Please stop your church. Now. Change your policy on marriage equality. Accept what many of your family, friends, and neighbors are telling you. Namely, that consenting adults are entitled to equal rights. Period. Or, at the very least, please back off. Keep your money and your personal views out of the government.
Thanks to y’all and your 20 million dollars, it looks like the state of California will now write discrimination into its constitution.
Here's my proposition. One of the central ideas of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is, precisely, those Latter Day Saints. It's one of the many beliefs that distinguishes the Mormon flavor of Christianity—it holds that there are prophets of the faith. Living apostles. Folks that are on this earth at this moment who God speaks to/through. Folks that keep the religion relevant to its current context. And whose constant recontextualization and reinterpretation allows for significant changes in the church dogma. You call it revelation:
We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
Say for example, when the Church changed its position on polygamy, which it officially abandoned in 1890. Then president Wilford Woodruff stated:
There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.
Or, say, when it modified its position on the role black folks in the Church. For lots of interesting history about this point, along with black Boy Scouts, the sports boycotts of Brigham Young University, and the answer to the question, “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness?” see here. (And before you even think about challenging my references to Wikipedia, why don’t you first check those 174 citations?)
Apostle Spencer W. Kimball acknowledged that this policy against blacks in the priesthood and participation in temple ordinances could be a result of human error:
The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory. I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation.
A 1969 letter from the First Presidency read, "we believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have his full Constitutional privileges as a member of society."
And finally, in 1972, Spencer W. Kimball, LDS apostle and future president of the church said:
Intolerance by Church members is despicable. A special problem exists with respect to blacks because they may not now receive the priesthood. Some members of the Church would justify their own un-Christian discrimination against blacks because of that rule with respect to the priesthood, but while this restriction has been imposed by the Lord, it is not for us to add burdens upon the shoulders of our black brethren. They who have received Christ in faith through authoritative baptism are heirs to the celestial kingdom along with men of all other races. And those who remain faithful to the end may expect that God may finally grant them all blessings they have merited through their righteousness. Such matters are in the Lord's hands. It is for us to extend our love to all.
This is not love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin (and yes, to Mormons blackness was a sin, or at least a physical indicator of sin) Mormonism. This is love your neighbor and take a stand against discrimination.
These changes clearly indicate that—rather than the church inhabiting a hierarchical bubble, where God speaks to the prophet, who speaks to the elders, who speak to the congregation, and interpretation is always literal and direct—the LDS church is in dynamic relationship with the rest of culture/society. Did God change His mind about polygamy? Black folks? Or did the church adapt to what was becoming commonly accepted value in broader society? It recognized its error and/or the error of its forebears, and righted the situation.
So, there's your foundation. You and your Church not only have a responsibility to change your official viewpoint and consequent political efforts, you also have a pretty unique opportunity. Many evangelical Christianities have a very narrow, literalist interpretation of the Bible and the clear intent of God's Word (except for that whole Leviticus/Paul thing). Y'all, on the other hand, are part of a living religion. One that, in recent history, has gone through many transitions, geographically, culturally, and doctrinally. You can change. And many of you have. Either you have left the church because you found a better, happier life. Or you have found a balance, or perhaps synthesis, of the Church you were raised in and the Church you wish to be a part of.
Here’s the next level. You also have mastered the power of community and grassroots action. Capitalize on that and reclaim it. Your reach extends to the furthest corners of this world and your strong community structures—in Mormon strongholds, there are wards in every neighborhood, seminaries for every student to attend every day, mission trips for the freshly graduated, a Mormon university for the freshly returned—in short, you know how to organize.
So have a personal revelation already:
Each Latter-day Saint is expected to use personal revelation to determine how best to apply gospel principles and the commandments in his or her life in a path toward perfection. It is accepted that not all members will agree on how to interpret the same scripture; rather, each person is responsible to determine how it should be interpreted for himself or herself.
Some of you, like Brigham Young’s great-great-great grandson already have.
Get together with other pre-, post-, current, and/or recovering Mormons, and change your Church. Support these folks. Or, like I said, at least get your Church to stop meddling in—and sometimes destroying—the lives of people in my community.
If you’re still skeptical or nervously clinging to your long-held beliefs, try this little exercise: Take a stack of paper, a notepad, or a blank Word document. On the top of every page write one of your arguments against homosexuality/gay marriage. Now write the letters W-H-Y. Now answer the question. Now do it again. And again. And again. Until you agree with me. Or are so confused that you realize that your beliefs should not regulate the lives of others. And the lives of others do not influence the way that you choose to live your life. (And feel free to share your pages in the comments.)
Or, of course, if you think it’s a lost cause or you don’t give a shit ’cause you’re not Mormon, then do this.
27 comments:
Great post. I couldn't have said it better myself.
And great observations on the auspicious position of the LDS Church in changing the issue.
But it'll never happen. :(
Jesse, no doubt! Thanks for assembling all that info in one place. As I've (controversially) blogged about this issue since the mormon church announced their proposed involvement, I've wished I had the energy to do the research you've done. This act by the mormon church became a straw on my camel's back, and I won't be participating in such a discriminatory church (don't even get me started on the state of women).
