|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 31, 2006 18:56:06 GMT -4
Unfortunately I fear finding this particular statement may be impossible.
And I'm sure you understand my frustration. I am reasonably sure of what I heard -- as I said, I applied cognition to it at the time. However, I am sure that were our positions reversed I would demand some objective reference to it so that I could verify it.
The church website is probably the best place to look for past church publications...
In that this wasn't a church publication I don't know how that would be helpful, but it's worth a try. I wonder if the church's public affairs office would know of it. I'm sure they arranged the interview. And for all I know the canon of that statement -- even if I remember it correctly -- is entirely questionable. For all I know the church issued a statement the next day that started, "What Ballard meant to say..."
...prehaps we should look for other official statements on the issue to clarify what the church's actual position is.
Yes, but my point is precisely that the church has changed horses. If that's the case, you need both what's being said now and what was said then. Now that same-sex marriage is not off in the realm of fantasy, I would expect the church to have said something different more recently.
The statements I've found simply say that sexual intercourse is intended to be had only in marriage, not that it is intended only for procreation.
I'll take your word for it. Since I went to great lengths to try to say this is what the church "must" believe, I can only agree if you say that's what they do believe.
Perhaps it's worth noting that Incest is also forbidden by the LDS church.
But does this indicate marriage to a close relative, or simply the sexual activity between individuals who are closely related?
That would indicate that the LDS church does not consider any sexual activity, so long as it happens within a marriage to be moral.
If by "incest" the church means incestuous marriages, then yes.
But what you're saying is essentially the inverse implication. Mormons believe that no sex outside of marriage is allowed. But it does not necessarily follow that all sex within marriage is allowed. However, if the reason is given that homosexuality is wrong because it constitutes sex outside of marriage, then we need not consider the excluded middle in this case. If homosexuality is wrong because it's sexual conduct in the same category as incest, then whether such people are allowed to marry is irrelevant; the church would still have grounds to oppose homosexuality. The church has stated that in the eyes of God such individuals actually committed adultery, no matter their actual legal status at the time, and they are subject to church discipline.
I believe this was the case where individuals from Utah traveled to Las Vegas, were married for the weekend in order to engage in sexual intercourse, then obtained a divorce prior to returning home.
In my eyes as well such individuals have committed adultery, regardless of having fulfilled the letter of the law. It is not the precise actions that make one a saint or a sinner, but the motivations by which those actions are undertaken. This is why I advocate same-sex marriage. If we compel those who have serious attitudes toward commitment and sexual behavior to act essentially no differently than adulterers because of what we allow, then what business do we have in criticizing their behavior?
No doubt many church members are sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex who are not their spouses.
But this is not an equivalent scenario.
A heterosexual Mormon bachelor will be encouraged to wait until marriage to indulge his sexual urges. A heterosexual Mormon husband will be encouraged to remain faithful to his wife and save himself sexually only for her. In all such cases there is an existing or eventual avenue for appropriate sexual expression.
A homosexual Mormon young man, on the other hand, will be told he can never express his sexual urges. Ever. For any reason. Either he learns to like girls, or his only chance of getting to heaven will be to die a virgin.
The difference between monogamous marriage (present or future) and complete and total celibacy is as different as night and day.
However, marriage is not viewed by the church as being solely to releive sexual urges.
Right, I agree. If we take Paul at face value here then everyone should be celibate and there would be no marriage at all. Many interpreters agree Paul was thinking apocalyptically here -- believing that Jesus would return in his lifetime, therefore there was no need to continue to perpetuate the species. Instead marriage is considered a core, central Christian practice and Paul is considered misguided on this issue. My point here was that Paul, a very serious advocate of celibacy, agreed that celibacy wasn't something that could reasonably be expected of every Christian. He admitted that sexual urges were strong enough that something would have to be done about it during a person's life.
I remember reading about some confidential research done by the Roman Catholic church among its clergy. Basically they asked the supposedly celibate clergy whether or not they had actually been faithful to that vow, And in fact a very large percentage of Catholic clergy had not remained celibate. These were people who had chosen a life of celibacy and who had not been able to maintain it. What chance does someone have to remain celibate if it is imposed upon him? The notion that gay Mormons should just easily be able to keep their pants zipped for their entire lives is wishful thinking on the part of the LDS leadership.
I should point out here that masturbation is also forbidden to Mormons. We're not talking about merely celibacy from partners, but complete and total abstinance from every form of sex whatsoever, for one's entire life.
It is the church's position that homosexuality is something that can be changed and is not inherent.
And this is where you cross the line from religion to science. Unfortunately science strongly rejects the notion that sexual orientation can be changed meaningfully once established; and that it is, in fact, a violation of professional ethics for an certified mental health professional to attempt to do so. Whether homosexuality arises from the environment or from genetics is still being debated. However science has been reasonably certain for at least 20 years that, once established at or before puberty, a person's sexuality is fundamentally immutable.
I have found a statement on this - the September 1999 Ensign
Is that peer-reviewed scientific research?
I'll grant that some of the statements I've read in researching the topic a bit do seem to imply that this is a reason, but none of them ever state that this is the only reason for banning it.
But if it's one of the reasons then it explains the church's vehement opposition to same-sex marriage. I don't believe the LDS church has any business trying to use the governmental process to help extricate itself from a doctrinal crisis. If there are other reasons then those reasons need to be emphasized, especially if they are purely doctrinal. Trying to say that science "really" believes sexual orientation is purely learned and mutable behavior is, at this point, pure fantasy.
History doesn't support that speculation.
Fair enough.
I can well believe that pressure will increase.
I'm sure it will. What the church does in response to it will be interesting to watch. Perhaps they will not soften their position, or perhaps they will. One of the hallmarks of LDS faith is, as you said, the ability to authorize complete changes of policy. This is something traditional Christians don't well enjoy.
As I pointed out, the church had no stated policy on homosexuality until sometime in the 1960s. I've run across some anecdotal evidence alleging sanctioned homosexual practice in the LDS church prior to that, but I do not consider the sources authoritative or necessarily reliable. The stated policy of the church is clear. The precise reasons why may be open for debate.
You are correct that a civil marriage is seen as allowing people to engage in sex with one another without sin, but the other benefits of a temple-marriage are not granted.
True but irrelevant. What may or may not happen later does not change what happens at the point the civil marriage is valid. The couple is allowed to have sex without incurring God's wrath as soon as the ink is dry on the marriage license. Thus for the purpose of determining sexual licentiousness, civil marriage is sufficient. It may not be the sum total of all that is available, but it is enough to license sexual activity for the purposes of determining religious righteousness.
Most LDS would see a civil marriage as laying a foundation for a temple-marriage.
How many civilly-wed Mormon couples go on to be wed in the temple?
As I mentioned before concerning "Vegas Marriages", fulfilling the mere letter of the law does not absolve someone from guilt in the eyes of the church.
I agree, but that's apples and oranges. "Vegas Weddings" for the purpose of a weekend of sexual fun quite obviously approach marriage with a frivolous and insincere attitude. There is no evidence that those who engage in civil marriage do so, nor that any same-sex couples who might eventually do so are also frivolous. Again, you're studying the wrong variable. What makes "Vegas Weddings" wrong is the fulfillment of the letter of the law with no deference to the spirit of it. I'm suggest there are those who obey both the spirit and the letter of the civil law of marriage and who justly enjoy recognition of that status in the LDS church.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 1, 2006 0:37:05 GMT -4
[bYes, but my point is precisely that the church has changed horses. If that's the case, you need both what's being said now and what was said then.[/bWell, I wish you luck finding it then. I feel that if there has been a change in the church attitude towards homosexuality it has probably been to emphasize the need for understanding and love towards someone who has engaged in homosexual behavior. But does this indicate marriage to a close relative, or simply the sexual activity between individuals who are closely related?Both. If someone were to marry their sister and this were discovered by church leadership they would then face church discipline, and any temple sealing would be cancelled. It wouldn't matter what their attitude was towards each other.
