The My Girl Bill
The stake president called on our home last night, a pre-arranged appointment that made my wife and me anxious. We knew it was going to be about California’s Proposition 8– that’s all the stake’s been talking about for the past month. It’s become ad nauseum in these parts, even more than Obama.
We wholeheartedly agreed with the prop and already indicated we’d be happy to throw some money at it to help out. What we were dreading, though, was to be asked to make “get out the vote” calls or put up a sign on our lawn (the worst part about being asked by the Church to do something is you really can’t say no– and if you do, you just don’t get it). One of my wife’s best friends is a gay man (with a monogamous partner) with whom she already shared her feelings on same-sex marriage. Surprisingly he agreed, and even called the whole issue “ridiculous.”
As it turned out, when the SP sat down with us, it was actually about making a contribution– a rather sizable contribution. He already had a figure in mind. Interestingly, the Mrs. and I both heard the figure in our heads before he said it. I asked if all the members were being asked for the same figure, and he admitted they weren’t. We told him we’d talk about it and would let him know if we’d send it or an alternative amount. He agreed and left a donation form for ProtectMarriage.com which asks you to submit, among other things, your name, and the name of your ward and stake.
Different thoughts ran through our minds after the visit. My wife wanted to know how they came up with the customized figure and stewed over the notion that they probably reviewed our tithing records. The alternative would have been to pray over each family name, which seemed a painful, time-intensive exercise considering we were talking about the whole stake. Meanwhile, I didn’t like the idea of tallies being made for each ward. The SP said they’d be getting back lists of the donors and how much they paid. I didn’t like the idea of my faithfulness being gauged so. I also didn’t like contributing to a coalition of churches, many of which I suspect are Huckabee fan clubs. Plus, let’s face it, it was a huge chunk o’ change they were asking from us.
On the other hand, my family also has something big riding in our lives: We were waiting on a bank’s approval of a bid we made for what we consider to be our dream house. It’s a short sale and we already waited over a month to see if we’d get it. Now our daughter’s potential school starts registration next week and the house needs to be in escrow for her to be allowed to enroll. This was, in my opinion, no time for peeving over prophetic directives.
This morning we dropped the check into the mailbox and not an hour later our realtor called to say we got the house.
It was an amazing testiimony of obedience and proving the Lord. It was a request we didn’t like and a gesture that wasn’t easy to perform. And yet, by not tarrying we were quickly blessed with the very thing we needed and longed for.
So much for kicking against the pricks.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, eh?
Comment by Latter-day Guy — August 7, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
My friend’s sister donated all they had saved up to buy a house during prop 22–about $15,000. Still no house.
Comment by mmiles — August 7, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
Please don’t donate to prop. 8. For gay members of the church like myself, the church’s involvement in this issue has only made me feel more marginalized, isolated, and excluded. When the church fought for prop. 22 in 2000, 3 gay Mormons killed themselves because of how overbearing it got. It brought out a lot of hateful remarks. One of the 3, Stuart Matis shot himself on the steps of his stake center. I just wish the church would stay out of politics and keep church services, meetings, and efforts focused on God.
Comment by Peter — August 7, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
Interesting that the SP approached you with a figure in mind. Does anybody know if this is happening throughout CA?
Comment by SingleSpeed — August 7, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
I was just wondering if could have maximized your contribution: what would the Stake President have said if you told him you were more than willing to pay, as long as he would match you dollar for dollar? (I almost wish I lived in Cali. I really hope someone will try it and report back!)
Comment by Latter-day Guy — August 7, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
L-d Guy,
Nope, I’ve seen & been part of too much in this Church already to consider it a coincidence.
mmiles,
OUCH! Suddenly my sacrifice looks paltry. Thanks for the perspective.
Peter,
I’m sincerely sorry for the pain and isolation you’ve felt. Obviously the Church feels this issue goes beyond politics. As a member who sustains the prophet, and who covenanted to consecrate all he has to the Church, I don’t feel I’m entitled to entertain alternatives.
Comment by David — August 7, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
Really guys, is no one old enough to remember the Jim Stafford song and appreciate my title for this entry?
Comment by David — August 7, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
#4-
I find it more interesting that the SP gave them a figure they already had in their minds.