I think the most frustrating part is that everyone who has tried to defend their position on supporting 8 has given me one of a few flimsy "excuses"; and it seems as though no one can separate what they believe from what everyone else SHOULD believe. It's this kind ethnocentric thinking that has all but turned me off from Christianity and even religion in general.
I love your point about modern revelation. The problem with the "modern" revelation in the mormon church is that it's about 50 years behind the rest of the country... and that's not so modern to me. I guess the reason this big upheaval against Prop 8 is so frustrating to me is that in 50 year the church with come up with "revelation" basically saying "nevermind." That's what happened with blacks and the priesthood. After over 100 years of teaching that blacks were, like you said, sinners and poor stewards in pre-earth life, church leadership finally looked around and said, "Oh, everyone else has said that blacks are a-okay. If we want their membership/money, we guess we better get on board." There has never been a formal apology or retraction. Some people are still taught that blacks are sinners. How are we supposed to take this homosexuality bashing seriously when in 50 years they'll just change their mind? Why can't they just get over it now?
Anyway, this is a long comment, but thanks for your insightful post. Just wait for the shitstorm... my blog has been suffering from homophobia for months.
Thank you Jesse. This is an argument I have been trying to present to some members of the church, but I have not been able to articulate it this clearly. I have been frustrated at the dialogues I've had as their arguments do not address what I'm really saying. This is not a debate about faith differences--that goes no where. It's most helpful to address people in the context of what they believe, as you've done here. I don't think that same-sex equality is truly contradictory to what most of my Mormon friends believe in their hearts--they just need to recognize the dissonance between the messages they are getting and what they personally believe about how we should treat others.
Thank you too, mamadoula. It is easier for us outside of the church to be critical. I respect your fight to speak up and stand up for what you believe in, especially amidst the response you've received from your community.
Achieving true equality for all people regardless of religion, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, or sexual identity should be the united mission of our generation. I'm proud to stand with you all in this fight. Let's keep the conversation going.
LDS Church = faith.
Faith = believing truth in words from prophets, that they are speaking the words of The Lord.
Faith does not = what always makes sense to you, your friends, earthly findings in science, world scholars, etc.
If a member of the LDS church believes in the church, they believe in the truth of the living prophet, and that his words, all of them, are directly from the Lord. It is that simple.
Interesting post, but I have some comments and questions.
You are asking (really demanding) that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints get a revelation to change its stance on same-gender marriage. By doing so, you implicitly, if not explicitly, acknowledge that there is such a thing as revelation.
If there is such a thing as revelation then it has to have a source, doesn’t it? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints firmly asserts its position that not only is there such a thing as revelation, but that its source is God, and that there are living prophets and apostles who receive those revelations for the Church as a whole, whereas individual members only receive personal revelations—not revelations to guide the entire Church but revelations to guide their personal lives.
Therefore, if you want The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to change its stance on same-gender marriage, you will have to make an appeal to God and His prophets and apostles.
You can write letters to the prophets and apostles, but you can only reach God through prayer. Are you willing to start praying? Would that imply that you have reversed your stance as an unbeliever at least long enough to change God’s opinion on this matter?
You said, “…Consenting adults are entitled to equal rights. Period.” Are you willing to concede that this applies universally? To any quantity of adults of either gender? Because if you are not, then that, by your definition, is discrimination.
Or do you want those who don’t see things as you do to simply change their minds to accommodate your particular definition of rights? Such would seem the case: “Now answer the question. Now do it again. And again. And again. Until you agree with me” (emphasis mine).
You also said, “Y'all… are part of a living religion.” Do you really believe that? If so, do you believe it on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’s terms, that this is a living church because it has living prophets and apostles with actual modern-day revelations from a living God and living Jesus Christ? Or are you hoping that it is a living church only in the sense that if people clamor enough those nearly dead (as outsiders see them) prophets and apostles will finally change their minds and so-called old-fashioned ways?
I can assure you that though they are old, and some of them are probably close to passing on, the prophets and apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are remarkably in tune with the times and the seasons and the issues. Any close, honest study of the progress of the Church will reveal this fact. If this were an institution of man or men it would have self-destructed or been destroyed long ago, so intense has been the opposition to it since before its inception.
Let me end (for now) with some wise counsel from one Gamaliel, “…Take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.” He was speaking of Christ’s ancient apostles, but this can just as easily be applied to Christ’s current apostles.
Then Gamaliel continued, “And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God” (Acts 5:35, 38-39).
I'd like to posit my point of view, which isn't terribly informed on all things Mormon, as I believe my life to be governed by rational but variable thought (just like everyone else). I am in no way attempting to insult anyone's beliefs.
I respect (though don't understand) faith, and I see what unsubstantiated belief in a higher power can do for someone under certain circumstances, but I want to know where the line is, when faith gives way to humanity and humility. How far would you, unquestioning believers of the LDS Church, go for the direct word of God? Perhaps in the past these modern revelations have been for good, but suppose your benevolent God, hypothetically, condoned or demanded a despicable act, one beyond what your own personal constitution (and I know you have one) allows? What if he or she decided that the GLBT community couldn't own land, have the right to due process, apply for a credit card, work at an establishment that employed straight people, or marry whom they wanted (whoops!)? How far would you follow your God? What would you do for him? When does his word, or lack thereof, become confusing, malicious, violent, or just plain wrong? Maybe I'll never know the answer, but it will forever plague me when these issues rear their heads.