If homosexuality is wrong because it's sexual conduct in the same category as incest, then whether such people are allowed to marry is irrelevant; the church would still have grounds to oppose homosexuality. That was essentially my point in bringing it up.
And this is where you cross the line from religion to science. Unfortunately science strongly rejects the notion that sexual orientation can be changed meaningfully once established; and that it is, in fact, a violation of professional ethics for an certified mental health professional to attempt to do so. Whether homosexuality arises from the environment or from genetics is still being debated. However science has been reasonably certain for at least 20 years that, once established at or before puberty, a person's sexuality is fundamentally immutable. I don't believe it.
I have found a statement on this - the September 1999 Ensign Is that peer-reviewed scientific research? No. I brought it up because the Ensign is a good place to find the church's official position on an issue. This particular article does cite several studies, however, which are from peer-reviewed scientific research. "See William Byne, M.D., Ph.D. and Bruce Parsons, M.D., Ph.D., “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biological Theories Reappraised,” Archives of General Psychiatry, Mar. 1993, 228–38; Richard C. Friedman, M.D., and Jennifer Downey, M.D., “Neurobiology and Sexual Orientation: Current Relationships,” Journal of Neuropsychiatry, Spring 1993, 131–53; John Horgan, “Gay Genes Revisited,” Scientific American, Nov. 1995, 26; Ruth Hubbard and Elijah Wald, Exploding the Gene Myth (1993), 94, 98; John Leland and Mark Miller, “Can Gays ‘Convert’?” Newsweek, 17 Aug. 1998, 49." These were more current when the Ensign article was written in 1999. If you want to see the article, go to lds.org and use the search function on the gospel library section. It's one of the first articles that comes up under "homosexuality".
I don't believe the LDS church has any business trying to use the governmental process to help extricate itself from a doctrinal crisis. I don't believe that's what they're doing. The LDS church supports the amendment against gay marriage because they beleive it's immoral. They have opposed legalized gambling in Utah for the same reason.
As I pointed out, the church had no stated policy on homosexuality until sometime in the 1960s. I haven't looked into it, but I'm reasonably certain homosexual behavior was dealt with in the same way, even if there wasn't an offical church-wide policy at the time.
How many civilly-wed Mormon couples go on to be wed in the temple?I don't know if any official records are kept on that, but it's certainly strongly encouraged.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 1, 2006 3:49:21 GMT -4
I feel that if there has been a change in the church attitude towards homosexuality it has probably been to emphasize the need for understanding and love towards someone who has engaged in homosexual behavior.
Over what period of time do you believe the LDS church's attitude has improved?
Refugees from the "witch hunts" at BYU in the 1960s still inhabit the two valleys and can be consulted for their testimony. Clearly things have improved immensely since then. But I believe the church has become more entrenched since the late 1990s. And I believe they have essentially "circled the wagons" since about 2004. I do not see the church becoming more tolerant on this point. I think their entrenchment has largely to do with the increased social acceptance of homosexuality. The church seems to want to differentiate itself more clearly from the prevailing attitudes.
I don't believe it.
Many choose to stick their heads in the sand. That is why they are often criticized, and such criticism cannot be written off as mere religious persecution.
There is little disagreement in science over whether a person's sexual orientation can be changed. If sexual orientation is immutable, then making people of a certain orientation believe they must change in order to please God, their families, or society is unfair and cruel.
William Byne, M.D., Ph.D. and Bruce Parsons, M.D., Ph.D., “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biological Theories Reappraised,” Archives of General Psychiatry, Mar. 1993, 228–38; Richard C. Friedman, M.D., and Jennifer Downey, M.D., “Neurobiology and Sexual Orientation: Current Relationships,” Journal of Neuropsychiatry, Spring 1993, 131–53;
These papers discuss the potential causes for homosexuality, which is not identical to its mutability or response to therapy or treatment. Ironically we know that the inability to distinguish causality from mutability in orientation affects how one perceives the validity and intent of research in this area.
In general the polemical literature wrongly assumes that a simple genetic-only determinant for sexual orientation must be discovered in order to establish sexual orientation as an immutable trait, or at best as a biologically-influenced condition. That is not the case. It's a straw-man argument.
Byne and Parsons are widely cited by conservative religious groups, few of whom seem to have read the paper or know much of these individuals' work. Few seem to realize that these two have also conducted their own studies showing dimorphism (i.e., a difference in biological formation) which they correlate to sexual orientation. Yes, they criticize earlier studies, but because they were poorly done and because they presumed some easily-localized biological connection. But just because the earlier simplifications have been rejected doesn't mean the notion of a biological component to sexual orientation has been abandoned.
Friedman and Downey also receive honorable mention by just about every religious organization who dislikes homosexuality. And again, their conclusion is simply that the purported biological causes are not so easy to determine as prior researchers had suggested. And most people who cite Friedman and Downey also seem unaware that these two have decried the sometimes brutal methods used in the "reparative" therapies often engaged in by the people who invoke their research.
I would be very surprised to learn that these four researchers approve of the ends to which their research has been put by the LDS church and other conservative religions. All they have said collectively is that certain simplified notions of biological effect do not likely hold. That doesn't deny a biological effect, nor establish in any way that sexual orientation is immutable. And they have gone on, in some cases, to continue the investigation of these complex causes.
John Horgan, “Gay Genes Revisited,” Scientific American, Nov. 1995, 26;
Is this peer-reviewed?
Again, the notion that a "gay gene" must be discovered in order to validate a biological component to sexual orientation is an oversimplification so egregious as to qualify as a straw man. I certainly have never put any stock in something so simplistic as a "gay gene". Yet I cannot deny that a whole host of genetic and biological contributors to sexual orientation -- in conjunction, of course with environmental contributors -- continue to be discovered in science. We have no clear picture yet of how these various factors act, interact, in what proportions, in what individuals. That does not, however, change the consensus that orientation is largely immutable.
Ruth Hubbard and Elijah Wald, Exploding the Gene Myth (1993), 94, 98;
I agree with these authors. At the time they wrote their book there were all kinds of wacky theories about genetic predispositions to just about every behavior that could be named. But to decry wacky theories does not deny that real and plausible theories can arise -- and they have. I don't believe genetics determines sexuality by itself. But I don't have to in order to believe it is nevertheless immutable and that complex (not simplistic, as these authors decry) genetic factors may apply.
Ask a relevant professional what causes homosexuality and you won't get a straight answer (pun intended). Ask whether sexual orientation can be changed, and more than nine times out of ten you'll get a resounding, "No!" You have to ask the right question.
John Leland and Mark Miller, “Can Gays ‘Convert’?” Newsweek, 17 Aug. 1998, 49.
Not peer-reviewed science.
I don't believe that's what they're doing.
The LDS church argued in the famous case in Hawaii that its membership would be adversely affected by a ruling favoring same-sex marriage. Whether history justifies this claim remains a point in your favor, as I agree with your assessment of the changes in policy regarding race and polygamy. But the position of the LDS church under oath remains that membership retention and comfort is their reason for opposing same-sex marriage. They may additionally have moral objections that reflect the prevailing moral feelings of their members and would be less applicable in court, but the church is quite explicitly attempting to use the government to make life easier for itself.
Most LDS members I have encountered are unaware of the degree to which the church participates in political processes around the world. The church, as you know, owns all or a majority of several businesses that have little directly to do with the church's ministries. These businesses are sometimes used to disguise the church's involvement in political lobbying. I believe some of these businesses were used to disguise the church's political action in Hawaii. And this may be the cause of rumors of hidden involvement in local politics, although most of the church's locally-owned organizations are widely known for what they are.