#3-
My MIL was a huge advocate against Prop 22 (in fact, her actions against the Church because of Prop 22 kept her excommunicated) and knew Stuart personally. It was really sad. It still hasn’t changed a lot of minds, though (including my husband’s and mine) about gay marriage. Or the Church’s involvement. I know that has made a lot of people angry, and I’m sad for it.
I’m glad things worked out for you, David. I think the hardest things we face in this world are the things of the unknown –the few steps into the dark we have to take, hoping beyond hope that there’s a reason for it and that there will be light sooner, rather than later. Sometimes it doesn’t always work out the way (like mmiles’ sister) that we think that it will –in fact, I daresay that it rarely works out the way we think it will! –but I know there’s always a reason. Faith is a funny thing, eh?
Comment by cheryl — August 7, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
What a wonderful testimony of obedience. Thank you so much for sharing. I know that the Proposition 8 situation is difficult for some members to understand. I personally don’t have a problem with same-sex marriage, and I don’t understand why the church is so adamant in asking us to support the proposition, but I’ve been blessed in the past for obeying my priesthood leaders and am willing to do so once again. Your story only strengthens my resolve to do “the right thing” even if it doesn’t make sense why I’m doing it.
Comment by Momma — August 7, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
1–I am dying to know the figure!
2–I much prefer anonymous contributions
3–This would have made me VERY uncomfortable
4–Hallelujah I do not live in CA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5–Glad you are happy with the results
Comment by ESO — August 7, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
I couldn’t have done it. I just couldn’t have.
Comment by tracy m — August 7, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
I’m glad you’re cookie cutter Mormon existence is so wonderful, including perceived blessings for contributing to Prop 8. I only hope one day you wake up and your son, through no fault of his own, comes to you and says, “Dad, I’m gay and I have been as long as I can remember.”
That’s what happened to my LDS wife and me. Your life will be changed forever, as will your perspectives on many things.
Comment by Holden Caulfield — August 7, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
This sounds like the approach in the old days to the ward/stake building fund and budget (and similar to stories I used to here about blessings after making a big contribution).
I guess I am a little surprised that, now that the Church has switched to a “free will offering” approach to fast offerings, missionary, humanitarian, temple fund, etc…., that this “assigned” approach is being used for Proposition 8.
Comment by DavidH — August 7, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
This post is unbelievable to me. My wife showed this post to me because she’s such a huge blog reader and it shocked me on so many levels. We’re a military family living in the east and far away from all this nonsense in California. I don’t know what LDS church exists out west, but this would never happen in our area.
Issue 1: A stake president was personally soliciting funds from members for a political cause? And you think he may have used your tithing records to find out what your level of giving should be? If my SP stepped into my home, and asked me to give money to a political cause when the Church has said MANY times it would not get involved in political affairs, AND the guy perused my tithing records to solicit me, I’d punch him in the mouth and throw him out by his collar.
Issue 2: Getting involved in this whole gay marriage thing after years of the “Church doesn’t get involved in politics” is really unfair to members who don’t like their politics dictated to them. Let’s start protecting marriage by getting heterosexuals to stop beating their wives, supporting mistresses, and putting their careers before their families. Then we can talk about gay marriage. Can’t we pull the beam from our own eyes before we pull the mote from others’?
Issue 3: Correlating personal wealth with righteousness and righteous decisions. This is a dangerous path. If you want to correlate the real estate deal with your decision, go ahead. But you’re deluding yourself if you think that’s God’s way of saying you made the right choice. God answers prayers with warm fuzzy feelings, not personal wealth. And He certainly doesn’t broker real estate deals. If God is managing your real estate holdings while people are starving and dying across the world, you and I believe in two different Heavenly Fathers.
Man, I don’t want you to think that I’m judging you. I love the Church as much as you do. But someone has to start keeping the Church honest in respecting the lives, livelihoods, and testimonies of its members.
Comment by Justin — August 7, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
This reminds me of the old George Carlin routine on God and Religion:
“He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money!”
Comment by WendyP. — August 7, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
I sincerely wonder if this is something that is happening purely on the SP’s initiative or if he’s being directed from leaders above him in the church hierarchy. Or is he inspired? Are you allowed to ask an SP what the basis of his instruction is?