And Nate, I don't want to speak for Jesse here, but I think that all consenting adults SHOULD enjoy the same rights, as long as they are equal to those the most privileged in society enjoy; you know, the white, male, middle-class folk who've never had to struggle.
Jamie, I know that questioning faith is a long shot, but I'm determined to get people to step out and look at things from the outside. Perhaps I should work on becoming more insightful. :)
mamadoula, I'm making an assumption here (I haven't heard from you since high school!), but you'll never know how much I respect your ability to question a life-long standard and find what's right while retaining faith.
Jesse, thanks again for the post.
Trivial,
You're right, and that's exactly what happened to me. What happens when the church you've invested so much in your whole life and pushed aside other issues in favor of faith finally does something that you KNOW is wrong? It breaks the compass. I could only rely on faith for so many things, I could only discount my own definitions of morality for so long. At some point you have to look around and say, "That's just not right."
When do you decide that faith is misdirecting you? When do you "draw the line" that it has pushed one step too far? Never. That is, unless you have doubted your faith, and/or the source of it. God does not screw up, un-purposely postpone his intention, or mis-communicate to his prophets. So, my long-time, good friend Mamadoulaa, where do you believe the mistake was made? Did you decide the prophet got confused? Or that the wrong person was called to be the prophet? Or that God didn't really communicate with our last prophets? Or that God doesn't realize what he is doing? Maybe he is taking a little break? That God is simply exercising his control? I must say I will always respect you greatly, and admire, if not envy your academic achievements, but I would hope that you will one day acknowledge the existence or at least the possibility of a divine compass more correct that any one’s personal moral compass which can be easily swayed by outside influences, while still appearing to be pointing true north to their eye.
Do those of us humans, who truly believe in a Superior Being, think that the earthly mind is so incredibly advanced and brilliant, that we must comprehend and make sense of counsel in our heads before agreeing and obeying, even if it directly contradicts divine inspiration? Are we so prideful to doubt God? Are we so sure of our intellect and moral influenced "pro and con" list to doubt his chosen prophet with whom He clearly and regularly communicates?
To be honest, the issue of same sex marriage is a very complicated one personally for me, when only applying the facts, history and arguments in the world. I can honestly understand why it is so easy for many to view this issue as simply a progression in our times, a natural continuum from women's rights, black's rights, as a black and white issue of denying rights to friends, loved ones, fellow American citizens, etc. However, aside from the immediate and easily understood reasons to keep marriage between one man and one woman, I also understand that there is possibly a bigger picture at hand, one that we most likely cannot understand. One that the extent of has not been fathomed by anyone. I am aware that many will find it unacceptable, or even immoral to obey revelation when you don't have a clear cut list of every single reason why. But, if you are 100% sure that the source of the council you are following is God, than do you really need it? Does he owe it to us to let us know or something? Or do we owe it to Him not to question Him? While it is hard to protect traditional families when witnessing first hand (as I personally do) the hurt it subsequently inflicts upon others who desire same sex marriages, it should be harder to deliberately dismiss revelation from God, Whom we know, has just as much love for those desiring a same-sex marriage as those who do not.
Jesse, I really appreciate your efforts in this post as it has greatly increased my understanding from the point of view you represent regarding the issue of same-sex marriage. I hope that my response will aide you in understanding that from my viewpoint, debate after debate can be given, and fact after fact can be recited, as there are great ones for each side, but the underlining reason members of the LDS faith, who cling to their faith and have pure testimony in their prophet and God, will always maintain their stand on the definition of mariage, is divine, and no fact or debate can discount the credibility or accuracy of it.
For Brent, Lily, and gals: Blind faith (aka un-"doubted faith") has brought about some of the worst atrocities in human history. As you no doubt feel completely convicted in your trust of God's instructions as delivered through man, so have many others who have gone on to commit terrible crimes against humanity. For that reason, I think it's fair to say that blind faith is just as much a vice as it's a virtue. Ultimately, if we're talking about the right for gays to marry, this faith has encouraged some to deny others a civil right based on nothing more than moral objection.
For Nate, Brent, Lily, and gals: Both your replies hold that because your faith in the fact that God speaks through your Apostles, you believe that the LDS' stance on and influence in the passing of Prop 8 is fulfilling the wishes of God. Both your arguments circumnavigate Jesse's that the LDS Church has changed (as a result of Apostle revelation) its stances on social issues such as polygyamy and racial equality. Neither of you answer the question: Did God change his/her/its mind? Or are the Apostles failable?
It is so absolutely crucial that you answer this question.
Thank you Gregory. I was going to ask the same thing. Coming from the mormon perspective, I was always taught that we shouldn't have blind faith, that we should question and ask god for an answer for ourselves. What happens when we ask for that answer, that confirmation that what the prophet is saying is true, but we never get it? Wouldn't something true and right feel that way to us, if not immediately, eventually with study and prayer?