I believe churches should be allowed to lobby, church-and-state separation notwithstanding. And I have never participated in any church that did not engage in some form of lobbying. But to my knowledge that was all done overtly, so that the public could control potential constitutional issues. I recently participated in lobbying through a church to use Utah's budget surplus to rebate sales tax on food. Our stated purpose was to relieve the poor. I have no knowledge of any other motive. I have no knowledge of what the LDS church's position on that issue may have been.
They have opposed legalized gambling in Utah for the same reason.
No. The LDS church does not describe gambling as a mortal sin "second only to murder". Even chronic gamblers are not excommunicated, whereas one homosexual act can put its perpetrator in danger. The two acts are not morally equivalent in LDS terms.
LDS gamblers do not band together and form support groups to deal with oppression, nor do they lobby the LDS leadership for recognition of their condition. I agree that the LDS church takes a moral stand against gambling, but I don't agree that the act of gambling is equivalent to homosexuality, nor that the church acts similarly toward each as a matter of policy toward its members.
I haven't looked into it, but I'm reasonably certain homosexual behavior was dealt with in the same way...
What makes you so certain? If the church had once been indifferent to or tolerant of homosexual behavior, do you think such a policy would be currently taught now even as historical practices now abandoned? Do you think that someone who had not looked into it would be fully apprised of it had that been the case?
I don't know if any official records are kept on that, but it's certainly strongly encouraged.
I understand that you would have a hard time getting accurate information on that point. I won't argue with the claim that advancement to temple marriage is encouraged, but it would interesting to know how effective this encouragement is.
The figure I heard from a Mormon pulpit in the late 1970s is that something like only 1 in 10 civil marriages among Mormons end up being solemnized in the temple. I think that was part of the encouragement. There was no source given for it so I don't have any notion how real that figure was. I don't mean to paint a bleak picture, but I don't think your notion of civil marriage as a stepping-stone to temple marriage really pans out.
The point remains that the church accepts government-sanctioned marriages as binding upon God to excuse the participants from adultery. Thus the LDS church is embroiled in government marriage policy (as are likely many other churches), and has acted on numerous occasions to protect and defend its interest legally. I view this as a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 1, 2006 11:39:15 GMT -4
Over what period of time do you believe the LDS church's attitude has improved?Well, I can remember the first few talks about homosexuality in General Conference were in the early '90s, and they were in the line of "hate the sinner and not the sin." I wasn't around in the 60s so I can't speak to what was going on then.
But I believe the church has become more entrenched since the late 1990s. And I believe they have essentially "circled the wagons" since about 2004. I do not see the church becoming more tolerant on this point. I think their entrenchment has largely to do with the increased social acceptance of homosexuality. The church seems to want to differentiate itself more clearly from the prevailing attitudes. I agree - with the more widespread of homosexual behavior the church has seen a need to be firmer in their position, just as they have firmed up their position on pornography as the internet has made it more available.
There is little disagreement in science over whether a person's sexual orientation can be changed. If sexual orientation is immutable, then making people of a certain orientation believe they must change in order to please God, their families, or society is unfair and cruel. Do you consider other social traits to be essentially immutable once they are set in adolesence? I'm not asking to start an argument, merely curious.
These papers discuss the potential causes for homosexuality, which is not identical to its mutability or response to therapy or treatment.That is why they were cited in the Ensign article. Did you read the Ensign article to see how they were used?
John Horgan, “Gay Genes Revisited,” Scientific American, Nov. 1995, 26; Is this peer-reviewed? I don't know. Is it?
Ask a relevant professional what causes homosexuality and you won't get a straight answer (pun intended). Ask whether sexual orientation can be changed, and more than nine times out of ten you'll get a resounding, "No!" You have to ask the right question.Well, I'm unfamiliar with any studies to that effect. Care to share some refrences?
The LDS church argued in the famous case in Hawaii that its membership would be adversely affected by a ruling favoring same-sex marriage. "Adversely affected" in that they would leave the church, or adversely affected in that they would leave Hawaii? Or adveresely affected in that they would now be living in a society that has recognized one immoral action as legal and may recognize others in the future? It could have a number of meanings.
But the position of the LDS church under oath remains that membership retention and comfort is their reason for opposing same-sex marriage. Can you point me towards the statement to that effect? And is the church simply making a secular argument here because they know that the moral or religious argument has no legal weight?
Most LDS members I have encountered are unaware of the degree to which the church participates in political processes around the world. The church, as you know, owns all or a majority of several businesses that have little directly to do with the church's ministries. These businesses are sometimes used to disguise the church's involvement in political lobbying. Evidence?
No. The LDS church does not describe gambling as a mortal sin "second only to murder". Even chronic gamblers are not excommunicated, whereas one homosexual act can put its perpetrator in danger. The two acts are not morally equivalent in LDS terms. No, I didn't say they were morally equivelent, but the church does consider state support of gambling to be immoral.
What makes you so certain? Because the chruch's attitude towards marriage between men and women and the family has been fundamental to church doctrines since its beginning. Even a change in the number of spouses allowed (polygamy) is not so fundamental a change as what genders are allowed to marry each other. I've lived in the church my whole life. I've advocated its doctrines in a foreign language. I feel I have a fairly comprehensive concept of what LDS doctrine is and has been.
If the church had once been indifferent to or tolerant of homosexual behavior, do you think such a policy would be currently taught now even as historical practices now abandoned?Yes. There are a number of historical practices now abandoned that members have been taught about. Polygamy. The United Order. The gathering of Zion in Utah. Blacks being unable to receive the preisthood. Someone who asks "why has the church abandoned x" will be told an answer. Do you think that someone who had not looked into it would be fully apprised of it had that been the case? I grant you that this may be the case. If it's not an issue of a great concern to many members it won't receive a very public teaching, but I think someone who did look into it could come up with solid answers.
The figure I heard from a Mormon pulpit in the late 1970s is that something like only 1 in 10 civil marriages among Mormons end up being solemnized in the temple. I think that was part of the encouragement. There was no source given for it so I don't have any notion how real that figure was. I don't mean to paint a bleak picture, but I don't think your notion of civil marriage as a stepping-stone to temple marriage really pans out. That doesn't sound like an accurate figure to me. Everyone I know who has begun with a civil marriage has moved on to a temple sealing.
The point remains that the church accepts government-sanctioned marriages as binding upon God to excuse the participants from adultery. Thus the LDS church is embroiled in government marriage policy (as are likely many other churches), and has acted on numerous occasions to protect and defend its interest legally. I view this as a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state. I disagree. It is not the civil marriage document that the church accepts as binding upon God, it is the intent of the couple. If their intent was to have the same relationship as any couple that is married in the temple but they were unable to be married in the temple then God will not punish them for that inability.
Let me anticipate your next arguing point - "but you believe God will punish homosexuals who are only trying to be like others." To be dogmatic for a moment, that is the piece of evidence that convinces me that sexual orientation is not immutable - that God is willing to punish people for it. Now admittedly this is something that hasn't been of too great concern for me. I don't know any homosexuals, so I haven't looked too deeply into the issue. In fact, if this thread is going to continue to be about the church's attitude towards homosexuals I should probably shut up, as it's a) not a topic I'm particularly interested in and b) therefore not one I've researched at any great lengths - as shown by my inability to come up with some quick refrenes to exactly what the church's position is or has been.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 1, 2006 16:55:07 GMT -4
I agree - with the more widespread of homosexual behavior the church has seen a need to be firmer in their position, just as they have firmed up their position on pornography as the internet has made it more available.
And I expect this behavior. But then I wonder why you say the church's position seems to be improving. By "improving" I assumed you meant more compassionate and less dogmatic. In contrast I see the LDS church becoming more dogmatic, so I'm looking to see what your perspective is. I appear to have misunderstood you.
