blithely disregard church counsel.
Comment by John C. — May 29, 2008 @ 10:22 am
Brad,
Does every discussion of gay marriage have to have the intent of displaying love and a welcoming spirit to homosexual people? Can’t it just be about gay marriage as long as it doesn’t violate standards of love and respect?
Comment by Tom — May 29, 2008 @ 10:28 am
Matt,
Right. There are certainly people who try to follow all of the Church’s counsel. But at some point it collides (a la Adam and Eve: don’t partake of the fruit vs. multiply and replenish the earth: gramatically, the two aren’t in opposition, but practically they were).
If you argue that there are members who try to do everything they have been counseled to do, I’d probably agree with you (and I’d like to think most of the time that you, that I, that Steve and Ronan and Adam and everyone else here fits into that category). If you are arguing, however, that there are members who actually do do everything they’ve been counselled, I disagree. And if you’re arguing that we can’t prayerfully evaluate something we’ve been told and receive revelation that it isn’t for us to do at this time, you’re clearly wrong (see, e.g., Nephi with Laban: I’d argue that we won’t receive such revelation, and shouldn’t trust it, but it is scriptural evidence that personal revelation sometimes does trump scriptural counsel).
And I’ve wasted too much time on this today, so adieu.
Comment by Sam B. — May 29, 2008 @ 10:28 am
Absolutely. The contention of this post is that much of the naccle posting and commenting in opposition to SSM does not live up to this standard.
Comment by Brad — May 29, 2008 @ 10:29 am
(by “such counsel,” of course, I mean we shouldn’t trust revelation that we should kill somebody)
Comment by Sam B. — May 29, 2008 @ 10:30 am
“I don’t know any active members who feel they can blithely disregard church counsel.”
How long have you been reading the bloggernacle now, John?
Comment by Eric Russell — May 29, 2008 @ 10:34 am
Brad,
Actually, the contention of this post is that ALL of the posting and commenting in opposition to SSM does not live up to this standard.
The reason I asked my question is that you asked Adam to point you to a post whose intention was to convey love and fellowship. I don’t think all anti-SSM posts have to intend to convey love and fellowship. They just can’t violate standards of love and respect.
Comment by Tom — May 29, 2008 @ 10:35 am
I get it, Tom. And I agree that Mark’s rhetoric here probably outstripped his intent. That said, I think I accurately described the basic sentiment that underlies Mark’s desire to write this.
Comment by Brad — May 29, 2008 @ 10:37 am
church counsel contingent
Matt, this is an incredibly low threshold. The only way to not be “church-counsel contingent” is to completely disregard everything any church leader says. There’s a wide range of stances within the category of people whose positions are influenced by church leaders’ statements. Some people are influenced but hold strong priors on many issues; others are influenced but only hold strong priors on a few issues. Nobody is influenced completely on all issues. In my experience, people who think they follow church counsel strictly on all points in fact tend to deviate quite sharply in at least a couple of areas, although the areas differ from group to group. In the Salt Lake area where I went to high school, many of the people who felt they were closest to following church counsel on all points in fact departed sharply from church counsel on the matter of paying income taxes: these people believed that the church wanted them not to pay.
More generally, the family group of reasoning you use to get away from the stem-cell statement can apply to most statements from the church. What is binding on all members is the canon that has been accepted by common consent; anything else may potentially be the teachings of our leaders as men rather than as prophets. It’s my view that most faithful Mormons implicitly understand and believe this, which is why (for example) they don’t get too worked up about Joseph Smith’s blunders in finance and his failed political endeavors.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — May 29, 2008 @ 10:40 am
Eric Russell, who do you think blithely feels that all church counsel should be disregarded?
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — May 29, 2008 @ 10:41 am
JNS, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I was just curious about John’s internet history. Maybe I was planning on putting together a little awards ceremony for the folks who have been around the longest, who knows.
Comment by Eric Russell — May 29, 2008 @ 11:00 am
Dear Eric,
Long enough.