Comment by danithew — August 7, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
I wholeheartedly agree with Justin (#14)!
I have also made a “covenant to consecrate”, but mine (like all my actions) is based on prompting/confirmation by the Holy Ghost. No prompt, no consecrate.
Comment by ed42 — August 7, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
My Cali cousin was approached in the same way, with his stake president having a figure in mind that was exactly ten times what cousin & wife had already decided to donate. Turns out the SP had come up with the figure because of my cousin’s profession — had he looked at the tithing records, he would have known that income for recent years was not typical of the profession, because cousin has been researching, not practicing. Cousin donated amount he and wife had decided; SP satisfied.
I’m glad I don’t live in Cali. I don’t trust the other members of this coalition, either.
Comment by AEP — August 7, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
This type of request from church leaders also occurred during Prop 22. Many people who ended up giving early last time, ended up being approached often. Maybe you can get a boat next time.
Comment by Paula — August 7, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
So it sounds like the church leaders are doing the same thing this time as they did with Prop 22. Some people who have not been happy with the way the church has been involved with both of these issues have a website discussing the issues.
Comment by LRC — August 7, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
I want to apologize for my comment which was meant to be flip, but probably sounds mean. But your post frankly, really bothers me. I think it is a misinterpretation of scripture to assume that tithing leads automatically to material blessings. If so, why is everyone in my rural Utah town poor? And this post seemed to me to be stretching the tithing promise of blessings to include donations to a political cause. And I think in general, LDS folks tend to conflate material wealth with spirituality. I don’t think that God cares if we live in a fancy house or not.
Comment by Paula — August 7, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
Justin (in particular),
Let me take the third part first: I wasn’t trying to correlate righteousness with personal wealth. My family needed a home– particularly a better environment to raise our daughter. We found one that fit us and our modest budget, and it was iffy whether we were going to get it or not because there were competitors. We were under a lot of stress and were trying to meet a deadline. We prayed, fasted, tried to live as we should and obeyed our leaders. I don’t see getting the house as gaining wealth and I don’t see the Lord as my broker. What I do see is a very welcome blessing. For what it’s worth, I have a notably wealthy brother-in-law who does equate his status to his righteousness, so I know where you’re coming from. If that’s the kind of impression I gave, I apologize.
The first and second parts of your comment can be answered easily enough. Just because this proposition is tangled up in politics, that doesn’t mean it’s not a moral issue. The prophet has asked us to contribute our means to see the proposition gets passed. Are you saying you’d answer the call by giving your stake president a bloody lip? Perhaps we do serve different Fathers.
AEP,
Thanks for your input. I think that suggests the SPs were given instructions from up the food chain to do what they’re doing.
ed42,
Sometimes the confirmation comes after the obedience. As I said, I really wasn’t crazy about giving as much as was asked, but I did feel strongly about obeying my church leaders. If you recall, I also said the amount came to our minds before the SP said it. Frankly I don’t get all the hubbub because I credited the Lord for blessing our family as a result of our obedience. It was a faith-promoting experience. And this is wrong because…?
Comment by David — August 7, 2008 @ 8:18 pm
I am horrified to hear that the church leaders are actually soliciting money to promote this political cause. I understand your desire to equate obedience with blessings- that’s one of the main teachings of the gospel. However, denying equal rights and fair treatment of others does not seem to be in harmony with Christ’s teachings- “Love One Another”- and the all important “treat others like you would want to be treated?” Your real estate ventures seem more like a coincidence to me. If it had turned out the other way, would you have decided that the Lord was unhappy with your contribution?
The church is stepping over its bounds with this one. I am so saddened by its actions. I hope the members of the church will listen to their hearts, seek goodness and do what they think (and feel by the spirit) is right- not what they have been dictated to do.
Comment by Elisabeth Cohen — August 7, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
The money solicitation is not new. It worked the same way on prop 22 back in 2000. As long as the money is not collected on church property, there is no problem or conflict with the tax status of the church. The donations are not tax deductible and are purely voluntary.