Do you consider other social traits to be essentially immutable once they are set in adolesence? I'm not asking to start an argument, merely curious.
Complex question. I don't consider homosexuality to be a "social trait".
That is why they were cited in the Ensign article.
But that's why it's a straw man. It answers what I believe to be the wrong question. If the LDS church's argument is that sexual orientation is a trait that can be changed, looking at its cause is an indirect argument. Useful perhaps, but indirect nonetheless.
The line of reasoning seems to be that the only way sexual orientation could be an ingrained trait is if it is genetic. And thus if there is some question on the validity of papers that explore whether some certain connection exists, then no such connection exists. Thus sexual orientation must somehow be a learned behavior. And if it's a learned behavior, then it must be changeable.
Unfortunately that line of reasoning misrepresents the cited studies. It ignores other science in the field and the trend of ongoing research (although we give this article credit for being 7 years out of date). It ignores other work done by these same authors. It ignores the fact that no one is really claiming there is a "gay gene" (rather the postulated causes are understood to be complexly related). It ignores that other biological factors apply. It ignores that not all immutable behavior need be biological in origin.
It also remains silent on the continuing inability after decades of research to find substantial correlates among social and environmental factors that allegedly would contribute to sexual orientation as a learned or conditioned behavior. In this way it's little different than FUDding the NIST report on 9/11 and claiming therefore that some other conclusion must hold by default. The question of whether space cows brought down the WTC is directly examinable, and so is the question of whether the environment causes changes in sexual orientation. FUD on the biological issue is an indirect argument where a direct comparison would be more valid.
The consensus of the scientific community is that the evidence shows that sexual orientation is far more likely to be caused by a combination of genetic and hormonal factors than by any environmental or social factor. We cannot completely discount the latter, of course, since not all the evidence on either side is in. But the trend in research is toward biological causation in some as-yet unknown formulation and away from social developmental hypotheses.
Again the overwhelming consensus of those who are trained, certified, and licensed to administer mental health treatments is that sexual orientation -- whatever its ultimate cause -- is not a behavior that can be changed, and that to attempt to do so tends to cause harm.
Did you read the Ensign article to see how they were used?
Briefly, and it seems to read almost identically to every other such article written at about that time by conservative religious and pseudo-religious groups, citing the same sources (as near as I can recall from those others). It basically engages in academic name-dropping while showing little or no real understanding of what the original academic authors really studied or believe. I strongly doubt that the Ensign author actually read the studies he cites, although I presently can't think of how to obtain any evidence to test that doubt.
I don't know. Is it?
Scientific American is generally not peer-reviewed itself, but often contains articles by qualified authors who summarize peer-reviewed research for lay audiences. I consider it a secondary source in general.
It is vital to understand that science really has never believed there was a single "gay gene", nor have homosexuals or their advocates as nearly as I can tell. That seems to be a belief pinned on them by people who wanted something easy to refute. The few studies Byne et al. critique that I read long ago say as much, although certainly some readers may have interpreted them to argue for one.
I think it's essential to keep reminding people exactly what science believes in can show in this matter and hopefully reduce the political overtones. But I for one have never read anything purporting to be science that argues the causes for sexual orientation are purely genetic, nor that they can be simplistically mapped or assigned.
Well, I'm unfamiliar with any studies to that effect. Care to share some refrences?
Just about anything written on the subject by the APA since, oh, about 1985. You might also try Friedman and Downey's book.
I'm going to withdraw the argument pertaining to the church's involvement in the Hawaii case. I feel that I brought it up unfairly and stated it too argumentatively. I am afraid this discussion is becoming too heated. Earlier I characterized the LDS church's involvement in "shadow government" as a conspiracy theory, and so I believe it's inappropriate to have brought it up with a different connotation. Please accept my apology.
However, since you asked for a reference, I will point out, by way of satisfying my responsibility along those lines, that the LDS-owned company in the Hawaii case was Hawaii Reserves, Inc., a land-management corporation. HRI lobbied as what appeared to be a grass-roots organization until the media (the Salt Lake Tribune, as I recall) revealed that HRI was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the LDS church, operated and staffed primarily by Mormons. Then there was some sort of damage-control activity -- restaffing, etc. I don't remember exactly what.
An example on the other side of this coin would be Zion Securities. That is also a land-management corporation that has significant holdings in downtown Salt Lake City as well as other places throughout the country. It is also a wholly-owned subsidiary of the LDS church, but almost everyone who lives in Utah (or at least in Salt Lake City) knows that. It is very difficult for Zion Securities to engage in any activity under the presumption that its connection to the LDS church won't be visible.
I don't mean to argue that every business arm of the LDS church is up to something nefarious. I am just concerned that this behavior makes it easy to argue that the Mormons are trying to hide their involvement in politics. As I said, I believe churches have a right to lobby, but I also believe they should lobby as themselves. Sock-puppetry is suspicious.
No, I didn't say they were morally equivelent, but the church does consider state support of gambling to be immoral.
But if they are not morally equivalent, then the church's objection to them might actually be according to different reasons. Thus to say that both gambling and homosexuality are just two run-of-the-mill examples of the church's overall moral stance doesn't seem supportable.
Further there is a difference between states allowing gambling and states offering gambling. Earlier you spoke of state-run lotteries, which involve the state directly in gambling. Whereas if the state merely doesn't outlaw gambling, that is a different type of responsibility.
Even a change in the number of spouses allowed (polygamy) is not so fundamental a change as what genders are allowed to marry each other.
That's a subjective determination and I thoroughly disagree. As I pointed out, the Supreme Court's arguments in the late 1800s upholding the laws forbidding polygamy are nearly verbatim the same arguments being given now by Mormons in opposition of same-sex marriage. The government seems not to have changed its position markedly over the past 150 years on what are the important aspects of marriage, but the LDS church seems to have. They have gone from opposing arguments on "traditional marriage" as an affront to their religious freedom, to supporting arguments on "traditional marriage" as part of their moral duty. I thoroughly reject the notion that Mormon views on marriage are substantively unchanged.
Further, we are starting to slip into a straw man. The original question was the church's recently-stated stand on homosexuality, not on same-sex marriage.
I feel I have a fairly comprehensive concept of what LDS doctrine is and has been.
No. You said you hadn't looked into this particular issue. Have you or haven't you?
There are a number of historical practices now abandoned that members have been taught about.
Agreed, and I appreciate the examples. Are you aware of what LDS authorities give as the reason for why church doctrine did not discuss homosexuality until the 1960s?
If it's not an issue of a great concern to many members it won't receive a very public teaching,
Affirmed consequent. If it's a potentially controversial issue that would require some tap-dancing then it wouldn't receive a public teaching either. And since the church seems to be greatly engaged in lobbying on this point, I'd say the church's history on this doctrine ought to be of great concern.
...but I think someone who did look into it could come up with solid answers.
Do you purport to be someone who has looked into it?
That doesn't sound like an accurate figure to me. Everyone I know who has begun with a civil marriage has moved on to a temple sealing.
Fair enough. I'll withdraw the unsupported hearsay. I have anecdotal evidence in the other direction, but my anecdotes aren't necessarily any more representative than yours.
It is not the civil marriage document that the church accepts as binding upon God, it is the intent of the couple.
Very true -- thank you for keeping me honest on that point. Again we have the so-called "Vegas Wedding" episode that neither of us believes embodies the spirit of the law. I agree, the commitment behind the marriage license is what justifies the union before God. I simply believe that such commitment is not necessarily limited to mixed-sex couples.
If their intent was to have the same relationship as any couple that is married in the temple but they were unable to be married in the temple then God will not punish them for that inability.
Straw man. You keep trying to stir temple marriage into my argument. The church and God respect civil marriage aside from what it might lead to. You seem to think that only applies if the civilly-married couple "really" would have been married in the temple if only it had been possible. Why is it so hard for you to deal with the notion of a civil wedding in which temple marriage is not a factor?