Comment by John C. — May 29, 2008 @ 11:10 am
Brad, in President Hinckley’s statements Mark referenced, he always speaks in first-person plural. “We love them as sons and daughters of god . . . [but] we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation.” (LDS.org on Homosexuality)
Hinckley makes no distinction between the church and its membership, and actually says that the people who must love gays and those who must defend God-sanctioned marriage from same-sex marriage are one and the same.
Comment by Matt Evans — May 29, 2008 @ 11:20 am
#79:
I don’t think that opposing SSM shows a rejection’ of people who are gay anymore than it shows a ‘hatred,”…
So, Adam, if I spent millions of dollars in an effort to convince Congress that LDS temple sealings should not be recognized as legal marriages, would you conclude that I am not “rejecting” or being “hateful” toward LDS members? Or would your consistency disappear when the standard applies to someone else?
Comment by Nick Literski — May 29, 2008 @ 11:30 am
Matt,
Are you saying that the church has not said that it allows people to make up their own mind on this matter?
All,
Since I brought it up, the reason that Bro. Mansfield’s comments are potentially hateful is that he isn’t keeping his family safe from sin by his actions, but rather he is keeping them safe from sinners. The possibility that his children might see role-models in cohabiting couples (gay or straight), as opposed to only seeing gross caricatures of such people, seems to be the motivation behind his self-inflicted segregation. That is, of course, unless he genuinely suspects that these neighbors are going to commit sex acts in front of his family is some sort of effort to corrupt them. If that was a real possibility, I would also keep myself and my kids at home. As it is not, I cannot think of a single good reason to do as Bro. Mansfield has done.
Comment by John C. — May 29, 2008 @ 11:46 am
I can appreciate the desire not to pick and choose, Matt, but like others here (John, Brad, Ronan, Mark), I think we all do pick and choose. Pretending otherwise is silly.
I’d rather not name posts and instances, but I’m absolutely *positive* that you’ve engaged in pick-and-choosing, yourself.
Comment by Kaimi — May 29, 2008 @ 11:59 am
Nick, speaking strictly and narrowly about #122, I think it would show a rejection of our teachings, but I don’t think it would show a hatred of us in all cases.
In a way, it’s like the discussion of the Catholic Church’s statement regarding temple ordinances for the dead. It shows a rejection of Mormon doctrine, but I don’t think it shows a hatred of Mormons.
Understand, I am NOT saying we should spend millions fighting gay marriage. I just don’t think it shows a hatred of gay people.
Comment by Ray — May 29, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
So, Adam, if I spent millions of dollars in an effort to convince Congress that LDS temple sealings should not be recognized as legal marriages, would you conclude that I am not “rejecting” or being “hateful” toward LDS members? Or would your consistency disappear when the standard applies to someone else?
That’s not a valid comparison, because temple sealings aren’t a fundamental change to what marriage is. If we were still living polygamy, which is a fundamental change to what marriage is, and people spent millions of dollars fighting its legality, then, no, I would not consider that hateful toward Latter-Day Saints.
Comment by Jeremy Jensen — May 29, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
If I may step in here -
Jeremy, 125 years ago, that is exactly what happened to us, and our predecessors did interpret the actions of other citizens and the government as persecution and hateful.
I’d like to make it clear that I do not believe that arguing in opposition to SSM constitutes hateful speech towards gays. My point is that in making those arguments, we ought to be careful to try to project some kindness as well. It still is not clear to me why that is such a controversial proposition.
Comment by Mark IV — May 29, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
“the only way to not be ‘church-counsel contingent’ is to completely disregard everything any church leader says.”
JNS #117,
That would be someone who is “church counsel indifferent.” Someone with “church counsel contingent” views can’t disregard anything the church counsels because their moral views are determined by the counsel itself. Only people with views NOT contingent on the church can discern whether the counsels are good or bad. People like Randy in comment 36 can critique church positions only because their views are independent of or prior to the church or gospel (i.e., NOT contingent on church counsel). Their independent and prior moral framework allows them to see which moral values are right and which are wrong. When the church’s counsel accords with his what his independent morality tells him, he accepts it (I’m using Randy only as an example here, sorry Randy to use you as a proxy!) Randy says he “buys the church’s counsel” about being accepting of gays, and that’s a good way to define cafeteria Mormonism — “buy” the church’s counsel when they’re selling messages that conform to what you believe already.