In our stake, it was decided not to assess an amount, but to leave it up to the individual families as to how much they would contribute. It is probable that those opposed to the amendment will raise twice as much as those who support it. This is quite the dividing issue.
Comment by Tim Malone — August 7, 2008 @ 9:30 pm
Our stake is also asking for donations and also for committed service time.
For me, this is an issue of sheep and goats, wheat and tares.
Let the rock throwing begin.
Comment by s'mee — August 7, 2008 @ 9:58 pm
You know, I’ve recently written here why I think this whole campaign is a very bad idea on the LDS Church’s part.
But if I lived in California, I think I would contribute nonetheless.
I don’t believe that gays are entitled to a government legitimacy label. They just aren’t. If people don’t like gays, tough. It’s not the government’s job to try and get people to like them. Neither do I consider a same sex union a “marriage.” Sorry.
Of course, as I’ve made clear (I hope), I think the Church is going about this all wrong and will ultimately shoot themselves in the foot. But I also believe in supporting my people. I would do this for them. Misguided as I think they are, I would do this for them.
Comment by Seth R. — August 7, 2008 @ 10:09 pm
Paula and Justin,
You know, I’m reminded of a line from Shakespear’s Twelfth Night where drunk old Sir Toby Belch confronts the sanctimonious and self-righteous steward Malvolio, who has interrupted his revels:
“Dost thou think because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?”
Excuse me both of you, but… I am allowed to try and see God’s hand in the day to day events of my life, and so is David. I am allowed to see a new, and needed legal client for my practice as an answer to a prayer, or as a blessing for something. I am allowed to see the lack of clients in my life as meaning something as well.
Of course, I am not at liberty to make the same judgments of other people’s lives. But with myself and my own house, I am not wrong to seek for the divine hand in my affairs. In fact, I think God wants me to do it.
I’m not going to walk about wailing every day just because the world didn’t turn out quite right. Nor am I going to scowl at every rainbow, just because it’s raining on someone else.
Comment by Seth R. — August 7, 2008 @ 10:28 pm
Not that you need it Seth, but just to add a second witness…I am convinced that the Lord blesses us in our careers according to our personal righteousness, humility and faithfulness in service to others, both assigned as callings and basic Christian acts. The coincidences are just too numerous to discount by the faithful.
I see the hand of the Lord in the successes of my daily work as a reward for obedience. Gratitude demands that I confess his grace and compassion in all aspects in my life. My career is a big part of how I spend my days and God is not absent there. Responding positively to requests from priesthood leaders brings blessings.
Comment by Tim Malone — August 7, 2008 @ 10:51 pm
Or perhaps an issue of glass houses?
As an expatriate Californian, I get the best of both worlds–a vote and no requests for voluntary donations.
And Seth R., why on earth would it even occur to you to scowl at rainbows? Rain is life for the arid and parched state that is California and we celebrate when it comes.
Anyway, I’d be interested in hearing some more testimonies of the Lord’s hand in the accumulation of worldly things. Its an intriguing idea that I think far too many goats and tares discount out of what can only be described as pride.
Comment by Peter LLC — August 7, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
Great post, David and great responses from you and Seth and others!
It may not make sense (I think it does), but since when is that a new thing? I still do not understand why blacks were ever denied the priesthood nor do I understand the church’s current interpretation of gambling. However, that does not keep me from fully sustaining all my church leaders, including and especially the local ones. I have faith that in time, I will understand it all.
As for the whole obedience=wealth thing, I think David would, like the rest of us, prefer a more eternal blessing of some sort than a temporal one, but it is still a wonderful blessing any of us would take and he received revelation as such.
Comment by Bret — August 7, 2008 @ 11:59 pm
Justin,
Your “Issue #2″ is based upon faulty logic and misinformation.
A. The church has been abundantly clear on it’s position against and punishments for abuse in marriage (both here and in the eternities). It’s discussed in almost every general conference. Pres. Hinckley and Elder Holland come to mind as two of the more recent, bitingly stern condemnations.
B. Appealing to the “there’s bigger fish to fry” argument is one of the most abused (and absurd) logical fallacies around. If everyone abided that rule, nothing would ever get dealt with.