...that God is willing to punish people for it.
Straw man. I wasn't going to make that argument, and I don't believe that God necessarily punishes people for being homosexual.
I don't know any homosexuals, so I haven't looked too deeply into the issue.
I know many. I work also in Utah's entertainment industry, which is jam-packed with various combinations of gay and LDS people, some openly so and some not. For them this is not some abstract political or theological issue, but rather a significant part of their lives. I think they would welcome more members of the church looking more deeply into the issue.
I also know many Mormons whose opinions differ from the church's on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. I've seen plenty of parents politely disagree with the church's leadership when they are confronted with gay offspring. I've also seen plenty of Mormons who believe that the church has every right not to accept homosexuals into fellowship, but no right at all to deny them civil rights as couples.
In fact, if this thread is going to continue to be about the church's attitude towards homosexuals I should probably shut up...
As should I. I bear responsibility for having steered it in this direction, and I apologize because it's clearly going to be a divisive issue on which we might better agree to disagree. While I believe it is possible to discuss it rationally and dispassionately, I don't think that's the direction we're going.
I think, if I were to tie this back to the original topic of the thread, I would have to say that not every example of persecution is necessarily religious persecution, nor is it entirely unmerited. Anyone who expresses an opinion will likely be flamed for it by someone.
...as shown by my inability to come up with some quick refrenes to exactly what the church's position is or has been.
And I'm sure we both have better things to do. But keep in mind that the whole point of differentiation between Mormons and much of the rest of Christianity is that LDS doctrine can change. Other Christians are pretty much tied down to tradition and staying consistent with what was done 2,000 years ago. I appreciate your trying to defend a sort of consistency in LDS doctrine, but in my mind you don't have to.
The church can change horses, yes, but when it appears to do so for political expediency then I think it has strayed from its core values.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 3, 2006 18:35:03 GMT -4
By "improving" I assumed you meant more compassionate and less dogmatic. In contrast I see the LDS church becoming more dogmatic, so I'm looking to see what your perspective is. I appear to have misunderstood you. By "improving" I also meant more compassionate, but not less dogmatic. Although the church is taking a more firm stand on the immorality of homosexuality, they are at the same time encouraging members to approach those guilty of homosexual acts in a more compassionate manner. I would call recognizing that homosexual behavior is a more widespread problem and providing more public guidance on dealing with it in a compassionate manner an improvement over no official policy outside of the closed-door church disciplinary hearings. I strongly doubt that the Ensign author actually read the studies he cites, although I presently can't think of how to obtain any evidence to test that doubt. The author is a medical doctor, which may be some evidence that he did read the studies before composing the article. You seem to have misunderstood why I cited this article in the first place, though. It wasn't an attempt on my part to argue the points in the article, it was merely an attempt to present a document that seems to show the church's official stance on the subject, since all we had prior to that point was a half-remembered comment of ten or so years ago on your part and my own general knowledge of LDS doctrine on my own part. I feel it is also serves as an example of the genuinely compassionate approach the chruch wants it's leaders and members to take on the subject.
However, since you asked for a reference, I will point out, by way of satisfying my responsibility along those lines, that the LDS-owned company in the Hawaii case was Hawaii Reserves, Inc., a land-management corporation. HRI lobbied as what appeared to be a grass-roots organization until the media (the Salt Lake Tribune, as I recall) revealed that HRI was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the LDS church, operated and staffed primarily by Mormons. Then there was some sort of damage-control activity -- restaffing, etc. I don't remember exactly what. I would probably find these sorts of refrences more convincing if you could be a little more concrete about them, other than some vague "I don't remember exactly" comment. Not your fault, I know - this was probably only a topic of peripheral interest to you at the time, and I suppose if I really wanted to know I could go research the subject myself.
That's a subjective determination and I thoroughly disagree. Well, perhaps I should explain my reasoning a bit. Polygamy as practiced by the church was intended to raise children in a financially stable, god-fearing household. The primary reason the LDS church gives for marriages today is to raise children in a strong household - essentially the same purpose. A homosexual marriage, on the other hand, has as its central purpose adult companionship, as the partners cannot have their own children. The homosexual marraige vs. traditional marriage is therefore fundamentally different from traditional marraige vs. polygamous marriage.
No. You said you hadn't looked into this particular issue. Have you or haven't you? I ammend my statement to "I feel I have a fairly comprehensive concept of what LDS doctrine is and has been in general." Not on this specific issue.
The church and God respect civil marriage aside from what it might lead to. You seem to think that only applies if the civilly-married couple "really" would have been married in the temple if only it had been possible. Why is it so hard for you to deal with the notion of a civil wedding in which temple marriage is not a factor? It goes to the intent of the couple again. We both agreed that a "Vegas Marriage" is immoral because of the intent. If the intent of a couple is a lasting commitment, then there really is no substitute for an LDS temple marriage, which purports to bind them for "time and all eternity" rather than until death, as in a civil marriage or the ceremony of any other denomination that I am aware of. Civil marriages by church members are viewed by the church as at best a temporary arrangement. The couple will either go on to a temple marriage and a truly permanent commitment or they will cease to be married upon their deaths and they will not be able to attain the highest levels of exaltation (which according to LDS doctrine require an eternal marriage). Non-members have something of a different situation. If they die without having had the chance to "seal" their marriage in an LDS temple (like the vast majority of people who have lived on the Earth in the past) then they will be given that opportunity after this life. God can accept that they were married from the beginning once they take that step, and they can acheive the highest awards He has to offer. Marriage is a very heavy doctrinal topic in the LDS church, and to view it solely as free license to engage in sexual activities without condemnation is rather missing the point.
I also know many Mormons whose opinions differ from the church's on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. I've seen plenty of parents politely disagree with the church's leadership when they are confronted with gay offspring. I've also seen plenty of Mormons who believe that the church has every right not to accept homosexuals into fellowship, but no right at all to deny them civil rights as couples. And to those individuals I would have to say "you're not being consistent." Anything dealing with marriage deals with the core values of the church, and it's impossible to believe that this issue has not been one that the brethren have requested strong guidance from God on before making their public, authoritative statements. That being the case, it is the duty of a church member who disagrees with this policy to either (a) decide that although they disagree that the brethren are indeed inspired by God, this position is therefore God's will, and that they should therefore strive to accept it. Or (b) they should decide that the leaders of the church are not inspired by God and they should re-consider their membership in a church that they believe is lead by hypocrits - men who claim regular guidance and inspiration when they don't in fact have it.
I bear responsibility for having steered it in this direction, and I apologize because it's clearly going to be a divisive issue on which we might better agree to disagree. While I believe it is possible to discuss it rationally and dispassionately, I don't think that's the direction we're going.
It may be possible to have a worthwhile discussion on, but it's an issue I have a pretty solid opinion on, no matter whether it's founded on secular or dogmatic evidence. I will be happy to shelve the homosexual/same-sex marriage topic indefinitely.
But keep in mind that the whole point of differentiation between Mormons and much of the rest of Christianity is that LDS doctrine can change. Other Christians are pretty much tied down to tradition and staying consistent with what was done 2,000 years ago. I appreciate your trying to defend a sort of consistency in LDS doctrine, but in my mind you don't have to. The day the Church leadership announces they have received a revelation that homosexual marriages will now be conducted in our temples is the day I will accept them as equivelent to a temple-marriage, but I don't expect such a revelation to come - it wouldn't be consistent with what I understand about church doctrine.
The church can change horses, yes, but when it appears to do so for political expediency then I think it has strayed from its core values. I would say when it has done so for political expediency. If someone believes the church is willing to sway on major doctrines for political expediency then I think, again, that they should reconsider their membership.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 3, 2006 19:38:10 GMT -4
The author is a medical doctor, which may be some evidence that he did read the studies before composing the article.