The bottom line is that opinions and church "doctine" has changed, seemingly with social and governmental pressure to do so. Why is the issue of homosexual marriage so different? What makes us think that god won't change his mind in 30-50 years?
This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.
And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics. This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.
If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.
Only now you are saying to them—no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights—even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?
I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage. If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967.
The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.
You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.
And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage.
How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?
What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.
It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.
And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?
With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate.
You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know. It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow person just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.
This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.
But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:
"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge. It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all: So I be written in the Book of Love; I do not care about that Book above. Erase my name, or write it as you will, So I be written in the Book of Love."
--keith olbermann
wish i could take credit for it but it sums up how i feel too
Much has been written concerning blind faith. Let me simply say that just as the blind follow the words of a book by what they feel with their fingers, so do people of faith follow the words of God by what they feel with their hearts. “Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, [but] which are true” (Alma 32:21).
Are the prophets and apostles fallible? They have never made the claim to infallibility. In fact, just over a month before he was brutally murdered, Joseph Smith specifically said, “I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected and arranged by Joseph Fielding Smith [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1976], 368.)
You can find out the truth of Joseph’s statement by carefully studying the revelations he received which are found in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, all of which can be found on the following website: http://scriptures.lds.org/
But God, who is in control of His Church, has an established way to keep His prophets and apostles in line with Him. President Wilford Woodruff, the prophet who received the revelation which brought an end to polygamy in the Church, explicitly stated what would happen if a prophet or apostle tried to lead the people astray. He said,
“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.”
Does God change His mind? If He did, would He not be a changeable God and, therefore, not a God at all? Such would be the case. And so God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
But the circumstances in which His children live change considerably from time to time. Therefore, the doctrines of the Gospel do not change but the program by which they are administered is adapted by God, through revelation to His living prophets and apostles, to the specific circumstances and needs of His children.
Thus the children of Israel in the time of Moses had the Law of Moses, but the Law of Moses was fulfilled in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ and had an end in Him. Jesus instituted the higher law of His Gospel which was perpetuated by His apostles until they were all destroyed. Christ’s Gospel and Church were restored to the earth through Joseph Smith, the continuation of which is found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
What was the whole point of the Law of Moses? It was intended to point the people’s minds to Jesus Christ. But God never intended His people to always live under the Law of Moses. So He gave a new revelation through His Son Jesus Christ. “Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7). That’s as good today as it was in the ancient days. And so is this: “Where there is no vision, the people perish” (Proverbs 29:18).
And what of the blacks and the priesthood? Does that not constitute a change in doctrine?
The very best statement I have ever found to illuminate this topic is given by the late Elder Bruce R. McConkie. It indicates that God’s mind and doctrine wasn’t changed; rather, our understanding of God’s mind and doctrine grew. He said,
“There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.
“We get our truth and light line upon line and precept upon precept (2 [Nephi] 28:30; [Isaiah] 28:9-10; [Doctrine and Covenants] 98:11-12; 128:21). We have now added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter anymore.
“It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles.” (Bruce R. McConkie, Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1998], 165.)
If this concept of continuous revelation, as the Mormons teach it, doesn’t make any sense then I would suggest you study it out more fully. You will be rewarded handsomely for the effort. But I would remind you of the words of Paul: “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.” (1 Corinthians 2:11)
Thus to know and understand the mysteries of God you must first become a man or woman of God and get the Spirit of God in your life. Are you willing to do that? If not then these things will probably always seem like foolishness to you. But let me remind you, “…The foolishness of God is wiser than men;” (1 Corinthians 1:25) though a belief in God and in prophets and apostles will always be foolishness to those who are wise in their own eyes.
Let me end (for now) with a word by a modern-day apostle, who recently passed on, “This continuous revelation will not and cannot be forced by outside pressure from people and events. It is not the so-called ‘revelation of social progress.’ It does not originate with the prophets; it comes from God. The Church is governed by the prophet under the guidance and direction of God.” (James E. Faust, “Continuous Revelation,” Ensign, Nov 1989)
I’m interested on seeing what Jesse herself has to write about all we have written. Jesse, what say you?
http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/media/mediaplayer.swf?media=http://broadcast.lds.org/newsroom/video/flv/P8_Seq1_15oct08-FLV_300k_320x180_15fps_96kbps_stereo.flv&type=FLV
I hope the link I have attempted to post on your blog will work, Jesse. I've read everybody's comments and I've been impressed by what seem to be honest questions from those who really are seeking to understand why the Mormon church chose to take a stand on this issue. I hope that this link and other videos on this site (www.preservingmarriage.org) will help those who truly seek to understand.
Another great source of information is www.lds.org, click on News/Events.
Here's what I know for sure: God IS there and my life is MUCH better when I am humble and obedient to the things He asks of me. I understand what He wants for my life when I pray, read the scriptures, go to church, and listen to His living prophet and apostles. I feel very blessed that just as in times of old, God DOES speak to His children on the earth today. To my mind it wouldn't make sense any other way.