Comment by Ryan — August 8, 2008 @ 2:33 am
This post is so disgusting to me that I have decided to reprint it on as many sites as possible to alert reasonable citizens as to the activity of the LDS church in politics. To suggest that I am outraged is an understatement. This effort on the part of the church is as unpleasant as Hinkley showing up at Elders Ball and Gordon’s funeral and stating that it does not matter how long one lives in this life and then departing with bodyguards.
Comment by robert — August 8, 2008 @ 3:15 am
While on the topic of fallacies…
Comment by Peter LLC — August 8, 2008 @ 3:54 am
As human beings, we all seek to explain the chaos of every day life. That may be the reason we seek to correlate decisions with temporal blessings, and while we each reserve the right to explain our lives in whatever narrative we chose, applying that logic as an axiom to everyone is a grave error. While Church members in many parts of the United States occupy higher levels of personal wealth than other religious demographics, internationally the correlation holds little water. If God blesses Americans with personal wealth in return for righteousness, why does he turn a blind eye to Central and South American members who are just as righteous? Beyond providing for the basic necessities of our families, I don’t see a requirement by Heavenly Father to go much beyond that while so many bellies are still so hungry.
I don’t really see David’s actions as immoral. He was put into a difficult position by a priesthood leader and David followed the dictates of his heart. I think the real error is in the behavior of that priesthood leader. Whether that SP is trying to get a Seventy or Mission President spot is up for discussion, but he seems to be campaigning for a cause apart from Prop 8.
I am somewhat surprised that many of you think Proposition 8 is about gay marriage. It isn’t. The Church isn’t stating any new position; indeed, my own personal beliefs fall directly in line with the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman. The real groundbreaking move is not doctrinal but political. The key statement in the letter that was read in sacrament meetings is that the Church was approached by other denominations to support this movement. Instead of staying neutral or trying to explain that the Church does not involve itself in the politics of its people, the Church made a calculating move to be counted with the Christian mainstream, an option we rarely have. That’s what makes this debate fascinating, and that by tossing in our hats to support OTHER churches in the battle for Prop 8, we become a little less of a peculiar people.
Comment by Justin — August 8, 2008 @ 5:24 am
My father in law is a bishop in Southern CA. For those of you who want to know how much a family is expected to give to Prop 8 in his stake, it’s $1000. A rich ward is expected to be able to come up with about $150,000 for Prop 8.
Comment by Sophia — August 8, 2008 @ 6:37 am
is no one old enough to remember the Jim Stafford song
Unfortunately, yes.
and appreciate my title for this entry
Uh…no. The song was so bad that no amount of cleverness can redeem it.
I have also made a “covenant to consecrate”, but mine (like all my actions) is based on prompting/confirmation by the Holy Ghost. No prompt, no consecrate.
This is an important point, but does not necessarily contradict the original post. I’ve had a similar experience (albeit, not political). While I was waiting for word on a particular job, I received a prompting that I should pay my tithing immediately. Not wait till Sunday–immediately. We had a mid-week correlation meeting that night and I handed the bishop my envelope as soon as I got there. I was offered the job the next morning.
So is the message that because I was so righteous as to pay my tithing in the middle of the week that I prospered? No, the message is that because I obeyed that particular prompting, I prospered. In fact, I have never paid my tithing in the middle of the week since, and I have done just fine.
Now, David did not provide enough details to determine whether he attributes his ultimate decision to contribute to a specific spiritual prompting or whether he was just assuming that blessings in his stake were now a function of the size of contributions to Prop 8. If it was the former, then the story is worthwhile and uplifting. If it was the latter, then it is disturbing as some have found it.
Comment by Last Lemming — August 8, 2008 @ 6:39 am
This post is pretty disturbing. If your conscience demands that you oppose the happiness of others, you should at least approach it with a somber attitude. If your thesis is correct, then your new house is a reward for your support of an act that will cause great pain to thousands of gays and lesbians. Even if this is God’s will, we should be charitable and compassionate to those who will suffer because of it.
Comment by Doug Hudson — August 8, 2008 @ 7:11 am
Response to Robert in comment #32:
Welcome to the free world. Get over yourself.