People whose views are contingent on church counsel have no framework from which to critique the church counsel itself; church counsel defines morality. If the church counsels against drinking coffee or getting tattoos, it’s immoral to drink coffee or get tattoos.
Other people could be consdired “church counsel influenced” — meaning that church counsel is one among various other sources undergirding their moral framework.
It’s hard to identify legitimate moral priors that can form the foundation of an independent morality in Mormonism; Mormons believe conscience is the universal “light of Christ” — which the prophets have as well; Mormons believe the Holy Ghost discerns morality — but the prophets have that, too; there’s potentially tension between the church and the gospel — but Mormons believe the prophets understand the gospel, too. Etc., etc.
This discussion may force me to write my post challenging the possibility of “private conscience” within Mormonism. Someone with “church counsel contingent” views is not able to critique the church’s position because the church’s position defines morality.
John C #123,
The church usually indicates that church members aren’t necessarily expected to work for specific political proposals, but Presidently Hinckley always talked about opposition to same-sex marriage as though it applied to all members — just like the admonition to love gays — as in the quote I cited above. I didn’t go looking for a supporting quote, it was the one on LDS.org under Homosexuality.
Comment by Matt Evans — May 29, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
I agree with the points made by Adam in #96, for the most part. I found Mark’s original post to be a bit too binary in arguing arguing against binary-ness, with generalizations that are, imo, unfortunate, and with an unintended tone of castigation.
In agreeing with Adam, I wish he would have added the following:
6) It is OK, even praiseworthy, to put up arguments on the internet in favor of giving legal validity to gay marriage, or to condone giving legal validity to gay marriage.
Comment by Kari — May 29, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
Um, can we all sing Kumbaya or something? Gettin’ a little hot in here for me. Let’s all take a moment to bask in the splendidly saccharin cuteness of “Baby falls asleep.”
Comment by sister blah 2 — May 29, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
Matt,
I’m going to pick on your language. What you’re describing is a person who is “church-counsel determined.” “Contingent” seems to mean that church counsel affects an individual’s probability distribution of beliefs. “Determined” suggests that the person has no beliefs outside of church counsel. Of course, no such person exists, and if such a person did exist, she would be condemned by church counsel. What a catch-22!
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — May 29, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
Matt,
If it were possible to understand church counsel in a vacuum, it might be possible to agree to your point re: “church counsel contingency”. But church counsel is presented in an actual context, you get endless discussion of gross vs. net in tithing, endless discussion of polygamy in the celestial kingdom. You are simplifying complexities beyond the realm of where we actually deal with them. Church counsel is almost never addressed solely in a context of “do it/don’t do it” for active LDS. Instead, it is addressed in a sense of “what does following it mean? How do I apply it? Does it apply in this situation?” Again, I do not know how you can argue that the church position “defines morality” when we are often uncertain as to what that position is.
Comment by John C. — May 29, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
It’s hard to identify legitimate moral priors that can form the foundation of an independent morality in Mormonism; Mormons believe conscience is the universal “light of Christ” — which the prophets have as well; Mormons believe the Holy Ghost discerns morality — but the prophets have that, too; there’s potentially tension between the church and the gospel — but Mormons believe the prophets understand the gospel, too. Etc., etc.
Oops. I’m pretty sure many or most Mormons don’t believe these things in the sense you suggest, Matt. We believe that prophets have recourse to God, conscience, the gospel, etc., just as we do. But we also believe that prophets are human and make mistakes. Otherwise, our belief system is sunk by every mistake any leader of our church has ever made — and we all know there are a lot. Our belief is that our leaders are given the gift of divine guidance — as we all are in our own lives — but with a different domain. The gift doesn’t differ, just the scope. Otherwise, the Kirtland Safety Society and so forth sink Mormonism.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — May 29, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
Kaimi #124,
Whether or not I pick and choose (and I don’t know what church counsel you think I’ve spoken against), there are people who don’t. When the church counsels about a topic, they believe the moral question has been answered. Not everyone is a cafeteria Mormon.