I've enjoyed reading all of the comments on this post and it makes me miss all of you, old high school friends! Take care.
Nate, I think you're a good guy and I've got nothing personal against you. Your views are your views and I hold no illusion of you being persuadable. My response is to two ends only: 1) To point out that all your arguments hinge on your faith and the morality it dictates, and 2) To argue that it can be dangerous business when a Church and State become intertwined.
1) The question about the LDS Church's empirical stance on certain social and civil issues was simple: Did God change his/her/its mind? Or are the Apostles failable?
Your answer is that God doesn't change his mind, he just finesses his gospel to meet the times:
"But the circumstances in which His children live change considerably from time to time. Therefore, the doctrines of the Gospel do not change but the program by which they are administered is adapted by God, through revelation to His living prophets and apostles, to the specific circumstances and needs of His children."
In the context of the LDS Church's evolving stances on polygamy and blacks in the priesthood, you're saying that these were parts of the Gospel that were no longer needed because the times had changed? Do you sincerely believe this?
My guess is no, as immediately after you offer this explanation, you offer a more likely one: that the apostles got it wrong (or if you want to be diplomatic about it: "We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." - McConkie).
If you believe what McConkie said, and if you believe this: “We get our truth and light line upon line and precept upon precept (2 [Nephi] 28:30; [Isaiah] 28:9-10; [Doctrine and Covenants] 98:11-12; 128:21). We have now added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter anymore.", can you admit that it is possible that in the next 30 years new light might be shed on homosexuality and that your Church may reverse its stance? And if this happens you will accept this change as direction from God? If this is the case, then what you are saying is that you have blind faith in the teachings of your apostles?
2) Your faith doesn't bother me, and your convictions don't bother me. What bothers me is this: "“It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."- McConkie
You're arguing that ignorance is an acceptable defense. That if your Apostles' interpret God's word to mean one thing, and that interprestation leads to political advocacy that, in part, leads to the denial of a civil right, that it's okay, that you couldn't have known any better, that you were just following God's word. Nate, you are putting blind faith in your Apostles and that blind faith has allowed you to advocate for a denial of a civil right.
Can you understand how dangerous this is? You've got a strong mind Nate, and you're philosophically inclined. But all your arguments lead you to one conclusion: that I can't understand why you're right because I'm not a man of God (which, I should point out, is a blind assumption on your part). If that's the case, Nate, why advocate or defend your views at all? It bothers me that you write these lengthy defenses quoting scripture and church leaders, but in the end you boil it down to an issue of my (assumed) lack of faith.
The bottom line is that you're advocating to deny a certain group of people a civil right because of a blind faith in the current interpretations of God's word by Apostles (men) who have empirically revised their interpretations to reflect changing social and political climates.
Personally, if I were to make such an advocacy I'd want more than that, evidence that my position wasn't just a matter of morality as dictated by my faith. I'd want my position to hold up against a multitude of arguements. If I had to justify why I wanted to strip a right away from one group of people, you can be damn sure that I would want it to hinge on more than: You won't understand until you believe in my God.
Jesse~ I love you so damn much!
I have been stressing out about this since it happened. I know all about the mormon church's hand in the matter and I am so impressed with how articulate and flawless (yes, FLAWLESS) your post is! My own sister argued with me prior to the vote that she was told that if gay marriage were allowed that it would "directly ruin her life and threaten the mormon church." I asked her your famous question: "WHY??" and added a side of "WTF?" and she responded that a "huge mormon convention" was held where "actual gays" spoke out and stated that they only want to get married to destroy the sanctity of marriage. She also added... "they don't even WANT to get married, they are just trying to ruin our lives." I love my mormon family and friends more than anything in the world, and, to be fair, she was just repeating what she was told. However, I did challenge her and asked her how exactly this would ruin her life and she came up short and we quickly changed the subject.
So, in case anyone is wondering how this passed...they were scared into it~and tricked. My sister is awesome and does not (normally) get involved in politics. She, like most LDS I assume, have faith in their church and their church leaders and this is what their church leaders were telling them to think to get them on board. Not only on board, but clearly, it activated them to campaign against gay marriage.
Now, I can't blame my mormon friends and family for being politically illiterate; but I can blame them for not thinking for themselves which is what they should have done in this matter. I understand that they feel compelled to follow the church, as it is the center of their life, however, there was an agenda here to maipulate the mormons themselves into believeing this BS.