Comment by danithew — August 8, 2008 @ 7:41 am
Of course blessings can be material items, money, or other worldly items. Blessings can just as easily be things that at the time seem like trials and even tragedies. Getting this house does sound like a blessing in this case, but the blessing just as easily could have been not getting the house, but solving the problems of the current living situation in another way. If the Lord blesses me with a high paying job (I wish), because of my faithfulness, it does not mean that I am more worthy or more faithful than the person who loses his or her job at the same time. That person has different needs, different lessons to learn and a different path. In my life, I’ve seen that losing a job or going through other tough times can turn out to be blessings in the long run, they just aren’t so obvious at the time.
Comment by Tammy — August 8, 2008 @ 7:51 am
This effort on the part of the church is as unpleasant as Hinkley [sic] showing up at Elders Ball and Gordon’s [sic] funeral and stating that it does not matter how long one lives in this life and then departing with bodyguards.
I am reminded here of Tal Bachman’s similarly jaundiced representation of President Hinckley’s remarks at Elder Wilson’s funeral in May 1989.
(I am not the same Justin who posted comments 14 and 34.)
Comment by Justin — August 8, 2008 @ 7:54 am
Last Lemming (#36),
Peace be still, my brutha… it was the former.
Comment by David — August 8, 2008 @ 8:11 am
Tammy (#39),
Well put. I wish I had articulated that in the original post.
Comment by David — August 8, 2008 @ 8:14 am
David, thanks for this very uplifting story of faith and service. Who knows whether there was a correlation between you getting the house of your dreams and your Church contribution, but the story itself is interesting and noteworthy.
I see the effort on Prop. 8 as similar to other Church efforts throughout history, such as being asked to tithe one tenth of your time for building a temple or being asked to participate in Joseph Smith’s presidential campaign or being asked to move into the wilderness to go help settle barren deserts. All of those initiatives involved sacrifices and incredible faith. Given our current political environment, it takes faith to make the contribution, it takes faith to continue to support Church leaders and it takes faith to face the slings and arrows of the outraged intolerants who are likely to come here and condemn you and the Church. Do not think our sacrifices in this generation are any less important than those in past history generations — they are simply different and not as apparent to us now as they will be with the wisdom of the eternities.
Comment by Geoff B — August 8, 2008 @ 8:27 am
Well said, Geoff B. Well said!
Comment by cheryl — August 8, 2008 @ 8:41 am
[...] wanted to bring to readers’ attentions an incredible story of faith and sacrifice by a brother in California. To sum up, his stake president asked him and his family to contribute a large amount of money to [...]
Pingback by A story of faith and sacrifice : The Millennial Star — August 8, 2008 @ 8:41 am
Danithew FTW.
Comment by Steve Evans — August 8, 2008 @ 8:49 am
I am sorry, but in this case no matter what the outcome you would have attributed it to “doing the right thing”. If you hadn’t got the house, you would have said it wasn’t meant to be and the Lord was protecting you.
I am sorry, but I have an issue the church trying to legislate morality. Specifically sexual morality. This is the church that defended marriage between one man and many women, and now it defines marriage as between one man and one woman (except obviously, in the temple).
I don’t think it is appropriate for the church to approach people asking for money-and a very specific dollar amount.
Comment by Tanya Sue — August 8, 2008 @ 8:57 am
Ah…the free world…where religion buys law. Its an interesting concept. Think I’ll stay in Vietnam. Glad to see the LDS is mainstreaming into evangelical Christian territory with its previously unheralded political agenda. Should be interesting when the two groups publicly disagree about some civil policy and try to outspend each other. Maybe the churches will go broke…who needs charity when you have faith.
Comment by robert — August 8, 2008 @ 9:11 am
I’m glad I don’t live in California and have not been solicited this way. I don’t think the church should involve itself with political issues. Is the church only contacting Republican members, or are Democrats also asked to contribute money this way?
I wonder if the tax-exempt status was jeopardized when a local Stake allowed to Mexican Consulate to setup shop in a Cultural hall and sell $60,000 worth of Matricula cards to illegal aliens.
I wonder how many members would donate if leaders were approaching them to obtain funds for an illegal alien legal defense fund? Members in Utah are being asked to go out and welcome illegal aliens to the state, offering them free food and legal services with no strings attached. Most are blindly following this request as well, despite the blatant disregard for Federal law.