All,
Temple marriages aren’t recognized as legal marriages in many countries. During my mission to Spain, for example, members are typically married by a government representative for their legal marriage, then travel to the Swiss temple for their sealing. I never heard any Spanish members complain about this arrangement, and don’t know if Spain didn’t recognize Swiss temple marriages because the marriage was religious, Mormon, or done in Switzerland.
Comment by Matt Evans — May 29, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
Just so it’s clear, I am neither (as defined by Matt) either “church counsel indifferent” or “church counsel contingent.” Rather, like most every member I know, I am “church counsel influenced.” And frankly, I see no other viable alternative.
Comment by Randy B. — May 29, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
back to the original post.
Mark B. How does BYU’s honor code welcome homosexuals? How do discplinary councils for those members who engage in homosexual acts jive with your position? How does church financial and logsitcs support for ballot initiatives jive with your interpretation? Just asking cause I see a disconnect with your take on the counsel and the LDS Churchs actions in specific cases. Read the quote from LDS.org in #121 for an answer. In order to welcome people with homosexual tendencies into our congregations if we follow the counsel they need to be celibate and quiet.
I really think your taking acceptance of homosexuality in the LDS Church way out of context both current and historical and in essence twisting what Pres H really said.
Comment by bbell — May 29, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
Matt, generally Europe does not recognize religious ceremonies as a substitute for civil marriage.
Comment by Steve Evans — May 29, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
Matt,
I am interesting in pursuing this question, and I hope that the qestions I ask do not appear to you as antagonistic. They’re not, but I want to get to specifics, so it is clear what we are talking about.
I simply don’t see how we can avoid considering counsel and calibrating our individual responses to it. When Spencer W. Kimball was president of the church, members of my extended family knew two different apostles. They lived in high rise apartment buildings, and they made no effort whatsoever to grow gardens, as SWK repeatedly counselled. By your reasoning, don’t we have to regard them with suspicion?
A more current example might be the advice to place the family computer in a public place in the home. An 80 year old widow will approach this counsel differently than a family full of teen-age boys, don’t you think? I don’t see how we can escape the obligation to carefully consider how counsel applies to us individually and as families.
Comment by Mark IV — May 29, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
Which is really the direction we need to head, to solve this for our country.
Comment by Tracy M — May 29, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
Thanks Mark for the post. I struggle to find a way to straddle the chasm of following opposing message, it feels like it is getting harder. I think when you really know someone who is gay and love them, your attitude changes and you sense a certain hostility and intolerance in others when they are speaking out against gay marriage and homosexuality. I live in CA, and I have a feeling things are going to get crazy again here with church and SSM politics. I need to figure out what I am going to say, because if I don’t say anything when I hear people say hostile things in Church (not everyone comes off hostile, but some certainly do), I come home feeling horrible about myself for not defending my gay brothers and sisters. For the most part, when people say something at church that is hostile, I think they really don’t know better. I feel like I need to take that chance to maybe educate them in a way or at least let them know that I perceive their words as hostile and not conducive to the spirit or the teachings of Christ. I understand members supporting the Church’s official stance, but I wish the politics didn’t come up so much while at church and I wish there was some leeway for people like me who really struggle to make sense of it all. I just am not sure what to say when something confrontational is said. I love the Church and don’t want to be kicked out or anything when I express my confusion, but more importantly, I want to be true to myself and Heavenly Father and the teachings of Christ. The getting kicked out is a real fear - my mom was not allowed to be re-baptized because in her interview when asked if she would vote or support the Knight initiative she said no.
Comment by tesseract — May 29, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
Matt writes,
Okay, Matt, I’ll say it outright: Your own preferred cafeteria is located just inside the Marriott hotel.
Now, let he who has never eaten at the cafeteria himself (i.e., speaking evil of the Lord’s anointed by publicly saying that a general authority is a pornographer) be the first to cast stones at the cafeteria.
Comment by Kaimi — May 29, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
bbell,
Elder Oaks himself has said that he wished members were more open and loving towards lesbians and gays. What is so hard to understand about that? I cannot believe that that is even controversial.