I don't agree that it is any such evidence. When the article is basically an example of the same prototypical article repeated a dozen times in other conservative Christian contexts, making the same arguments and citing the same research (while seemingly misrepresenting its authors), then I have no reason to believe that much if any original thought went into it, despite the credentials of the author.
You seem to have misunderstood why I cited this article in the first place, though. It wasn't an attempt on my part to argue the points in the article, it was merely an attempt to present a document that seems to show the church's official stance on the subject....
I believe that was your original intent. But then you disputed my statement that sexual orientation is generally thought to be immutable. You drew attention to the footnotes in the article as attempts to show medical evidence in favor of your disputation. That was indeed an attempt to argue the points in the article.
I would probably find these sorts of refrences more convincing if you could be a little more concrete about them...
I agree. Don't feel you need to address them on my account. I gave them only because you specifically asked for evidence on this point. I felt it was disingenuous of me to resign that point at the cusp of your request for evidence. I supplied the evidence (such as it was) to show that I respected your request for it, but since I don't intend to pursue the point I agree that the evidence would be insufficient as I presented it. A better argument would consist of references to the original reporting.
Polygamy as practiced by the church was intended to raise children in a financially stable, god-fearing household.
No. A key reason to practice polygamy was also to care for the widows that were created as the result of persecution and the constant uprooting. Yes, it was also to raise children, but you can't exclude the care of widows and unmarried women.
Many people also dispute whether a polygamist lifestyle constitutes an appropriate child-rearing environment. I simply don't consider the number of spouses a trivial detail in the nature of marriage.
A homosexual marriage, on the other hand, has as its central purpose adult companionship, as the partners cannot have their own children.
Hogwash. You don't know any homosexuals and so you are not an authority on what they want in a relationship. If gay couples were allowed to adopt, they could rear children. And I know many such couples.
We agreed earlier that child-rearing was not a necessarily component of mixed-sex marriages.Marriage for adult companionship is quite all right in LDS thought. And further, adult companionship and assistance was, as I said, one of the early reasons for polygamy, especially after the arrival in the Salt Lake valley.
The homosexual marraige vs. traditional marriage is therefore fundamentally different from traditional marraige vs. polygamous marriage.
Only if the purpose of marriage is to make babies. We agreed it wasn't. Adult companionship is a perfectly acceptable reason to marry even in LDS circles, and it was explicitly a motivation for polygamy.
Civil marriages by church members are viewed by the church as at best a temporary arrangement.
Irrelevant. People in such an arrangement are not guilty of adultery if they have sex. You keep distracting from this point.
Marriage is a very heavy doctrinal topic in the LDS church, and to view it solely as free license to engage in sexual activities without condemnation is rather missing the point.
No, I believe you're missing the point. My point is not what LDS doctrine encourages but what it allows. You leave behind the latter to focus solely on the former, but I believe the latter is the sticky wicket. I don't view marriage solely as a license to have sex. But the fact remains that the LDS church recognizes various forms of marrage as a condition in which sex is not sinful.
I think you're trying to distract from the main doctrinal problem the church would have with same-sex marriage: that it would seem to legitimize same-sex activity by providing a religious and social commitment in which it would more closely resemble mixed-sex activity. Mormons seem quite eager to portray homosexuals as sex-crazed perverts.
And to those individuals I would have to say "you're not being consistent."
There are things more important than consistency. A minute ago you said the church recognized the need to be more compassionate on these points. And here are people exercising compassion, and you want to browbeat them for not toeing the party line. Which is it?
...it's impossible to believe that this issue has not been one that the brethren have requested strong guidance from God on before making their public, authoritative statements.
Do you base this statement on information, or simply on implicit trust in LDS leadership? How can you be so sure God has given the LDS leaders guidance on this point? Does God always advise the Mormon leaders on important subjects? Or does he sometimes allow them to exercise their own best judgment?
...but I don't expect such a revelation to come - it wouldn't be consistent with what I understand about church doctrine.
I agree it would be a wholesale reversal of policy, but such things are not unprecedented in LDS thought. The revelations on race and the priesthood and on polygamy were both reversals of policy and were both fairly unanticipated.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 3, 2006 22:20:10 GMT -4
I believe that was your original intent. But then you disputed my statement that sexual orientation is generally thought to be immutable. You drew attention to the footnotes in the article as attempts to show medical evidence in favor of your disputation. That was indeed an attempt to argue the points in the article. Well I guess you have me there. Score one for you.
No. A key reason to practice polygamy was also to care for the widows that were created as the result of persecution and the constant uprooting. Yes, it was also to raise children, but you can't exclude the care of widows and unmarried women. I don't think so. Polygamy was practiced in Nauvoo, where the situation seemed quite stable and there weren't large numbers of widows. My own polygamous ancestors stated that they obeyed the doctrine for the reasons I've stated. They did not find it an easy doctrine to live by, but they believed it was appointed of God.
Many people also dispute whether a polygamist lifestyle constitutes an appropriate child-rearing environment. No doubt.
I simply don't consider the number of spouses a trivial detail in the nature of marriage. I don't consider it trivial either, but I consider it more trivial than the gender of the parties involved.
Hogwash. You don't know any homosexuals and so you are not an authority on what they want in a relationship. If gay couples were allowed to adopt, they could rear children. And I know many such couples. And you aren't homosexual yourself, so you're no more of an authority than I am.
Only if the purpose of marriage is to make babies. We agreed it wasn't. We agreed no such thing. We agreed that there are marriages recognized by the church and God that don't share such a purpose, but not that this was not the primary purpose of marriage.
Irrelevant. People in such an arrangement are not guilty of adultery if they have sex. You keep distracting from this point. Hey, you asked my why I keep coming back to the difference between a civil ceremony and a temple marriage. This point is perfectly relevent to that question.
No, I believe you're missing the point. My point is not what LDS doctrine encourages but what it allows. You leave behind the latter to focus solely on the former, but I believe the latter is the sticky wicket. I don't view marriage solely as a license to have sex. But the fact remains that the LDS church recognizes various forms of marrage as a condition in which sex is not sinful. What the church allows in this case it only allows with the expectation that it will become something greater. The church allows its members to get away with all sorts of behaviors that, if they were following the letter of the law, they could not get away with, but allowances are made for our imprerfect condition.
There are things more important than consistency. A minute ago you said the church recognized the need to be more compassionate on these points. And here are people exercising compassion, and you want to browbeat them for not toeing the party line. Which is it? I'm not speaking to one of those people at the moment, I'm speaking to you. The church is willing to be compassionate but compassion does not mean tolerating sinful behavior. I personnaly would like members who disagree with the church leadership to think through the implications of what they think on these issues and not complain about something that they can't change and shouldn't try to change if they believe what they say they believe.
How can you be so sure God has given the LDS leaders guidance on this point? That would be a matter of faith of course.
Does God always advise the Mormon leaders on important subjects? Or does he sometimes allow them to exercise their own best judgment? On the truly important subjects that will affect thousands of lives he advises them. If they use their own judgement to come to the correct decision he provides confirmation.
And I think I'm done here. As far as I'm concerned the topic is now shelved.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 4, 2006 11:33:38 GMT -4
To go back to my original topic on this thread, Jay has provided a fairly good example of what I was talking about. On this thread he has made the following extraordinary claims about the LDS church, by direct statement or by implication: 1. That it is a shadow government in the state of Utah. 2. That its interest in opposing same-sex marriage is not that the church leadership feels that homosexual conduct is immoral, but in order to prevent a doctrinal crisis among the church's membership that do feel this. 3. That the church has been willing to trample the rights of others in the past merely in order to make its membership more comfortable (specifically with the liquor laws of the state of Utah). 4. That the church attempts to conceal its political influence through the use of political lobbying "sock puppets". 5. That polygamy as practiced by the church was a harmful environment for the raising of children.