Further, there is a reason that a 19 year old girl (myself) decided to pack up and move across the country by herself with only $12 to her name, to the most liberal place in the US (Boston). I needed to get away from the BS and wanted to stop being labelled as a "BAD MORMON" and rather to be seen as a "GOOD PERSON" which I am....along with all those simply trying to have the same rights as everyone else. Also, Boston was the coolest place that is the fathest point geographically away from Utah. :)
So...your post is AMAZING and I love you so much for what a great person you are. I am proud to know that my deabte partner is still fighting and not going down easily!
p.s.
gay marriage is legal here and my life has not YET been ruined...any day now...I'm waiting for it...
and another ammendum:
I am NOT Saying that LDS are politically illiterate. I am saying that those who are; and those who do not EVER get involved in politics and know nothing about them ARE getting involved in this matter and this is how this particular type of people are being
manipulated.
wow! this is pretty intense. and i'm really non-confrontational which is maybe where my point of view is coming from: stop pointing fingers.
both sides of the issue believe what they did was right and if you truly believe what was did was right by thorough consideration and evaluation than kudos to you, we should all do a little more of that. all that i ask is that church related money stay away from the government. there are so many noble causes that your donations can be given to.
the only people that will forever be effected by this are the LGBT mormonn population, and god bless you because your life must be difficult.
there is NO LOGICAL WAY that the denial of the right to marriage for the LGBT community can continue for long. it makes absolutely NO sense. so that means that in the long run churches have to start recongizing same sex marriages. so all those homosexual mormons out there are really going to be in for a struggle.
i'm going to stop being sarcastic for a second and climb up on my soapbox. marriage needs to be more respected. i am surprised at how many people i know now who don't get married to their partner because they don't believe in it anymore. the divorce rate is so high that marriage becomes meaningless. marriage is work, hard work, and anyone who is really, truly committed to working that hard at marriage should be allowed to do it. if anything, ban divorce. it will protect the sanctity of marriage more than anything else will. *sigh* i can't stay away from sarcasm...
but please, no more finger pointing, instead open your fingers and lend a hand instead.
I found this interesting link on the LDS Church past and current attitudes and policies on homosexuality: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_lds1.htm
For a good sum up of the involvement of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the passage of Prop 8, follow the link below.
FAIR on Prop 8
Yeah, Nate, the LDS wasn't the only voting bloc to vote against equality for homosexuals -- doesn't really absolve the church of partial responsibility, imo.
Have you given up all your other arguments?
Gregory, I understand that you have nothing against me personally, and I hope you'll believe me when I say that I've got nothing against you.
There's much more, so much more, that could be written or said about these things. But be honest with me, do you really want me to continue? Are you arguing for the sake of arguing, or are you in this for the pursuit of truth?
I haven't continued in part because I think that there are some questions that Jesse still needs to answer. She has made some serious charges and I have asked her some serious questions and I think she owes it to all of us to let us know what her answers are to the questions that I have posed her.
So before we continue on some of our more tangential discussions (which I am willing to continue), I would like to know Jesse's answers to the questions that she implicitly raised in her original post.
Here are my original questions, formulated from some of the things Jesse wrote:
"You are asking (really demanding) that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints get a revelation to change its stance on same-gender marriage. By doing so, you implicitly, if not explicitly, acknowledge that there is such a thing as revelation.
"If there is such a thing as revelation then it has to have a source, doesn’t it? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints firmly asserts its position that not only is there such a thing as revelation, but that its source is God, and that there are living prophets and apostles who receive those revelations for the Church as a whole, whereas individual members only receive personal revelations—not revelations to guide the entire Church but revelations to guide their personal lives.
"Therefore, if you want The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to change its stance on same-gender marriage, you will have to make an appeal to God and His prophets and apostles.
"You can write letters to the prophets and apostles, but you can only reach God through prayer. Are you willing to start praying? Would that imply that you have reversed your stance as an unbeliever at least long enough to change God’s opinion on this matter [but really, if there is a God wouldn't He know best]?
"You said, “…Consenting adults are entitled to equal rights. Period.” Are you willing to concede that this applies universally? To any quantity of adults of either gender[i.e., polygyny and polyandry]? Because if you are not, then that, by your definition, is discrimination.
"Or do you want those who don’t see things as you do to simply change their minds to accommodate your particular definition of rights? Such would seem the case: “Now answer the question. Now do it again. And again. And again. Until you agree with me” (emphasis mine).
"You also said, “Y'all… are part of a living religion.” Do you really believe that? If so, do you believe it on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’s terms, that this is a living church because it has living prophets and apostles with actual modern-day revelations from a living God and living Jesus Christ? Or are you hoping that it is a living church only in the sense that if people clamor enough those nearly dead (as outsiders see them) prophets and apostles will finally change their minds and so-called old-fashioned ways?"
Jesse, we're anxious to know that you didn't write your post to simply poke a stick in an ant hill so you could sit back watch the angry ants' reaction.
And if you would prefer it, Jesse, you can contact me directly through a Facebook message.
nope not just poking at an anthill… just been super busy. my responses, possibly in the form of another post, are coming very soon. thanks for all the comments! apologies for my delay.
I still feel that I haven’t yet fully answered Jesse’s original post. She has received a fair bit of acclaim for her work (hurdy goes so far as to call it “FLAWLESS”), but in truth if we analyze Jesse’s post a few flaws quickly become apparent.
I would like to mention, however, that I do not bring up the problems in Jesse’s post out of spite for her (she was one of my dearest friends in high school and I continue to have nothing but good and kind feelings for her) but as an attempt to address some points she’s made.
Jesse began her post indicating that any who don’t want to go through the trouble of reading it should simply go to the end of her “theological rabble-rousing…to find out what [they] can do.” The link she posted leads to a website for an effort to petition the IRS to revoke the tax exempt status of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Yet the Church acted within the limits of its tax exemption: it did not support any political party or candidate.