I pointed out that church leaders usually balance their opposition to homosexual behavior with caveats about loving and accepting gay people. Those statements ar either meaningless drivel, or they are not. My question is: Can we not do that in our bloggernacle conversations as well?
Comment by Mark IV — May 29, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
bbell,
BYU’s position on gay people has changed. Whereas we used to intimidate and expel them and subject them to brutal reparative therapy, we now allow celibate lesbian and gays to organize a club on campus. There is absolutely no question that BYU is more welcoming of gay people than it was even 20 years ago. I see that as progress. Do you?
Disciplinary councils are pretty much the same for gay people as they are for anybody else who violates the law of chastity.
As far as support for ballot initiatives goes, the church has changed tactics lately. When the issue came up two years ago where I lived, our SP read a letter over the pulpit encourageing members to participate in the political process and support the actions they believe will strengthen the family. Somebody from the congregation asked him what that meant, and wanted clarification as to what the church wanted us to do. The SP simply read the relevant paragraph from the letter and invited us to follow our conscience. Contrast the tone of the most recent public statement with the statements from 15 years ago, and you’ll see what I mean.
Comment by Mark Brown — May 29, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
Mark,
I am simply asking if you can jive the acceptance and loving language with the actual policies and practices of LDS universities, HC dis councils etc.
Comment by bbell — May 29, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
Re 88:
My “beef with this conversation” is that they have have to deal with abstract generalities, since I don’t think anyone but Mark has any idea what it is exactly he found hateful about the comments.
The original post reminds me of a boss I had once who got all of the employees in the room once and said, “I don’t want to have to talk about this, so I’m not going to mention what happened, but you all know what happened, and the people responsible know who they are, so I think it goes without saying that those people need to stop doing the thing that they’re doing.”
In conversations with my co-employees later, I found out that not one of us had any idea what he was talking about.
Comment by jimbob — May 29, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
jimbob,
I agree with you. I am asking questions that can only be answered subjectively. So I ask you, in your subjective opinion:
Comment by Mark Brown — May 29, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
bbell,
I can’t jive, but I can boogie. Is that good enough?
Comment by Mark Brown — May 29, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
Bbell writes,
Hmmm.
If the policies and practices of LDS universities are not in line with direct prophetic counsel about loving, honoring, and welcoming gays . . . which ought to change?
Comment by Kaimi — May 29, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
Mark,
So are you saying that any time we talk about gay marriage we should affirmatively state that we love and accept gay people? It’s not OK to just avoid disrespect and hatred?
Personally, I don’t think we need to state the caveats all the time. I think they’re probably necessary and useful in Church leaders’ statements, but I think we can just give each other the benefit of the doubt as we’re talking about the gay marriage issue. I don’t see any reason to complain about conversations or comments that are respectful but don’t affirmatively convey love and acceptance. Always saying how much we respect and welcome gays as we talk about reasons we think gay marriage shouldn’t be legal would feel patronizing and a bit like protesting too much.
Comment by Tom — May 29, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
bbell,
W/r/t BYU, Mark just did that. At BYU, under a relatively recent change to the Honor Code, being gay is no longer violative of the Honor Code. Having homosexual sex is, but having heterosexual sex with someone to whom you are not married is as well. With regard to disciplinary councils, I think he did (but personally have no experience with them).
Comment by Sam B. — May 29, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
#140 - tesseract, I simply would say quietly and gently that the prophets have begged us to be kind and loving to those whose actions we don’t accept - that we should be very careful not to say bad things about people even we can’t sanction their actions. If it is easier, I would print the comments from Elder Oaks and Pres. Hinckley (and perhaps a few from Elder Wirthlin’s talk about opening our arms and chapels to those who feel they don’t fit in) - and have them handy, if necessary. I would be careful about not getting confrontational or seeing offense where none exists, but I certainly wouldn’t hesitate to share the quotes in egregious situations.
Also, “my mom was not allowed to be re-baptized because in her interview when asked if she would vote or support the Knight initiative she said no” should never have happened. That question never should have been asked in a baptismal interview. I only have one side in your comment, but IF it really was the only reason - IF she was worthy in every other way, it also was an abuse of authority. “Unfortunately, it happens sometimes” isn’t strong enough, but it’s all I can say.