What does he have to back up these claims? Well, he can write "hogwash" and make it look authoritative. Not much else really. That didn't prevent him from writing pages and pages of speculation on the subject, however.
Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Aug 4, 2006 11:53:18 GMT -4
Thanks for an entertaining and informative thread, guys. My contact with LDS has been social, in the context of Mormons I've known over the years. I've found them without expection to be quite friendly and kind individuals, but without exception they felt the need to give me a copy of the Book of Mormon.
I've tried reading it several times, but it really seems to be gibberish. But I keep a copy, along with The Teaching of Buddha, the Holy Bible, the Quran (in english), and a blank book, all together on a shelf. I don't know if any of them contain truth, but taken as a whole I find the blank book to be the most reliable of the set.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 4, 2006 14:05:06 GMT -4
My own polygamous ancestors stated that they obeyed the doctrine for the reasons I've stated.
And I accept those reasons as among those for which the doctrine was practiced. There was even a passage in Mormon writings, if I recall, that says something about "raising up children to the Lord," or words to that effect. But you aren't the only ones with polygamous ancestors nor the only one who can give authentic reasons for why it was practiced. In the Salt Lake valley women whose husbands had been killed during the journey to Utah were taken as wives by those men who had the means to support them.
Personally I think that was an extremely good idea.
I don't consider it trivial either, but I consider it more trivial than the gender of the parties involved.
And you are welcome to have that opinion. It's a purely subjective question. However, the majority of non-Mormons consider it a highly important factor in marriage, which is likely why many people consider Mormons hypocritical on the point of same-sex marriage. In fact, the non-Mormon opponents of same-sex marriage have offered argument on occasion that if we allow same-sex marriage it might lead to worse practices such as polygamy! So while I understand that among Mormons the number of spouses in a marriage might be considered an unimportant detail, that is not a widely-shared appraisal.
And you aren't homosexual yourself, so you're no more of an authority than I am.
Again hogwash. At least half of my friends and associates are homosexual, many of them in stable and putatively matrimonial relationships, some even with children. You say you know no homosexuals, and I daresay that all you know about same-sex attraction is what the LDS church has told you. That is an extremely dangerous position from which to make decisions that affect these people's lives. I am very much more an authority than you on what homosexuals want and what family lifestyles they are capable of.
You mentioned child-rearing. Tomorrow I am attending a birthday party for a boy turning 9 years old. He is being reared by his uncle and his uncle's same-sex partner, who have been in a loving, monogamous, and stable relationship for quite a number of years. This boy's natural mother is mentally ill and unable to care for him. His natural father is unknown. His maternal grandmother is a single woman who is a harsh disciplinarian and generally not fit for motherhood anymore. This boy is the happiest and best cared-for right now than I have ever seen him. These two men, who are my close friends, are some of the best parents of either sex that I know.
Think very carefully before you deny the possibility of this kind of family. There's a certain beauty in the ideal of a mother and father and eight children in Sunday best on a sunny day, but the real world is far more variable than I'll bet many Mormons are willing to acknowledge. When you talk about restricting by law all but the "ideal" family formulations, you hurt real people.
We agreed that there are marriages recognized by the church and God that don't share such a purpose, but not that this was not the primary purpose of marriage.
Irrelevant. A purpose does not have to be the "primary" purpose in order to be valid. And this is about validity, not pre-eminence. Marriage for the purpose of adult human companionship is allowable in the LDS church. It does not have to transition in some way to a child-rearing, templed-sanctioned condition in order to be considered an appropriate union.
I think this exemplifies a legitimate criticism against Mormonism. There is quite a lot of pressure in Mormonism to create a fully homogenized-thought society. There is quite a lot of pressure for "primary" purposes to become exclusive purposes. And the chronic problem that I observe in the LDS church is that people just aren't naturally homogeneous. And I mean "normal" people aren't naturally homogeneous in the way they think.
This point is perfectly relevent to that question.
I don't see how. My point entirely is that the LDS church recognizes as valid marriages that are not performed in its temples. If temple marriage were all that was recognized, then bringing it up would be appropriate, because then the nature of civil marriage would be irrelevant to the practice of LDS religion. Mormons could say that they don't recognize same-sex marriages because they recognize only temple marriage. And they could then simply not allow same-sex marriages in the temple.
The church could even adopt a policy of recognizing only certain kinds of civil marriage. It sounds to me like they already do this -- incestuous marriages, even where allowed by law, would not be recognized by Mormons. So they could simply say that they won't recognize civil marriages between same-sex couples. That would allow the civil government to do whatever it wanted while preserving the doctrinal purity of the church.
But unfortunately the church goes two steps further. It influences civil governments contemplating same-sex marriage. And in Utah it advocates not only a ban against same-sex marriages and nonrecognition of them performed elsewhere, but also a ban against any institution that resembles marriage, precluding so-called "civil unions" that would convey many of the legal rights of marriage without calling it that.
That's what gets me. Every Mormon I have personally talked to favors civil unions as a sort of middle ground. Apparently that's not a representative sample, but it clearly is a decent minority. Why go so far?
What the church allows in this case it only allows with the expectation that it will become something greater.
Utter hogwash. I personally know several LDS couples who married second spouses late in life for companionship only, 'til death doth them part. The LDS bishop carried out the ceremony. I was there. It was beautiful. And these were fully active, exemplary Mormons.
I'm not speaking to one of those people at the moment, I'm speaking to you.
But you told me what you would say if you were speaking to one of them, and what you thought of their actions. Then it isn't about me.
The church is willing to be compassionate but compassion does not mean tolerating sinful behavior.
But that's pretty much the problem. The LDS church defines same-sex behavior as sinful. Okay, they're allowed to do that. Every church has some method it uses to agree that certain behavior is a sin.
If they would simply have stopped there, that would be acceptable. I would disagree, but I would do so respectfully. Part of asserting my right to worship as I please means extending that to others.
But they don't stop there. The LDS church assert that those spiritually-determined beliefs are also scientifically supported. And so lately they have applied conspiracist-type indirect arguments and conspiracy-esque FUD against the scientific record, which frankly disputes much of what Mormons claim.
This is exactly why I don't participate, as a rule, in religious debate and why I deeply regret having undertaken this thread against my better judgment. In my long experience the admixture of religion and science with the aim of trying to use science to prove the validity of a religious belief is fraught with dishonesty.
Of course the LDS church is between a rock and a hard place. Sin generally refers to a conscious decision to reject God's will and follow a different path. So in order to be a sin, same-sex attraction and behavior has to be a conscious and mutable choice. Otherwise to require someone to change behavior he can't, or to take responsibility for behavior that was not his choice, would be considered cruel.
But on the other hand, the LDS church can't just completely ignore the scientific record. If the scientific record seems to say that same-sex attraction isn't a choice and can't be changed, and therefore that people in that condition are likely that way for their whole lives, then the LDS church suffers criticism from the outside for making putatively factual claims that are empirically unsupported. We live in an intellectual society and the church is trying to be somewhat a part of that society in addition to its role as a spiritual guide.
That desired role obviously causes social problems for the church and a motive to FUD the scientific record as a means of reconciling it with belief. If you believe strongly (for spiritual or other presumptive reasons) that science is somehow wrong, and society pressures you to reconcile your beliefs with some other finding, then obviously you'll try to FUD the other finding because relaxing the presumptive belief is unacceptable. You'll look for isolated or ambiguous statements that you can spin either to say something stronger than is really being said, or to say something in a larger context that was really meant for a smaller one. And you can represent to your largely scientifically illiterate membership that this represents either the trend in research, or legitimate problems with research that purports to dispute your belief.