“Some…have mistakenly asserted that churches should not ever be involved in politics when moral issues are involved. In fact, churches and religious organizations are well within their constitutional rights to speak out and be engaged in the many moral and ethical problems facing society. While the Church does not endorse candidates or platforms, it does reserve the right to speak out on important issues.” (Source: here)
Jesse wrote: “…[C]onsenting adults are entitled to equal rights.” What she should know is that “the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.”
“It is important to understand that this issue for the Church has always been about the sacred and divine institution of marriage — a union between a man and a woman.” (Source: here)
What disturbs me about Jesse's if-you-don't-care-skip-to-the-end approach is that it doesn't invite good research. She doesn't invite her readers to consider both sides (or all sides) of the issue. It's as though she wants her readers to take her arguments against the Church for granted by not reading them and to unthinkingly join her in her quest to destroy it. But Jesse's approach to scholarship is a topic that I will address a little later on.
Jesse wrote: “Keep your money and your personal views out of the government.” If we were to apply this logic to everyone with money or personal views or both then nothing would ever happen in this nation because that is the whole basis for our government: private citizens speaking up and voting for those issues that are important to them.
Ironically, the No on 8 campaign raised more money than Yes on 8, yet no one is demanding that Prop 8’s opponents keep their money and personal views out of the government.
Jesse indicated that Latter-day Saints believe “…there are prophets…. Living apostles. Folks that are on this earth at this moment who God speaks to/through.” Jesse’s assertion is true, we do believe in living prophets and apostles who daily communicate with and receive communication from God as to how to direct His Church and how to teach the people of the whole world, not just the Latter-day Saints.
In noticing the role of living prophets and apostles in the Church Jesse has tapped into a vital key to understanding the Church and its teachings. Except that Jesse rather missed the boat on this one, having indicated that she understands that somehow “the power of community and grassroots action” within and without the Church is going to change the Church’s stance on same-sex marriage. It just doesn’t work that way.
The truth is, God does speak to the prophet, “who speaks to the elders [really Apostles, Seventies, Stake Presidents, Bishops], who speak to the congregation[s]….” Do the people of the congregations have to follow the prophet? No, no one is forcing them to. But there’s ample scriptural evidence that suggests that following the prophet is a very wise thing to do. Jesse called such a set up a “hierarchical bubble,” which may or may not scare you depending on how you look at it. To me it’s meaningless, rhetorical fluff.
Jesse very aggressively challenged anyone who has issues with her use of Wikipedia to “first check those 174 citations….” But in the case of the article Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Wikipedia itself acknowledges that the article’s neutrality is being disputed (which dispute you can find here). That lack of neutrality alone should have made Jesse hesitate a little before using it as a source for her post, at least without announcing its bias. What if it was biased in favor of the Church (which I doubt it is), would that possibly hurt Jesse’s case against the Church?
But to hide behind a lot of citations? Now, that’s not good scholarship. Did you check all of them, Jesse? Something inside me tells me you probably didn’t. The number of citations made in a paper, or book, or Wikipedia article, etc. does not prove its truthfulness or usefulness. What if I came to you with a book claiming to prove Bigfoot’s existence and it was chock full of citations, would you then begin believing in Bigfoot?
On the other hand, 174 citations may be terribly inadequate. Only 174 references?! Do they adequately survey the whole field of fact and opinion concerning the matter? An article such as this one could quite possibly need something more like 1000 citations.
In the end, Jesse, the onus is on you to check those 174 references, for your reputation as a researcher is on the line not mine as a reader.
Another problem I have with Jesse’s post is its heavy reliance on secondary sources. A good researcher spends most of his or her time in primary sources to ensure, in part, that all of the information found in the secondary sources is correctly presented, analyzed, interpreted, etc.
For example, Jesse quotes Spencer W. Kimball, in part, as saying, “It is for us to extend our love to all.” (Jesse’s emphasis) Then Jesse continued, “This is not your love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin…Mormonism. This is love your neighbor and take a stand against discrimination.” (Jesse’s emphasis)
But, again, if Jesse would do her research, she would find that Spencer W. Kimball, though quintessentially Christ-like in his love for all, vigorously preached and wrote against all sexual sins (pornography, masturbation, fornication, adultery, homosexuality, etc.) throughout his long service as an apostle and as president of the Church. How would knowing this have changed Jesse’s use of Spencer W. Kimball’s quotation? Would she have used it at all?
Interestingly, she only emphasized five words of his entire statement. If she would have read it more closely she would have discovered Spencer W. Kimball’s thought that “this restriction [the ban on blacks holding the priesthood] has been imposed by the Lord….”
That was the message that the prophets and apostles repeatedly emphasized the entire time the ban was in place: that only the Lord could rescind the ban. If Jesse would have done a little more research (perhaps here and here.) she would have discovered that the prophets and apostles had desired to rescind the ban for decades prior to 1978 (when finally it was lifted) but that the Lord had repeatedly told them that the time had not yet come.