Comment by Ray — May 29, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
Tom,
I agree, sort of. But I think conversations among Mormons who have been placed under obligation by their leaders to show fellowship to gay people should be qualitatively different than conversations among very good people who are not under those same obligations.
Again, I’ll repeat that DHO has expressed regret that Mormons are good at expressing disapproval of gay behavior, but not so good at fellowshipping gay people. In which area do you think we need the most practice?
Comment by Mark Brown — May 29, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
#150 was not addressed to me, but my standard is very simple:
I want to be judged only on what I actually say. I don’t want to be judged on what someone thinks I meant by what I didn’t say. Therefore, I try very hard to parse what others actually say and not condemn them for not saying what I would have liked them to say.
That is an answer to #150; it is NOT intended as a comment on the original post or any other comment. (Given the content of this comment, it’s a bit ironic that I felt I needed to add that last disclaimer.)
Comment by Ray — May 29, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
I can’t answer that Mark, because I don’t know who “these people” are or who “these comments” are. You’ve not provided that information in your post. That’s part of my “beef.”
Comment by jimbob — May 29, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
Mark,
So it’s not OK, in your view, for Church members to just talk about gay marriage respectfully without affirmatively conveying love and fellowship?
To answer to your question in #153, I agree with Elder Oaks that we do better at condemning homosexual behavior than at fellowshipping gays. But I’m not sure that riddling all of our conversations with caveats is going to help. I think that speaking respectfully is enough in some contexts.
Comment by Tom — May 29, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
JNS #131, “contingent” means “dependent on”. I think “church counsel contingent” is a workable description of moral views that are dependent on the church’s counsel.
John C. #132, the church counsels against legalizing same-sex marriage, so CCCs have an answer there. If the church said tithing should be paid on gross or net, CCCs would believe they learned the right answer.
JNS #133, that Mormon prophets are fallibile (though that’s less doctrinally clear when they’re acting in concert over moral matters) doesn’t help Mormons find useful independent moral guides.
Comment by Matt Evans — May 29, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
Tom,
True enough. However, I disagree with you if you are saying that most of the recent conversations have been respectful.
Comment by Mark Brown — May 29, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
#152
Ray, thanks so much for your thoughts and suggestion. I really value your opinion - you really emit such a good, sweet spirit in all your comments.
Yeah, my visiting teacher the other day shared a message with me at church about the importance of marriage and it somehow turned into a rant on SSM and liberals ruining the country, and I found myself really flabbergasted as how to respond. Keep in mind, this same lady when visiting me the month prior told me she would let me go so I could get back to work. When I told her I was off work for the rest of day (it was like 6pm), she responded “I meant back to work.. in the kitchen, cooking for your husband.”
She says some pretty funny things, but she really is a good person. And she is from New Zealand, my favorite place in the world, so she can’t be that bad.
I know that the case with my mom is an odd one and under different leaders or different timing would probably have gone another way. I think the reasoning was that if she really wanted to be baptized and had repented she should have said she would support the initiative (I believe it was fairly commonly known she did not agree with the initiative, as she had shared a story about her gay, mormon friend who had committed suicide a week or so prior).
Comment by tesseract — May 29, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
Mark,
I haven’t read or participated in all of the recent conversations. I am comfortable with my conduct in my own little post at Nine Moons last week and I wouldn’t characterize the conversation as a whole as disrespectful or hateful.
Comment by Tom — May 29, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
Mark #138,
The issue would be when something becomes “church counsel” as opposed to counsel from one or some of the brethren. Some people make a better faith effort to answer that question than do others.
Kaimi #141,
J. R. Marriott is not a General Authority, he’s an Area Authority. When Hinckley announced the new position of Area Authority he specifically said they were not General Authorities. So Marriott doesn’t qualify as Lord’s annointed, even assuming that all GAs do, an assumption I don’t accept. (And that’s assuming it’s evil to call someone who admits selling pornography to make more money a pornographer. Or even a pimp.