So if you ignore the scientific record, you get criticized. If you try clumsily to reconcile the scientific record, you get criticized. It's a no-win situation. But the latter is more problematic because it's more overtly dishonest. If you say, "I believe this is what God says, and I realize that science believes differently," then you at least get full marks for faith and conviction. You might be thought of as deluded, but at least honestly so. But when you try to make the science go away by misrepresenting it, then people who might have left you alone are all of a sudden up in arms at your travesty against science even if they don't care about your religion. You lose here too, only bigger.
Don't mix religion and science. The two have fundamentally different sources of authority.
I personnaly would like members who disagree with the church leadership to think through the implications of what they think on these issues and not complain about something that they can't change...
But LDS doctrine and practice can change, and with the implication that God approves the change. That's the whole beauty of Mormonism, something few other Christian religions dare claim.
That's not to say that the LDS church is a democracy. But the ability of the church to change its doctrine without looking back combined with the notions expressed below are enough to wonder whether these people really as unfaithful as you make them out to be.
That would be a matter of faith of course.
I understand that Mormons are neither required nor encouraged to exercise blind faith in their earthly leaders. And so each individual Mormon is responsible for the degree to which he has faith in those policy statements.
So above you tell me that people who disagree with what the LDS leadership says should just shut up and not rock the boat. But in fact LDS doctrine encourages people to put those leadership statements to the test and see for themselves (through prayer and meditation) whether they are really from God. That's only meaningful if it's possible to disagree legitimately. Otherwise it's just a rubber stamp and you might as well say your leaders are unquestionably infallible.
It reminds me of those old comical communist "elections" in which there was only one candidate.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 4, 2006 14:41:33 GMT -4
1. That it is a shadow government in the state of Utah.
I never claimed this was anything more than a conspiracy theory, and when I pushed it farther than that, I retracted the claim.
2. That its interest in opposing same-sex marriage is not that the church leadership feels that homosexual conduct is immoral, but in order to prevent a doctrinal crisis among the church's membership that do feel this.
And I laid out my argument, which you have consistently evaded. The church is intertwined with government because it accepts civil marriage as valid. Because the civil government in part determines what the church accepts, the church then has a motive to affect that government. And the church has affected it. You respond only by pointing to irrelevant temple marriage -- a Mormon-only practice that the church can define as it pleases without respect to government.
3. That the church has been willing to trample the rights of others in the past merely in order to make its membership more comfortable (specifically with the liquor laws of the state of Utah).
And you admitted that I was more knowledgeable about those issues than you, which I am. The church participates in setting Utah's policy on liquor. Utah's policy on liquor is unique in the nation and terribly oppressive to those it affects while providing little or no actual benefit to the majority.
4. That the church attempts to conceal its political influence through the use of political lobbying "sock puppets".
Are you going to force me to substantiate those claims, or are you going to respect my retraction of them?
5. That polygamy as practiced by the church was a harmful environment for the raising of children.
Incorrect. You asserted that the purpose of polygamy was to provide a healthy environment for raising children. That is also the aim of a monogamous marriage. Now in practice I have seen the children of polygamists grow up to be as normal as anyone else. But in theory, polygamy would seem to guarantee neither social nor financial stability -- the father is typically iterant, and his wealth is divided among a substantially larger household. It sounds like you're trying to tell us that polygamy had an advantage over monogamy on those counts, and I'm just wondering what supports that view.
What does he have to back up these claims?
Personal experience and my own research. I live in this state and participate in its government. I have worshiped with the Mormons on many occasions, studied their history and doctrine extensively, and speak with them constantly about these and similar matters. I associate with the people who try to govern in Utah. I associate with the people who try to sell alcohol responsibly. I associate with many people who have same-sex attractions and try to live in Utah.
You, on the other hand, are an excellent example of what is wrong with many Mormons. You admit you don't know anything personally about same-sex couples or same-sex attraction. You admit you don't know anything about Utah's liquor laws. You admit you haven't researched the church's political behavior. Yet you have firmly established beliefs on all of these things.
I speak from my own personal experience, but you don't even have that. All you have is your implicit faith in what Mormon leaders tell you. In your rush to condemn me you forget that you have pled ignorance on a number of these topics. So kindly refrain from your sanctimonious crap.
I will defend Mormonism, Jason, because there are many who attack it in ignorance. But I will not defend you.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 4, 2006 15:12:39 GMT -4
Looks like I struck a nerve.
You're the one making the claim that the church's stated motives are not their real motives, Jay. The burden of proof lies on you, and all you've provided to this point are "I seem to remember someone saying something about that a few years ago" and your personal opinion.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 4, 2006 15:26:31 GMT -4
Thanks for an entertaining and informative thread, guys.I'm glad someone has enjoyed it because I have not. I thought twice about jumping in, and obviously I should have thought three times. I believe what I believe, and I take responsibility for the validity of those beliefs. However, believing something and expressing that belief in a helpful and non-confrontational way are two different things, and I have utterly failed in the latter. This is not good politics, good religion, nor good science. As a political participant I have a need to find acceptable middle ground and deal with the society that actually exists. As a Christian I need to ask Jason's forgiveness and God's for having made a debate out of deeply-held and respected beliefs. As a scientist I need to leave passion aside. I don't know about Jason, but I don't like to be put on the spot for religious belief. I reserve the right to think about things and come to my own conclusion without having to defend that to someone else. Jason's beliefs don't have to make sense to me. I can't defend them, but neither must I attack them. I've found them without expection to be quite friendly and kind individuals...Yes, I agree. Despite what has been said here, I like living among Mormons. There are some annoying social side-effects to having a majority religion, and that has disproportionately occupied this conversation. But the fact is that I like living in Utah, and the Mormons have a lot to do with that. In terms of how we live our day-to-day lives, I see eye-to-eye with my Mormon neighbors on a lot of that. Much of what we believe to be the "good life" is the same. And I may gritch about the church's political machinations, but there is balance to that too. The neighborhood church around my house needed a new pipe organ. They were having trouble raising enough money. The LDS Foundation (the charitable arm) ponied up the rest as a grant, no questions asked. You may have to jump through hoops to buy a beer in Utah, but you can see a symphony orchestra, an opera, several theater companies (mine included), two ballets, and a number of cultural activities largely through the support of the LDS church. The Mormons are good people in many dimensions, and I know God notices. ...they felt the need to give me a copy of the Book of Mormon.I've been reorganizing my books lately, and I've discovered I own four copies. Whatever one's excuse may be for not reading it, it's certainly not unavailable. I've tried reading it several times, but it really seems to be gibberish.As with most scripture the signal-to-noise ratio is somewhat lower than what I normally read. Jason will advocate you read it cover to cover, but I would avise you to ask Jason what his favorite parts are, and read those instead. There's a lot of purported history in it, and that's hotly debated. Don't get drawn into that debate, because it's long and pointless. But there are sermons in there in the same vein as the Sermon on the Mount and such. If the alleged history bothers you, just read the sermons. Some of them are really quite good. Now is probably a good time to bring up a rather humorous point, perhaps in part to atone for the contention I have fomented. Somewhat earlier in this thread I wanted to cite a scripture I had read, something about not arguing over points of doctrine and about contention being "of the devil". I was absolutely sure it was something St. Paul had said. And so I searched the epistles in vain for it. Finally in desperation I Googled it and discovered it was actually a passage in the Book of Mormon. Sometimes wisdom is where you find it. ...I find the blank book to be the most reliable of the set. Religious scripture is just one of those things. Sometimes you really want it to be more than it is, and you're disappointed when it isn't. I don't think Christianity was ever meant to be predicated on a book. Scripture is important, but the failing of scripture shouldn't be considered the failure of the religion.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 4, 2006 15:51:24 GMT -4
Let's call a truce Jay. I apologize unreservedly if I have offended or made you uncomfortable with anything I've said. We should probably just let the subject lie and move on to something else.
|
|