Jesse quotes the following as though it were official Church doctrine:
“Each Latter-day Saint is expected to use personal revelation to determine how best to apply gospel principles and the commandments in his or her life in a path toward perfection. It is accepted that not all members will agree on how to interpret the same scripture; rather, each person is responsible to determine how it should be interpreted for himself or herself.”
But what she doesn’t indicate is that the foregoing statement isn’t the Church’s words--it’s Wikipedia’s, and it doesn’t exactly reflect the truth concerning personal revelation. Part of the problem is that the statement is actually talking about two different things: personal revelation and scripture interpretation.
Yes, every Latter-day Saint is expected to receive and use personal revelation as a guide on the “path toward perfection.” But true personal revelation will not lead a person away from God’s appointed servants. Ever. Rather, personal revelation is most useful in finding out from God that the teachings of the scriptures and living prophets and apostles are true.
The Bible states that “no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20). A good measure of a person's spiritual maturity is that person's interpretation of scripture. Commands such as "Thou shalt not commit adultery" are to be interpreted as God intended them and by the same Spirit through which God gave them. This way we don’t run into the problem of differing personal definitions that President Bill Clinton had back in the day.
Lastly, Jesse indicated that Steve Young, Brigham Young’s third great-grandson, opposed Prop 8. But if you read the article closely (here), Barbara Young, Steve’s wife, had to recant a little on her indication that Steve was voting against Prop 8: “Steve is completely supportive of me and my work for equality. …Steve prefers not to get involved politically on any issue no matter what the cause and therefore makes no endorsement.” Elsewhere, Steve is quoted as saying, “I do have strong opinions. I do vote and will vote on Tuesday [November 4th], but those matters are private.” To support one’s spouse is not the same as agreeing with one’s spouse. Whether Steve Young voted for or against Prop 8 isn’t exactly clear, and he indicated that his choice was a private matter—as it should be. So to use Steve Young as an example in a political cause which he didn’t endorse is to stretch the truth.
I should note that most, if not all, criticisms (including Jesse’s) of the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints commit one or all of the following mistakes:
1. [They] misunderstand or misread LDS doctrine or scripture;
2. [They] give unofficial material the status of official belief;
3. [They] assume that Mormons must have inerrantist ideas about scripture or prophets like conservative evangelical Protestants do;
4. [They] apply a strict standard to LDS ideas, but use a double standard to avoid condemning the Bible or their own beliefs if the standard was applied fairly to both. (Source: 50 Answers)
Now, in the interest of being well educated in our analyses of each others’ viewpoints and beliefs, I propose that those who know little about the LDS Church and its doctrines, or even any who would like to dismantle or destroy the LDS Church and its doctrines, would be wise to start with the materials that the Church itself produces. Mormon.org is a good place to start.
However, if you are determined on making a real dent in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I suggest, rather than petitioning to revoke the Church’s tax-exempt status, instead try taking on the Church’s foundational document: The Book of Mormon.
Henry David Thoreau once said, “For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil there is one striking at the root.” If you truly think that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is evil or the product of evil or is producing evil, then why not strike at its roots, the Book of Mormon being the most logical starting point? For if you can discredit the Book of Mormon then you will discredit Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. Once you’ve done that the Latter-day Saints have no case.
Conveniently, the Book of Mormon is only 531 pages long and was brought forth by an uneducated, backwoods, 19th-century farmboy in his early- to mid-twenties. Dismantling it should be a cakewalk, right?
Well, maybe not when you consider that millions have read it and have received revelation through prayer that its message is true; maybe not when you consider that the Book of Mormon has been with us for 178 years and has successfully withstood every learned attack against it; maybe not when you consider that dozens of PhDs with all sorts of ancient languages and knowledge of ancient peoples and civilizations at their command have yet to find any fault with the book, instead it manifests every possible characteristic of an authentic ancient document.
But to help you on your way, I’d suggest starting out by actually reading the book (here) rather than going to anti-Mormon websites or books to “learn all about it;” a novel idea, I know, but one that will prove richly rewarding. All throughout your reading keep asking yourself, ask God too, “Can this possibly be true?” and ask with real intent, or the intent to act upon the answers you receive.
I have read the Book of Mormon more than twenty times. I know it to be of God. You may disbelieve me, but you cannot refute what I know for myself to be true. Do I say these things to boast of myself? No, for I know that I am nothing. I am your fellow human being, struggling to make sense of the world and the tremendous suffering mortality entails. I am not better than you in any regard. But I have found a system of belief that brings unspeakable joy and I invite you to investigate it for yourself to see if you can likewise experience this joy of which I write.
The journey of a lifetime, and even an eternity, begins with a single mouseclick: Mormon.org.
Research aside, I still can't help but focus on the logic of the issue, and I'd like to post a short video of a religious faction that I respect and admire for their stance on Prop. 8. I've been told by an SDA preacher that the majority of the church believes in and encourages this approach. It is, in my opinion, exactly how all religious bodies and their congregations should behave.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90ANZiOK0o0
J! I miss you!
Also, I was watching porn and saw someone I know! It was AMAZING! I always want to run across people I know in porn:)
Post a Comment