More importantly, you’re charging me with a *sin*, but the issue of cafeteria religion concerns being selective in which church counsels we accept, not in our ability to live them fully. I agree Mormons shouldn’t speak evil of the Lord’s annointed, for example, even if you think I’ve not lived it fully.
Comment by Matt Evans — May 29, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
But progress towards what, exactly?
Part of the suspicion a lot of conservative Mormons (meaning, me, of course!) is that no one will tell us where this “progress” will take us other than to some utopian dreamworld full of “wecome” and “honor” and “love”.
Well, isn’t it the antithesis of “love” to deny a temple sealing to a gay couple? Isn’t it “unwelcoming” to excommunicate a gay person (or any person) for having sex outside of marriage? Doesn’t it “dishonor” gays if we to continue to talk of the divine ideal as an exalted man and an exalted woman, without tweaking our theology to allow a place for exalted gay couples?
“Welcome” and “honor” and “love” are important parts of the gospel in general, and the way we treat gays in particular. But to try to cast the entire gospel (or the entire gay marriage discussion) in those terms, exclusive of any others, smacks of indulgence in gospel hobbies. (And we all know where those lead!)
Comment by JimD — May 29, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
Matt (160):
Hmm. I personally always interpreted “speaking evil of the Lord’s annointed” as encompassing anyone who had received the annointings given in the initiatory. (I don’t always live it that way, but I interpret it that way!)
Comment by JimD — May 29, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
Matt,
I suspect there’s room for disagreement on details, but I’ll avoid perpetuating that threadjack (which I kinda started, I know).
Suffice to say, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for Mark to point out portions of prophetic counsel that we may not be following as well as we could.
Comment by Kaimi — May 29, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
Matt #156, defining “moral” becomes another loophole. The problem is that there are so many loopholes that people who think they are following the church on all particulars are always only following their personal reconstruction of what the church says. Attributing that reconstruction to the church affords a false sense of security. None of us knows God’s will in all particulars.
“Contingent” does indeed mean “dependent on.” Any view which is influenced by a particular message is thus dependent on that message and contingent with respect to that message. Your position requires not just contingency but absolute dependence. Which is, incidentally, also the wrinkle that makes it a fiction.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — May 29, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
Matt,
What is the church doctrine on civil unions?
Comment by John C. — May 29, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
Also,
If you bishop is just as called to his position as the Prophet, then I don’t think you can get around the “not evil speaking of the Lord’s Anointed” argument by saying Elder Marriott was not high enough up. However, you are providing ample evidence of your own cafeteria-ship.
Comment by John C. — May 29, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
I’m glad that our church leaders today have moderated their tone towards many other groups, that we are to emphasize love and friendship more than what makes us different or distinct. It is a good reminder that we are all God’s children, and that every single human being born on this planet chose to come here in the pre-existence. Every single person here chose to follow God.
Human beings are inherently good people at heart.We all get thrust into situations that are out of our control, and that includes gays, who didn’t choose to be gay.
Comment by Dan — May 29, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
Mark Brown/Mark IV,
You’re weirding me out with these handle changes. I know there’s another Mark Brown out there. I generally assume “Mark Brown” to be the other Mark Brown and “Mark IV” to be the BCC blogger. Is that right?
Comment by Eric Russell — May 29, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
I never suggested the post was unreasonable — only that Mark was being curiously selective. That raised the question whether he (or the others who commented favorably) were genuinely worried about bloggernaclers’ alleged failure to heed “prophetic counsel” or instead their failure to heed “the stuff I agree with that also happens to be prophetic counsel.”
(And if the quote from John Mansfield is typical of bloggernaclers’ alleged failures, the post’s whole premise is misplaced.)
Comment by Matt Evans — May 29, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
Regarding the notion that some people accept “all of the church’s counsel” and are not cafeteria Mormons:
I don’t think so. One big obstacle is determining what exactly represents official “counsel” from “the church.” But even if we accept fairly common orthodox understandings of “counsel,” it’s still not really possible. Let me add one example to what has already been given. Consider the following counsel that has been given by top church leaders speaking authoratatively in public settings in my lifetime:
-Stay out of debt
-Don’t get divorced
-Don’t delay marriage
-Don’t delay having children