Comment by Lee — August 8, 2008 @ 9:16 am
Not going to get in on the Prop 8 debate, but David, FWIW–I know the song you’re referring to and I think your title is hysterical.
Comment by JimD — August 8, 2008 @ 9:28 am
Years ago my neighbor’s son came out. The ward shunned him. The family disowned him. shortly after the son took his own life. Since then the father has been a walking zombie, not able to function in society. He found out too late that one should prioritize family OVER church.
Comment by Neil Harmer — August 8, 2008 @ 9:36 am
Well, it looks like some links went up a little before 9:11 AM.
Comment by John Mansfield — August 8, 2008 @ 9:51 am
The First Presidency letter says, “We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman.”
http://www.bycommonconsent.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08028_00.pdf
When we receive instruction or revelation from our church leaders what are we to do with it? We are not just supposed to follow it blindly. As Brigham Young said, “Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.” (JD 9:150)
In D&C 134 it says, “ 9. We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.”
So as long as having homosexual feelings is choice than we are justified, because you can’t just choose to be something in order to receive civil rights. Those rights under law are given equally to all who naturally qualify for them. We can’t make arbitrary qualifications.
But from the Church website, “ELDER OAKS: That’s where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.” http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction
So if it is not a choice for some people to be homosexual and they are not members of the Church, can we support legislation that would be denying a civil right to them? Or is the First Presidency justified in calling all California mormons to vote this way? It is up to you.
Some people are choosing to speak up at signingforsomething.org.
Comment by Big Hos — August 8, 2008 @ 9:54 am
Here are some quotes for you to consider:
It is not sufficient to quote sayings purported to come from Joseph Smith or Brigham Young upon matters of doctrine. Our own people also need instruction and correction in respect of this. It is common to hear some of our older brethren say, ‘But I heard Brother Joseph myself say so,’ or ‘Brother Brigham preached it; I heard him.’ But that is not the question. The question is has God said it? Was the prophet speaking officially? . . . As to the printed discourses of even leading brethren, the same principle holds. They do not constitute the court of ultimate appeal on doctrine. They may be very useful in the way of elucidation and are very generally good and sound in doctrine, but they are not the ultimate sources of the doctrines of the Church, and are not binding upon the Church. The rule in that respect is—What God has spoken, and what has been accepted by the Church as the word of God, by that, and that only, are we bound in doctrine.
Leaders of the Church even spoke out against those who might try to think that some other standard applied for ‘official’ Church doctrine:
[The Seer, a magazine published by a Church leader] contain[s] doctrines which we cannot sanction, and which we have felt impressed to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it…It ought to have been known, years ago, by every person in the Church—for ample teachings have been given on the point—that no member of the Church has the right to publish any doctrines, as the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, without first submitting them for examination and approval to the First Presidency and the Twelve. There is but one man upon the earth, at one time, who holds the keys to receive commandments and revelations for the Church, and who has the authority to write doctrines by way of commandment unto the Church. And any man who so far forgets the order instituted by the Lord as to write and publish what may be termed new doctrines, without consulting with the First Presidency of the Church respecting them, places himself in a false position, and exposes himself to the power of darkness by violating his Priesthood. While upon this subject, we wish to warn all the Elders of the Church, and to have it clearly understood by the members, that, in the future, whoever publishes any new doctrines without first taking this course, will be liable to lose his Priesthood.
Later leaders of the Church have continued to teach this principle. Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:
It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man¹s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards of doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.
Elder Bruce R. McConkie, whose writings some critics attempt to elevate to “official status,” despite the fact that he explicitly states that he writes only on his own behalf, said:
With all their inspiration and greatness, prophets are yet mortal men with imperfections common to mankind in general. They have their opinions and prejudices and are left to work out their own problems without inspiration in many instances. Joseph Smith recorded that he “visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that ‘a prophet is always a prophet’; but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.” (Teachings, p. 278.) Thus the opinions and views even of prophets may contain error unless those opinions and views are inspired by the Spirit. Inspired statements are scripture and should be accepted as such. (D. & C. 68:4.).
Since “the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets” (1 Cor. 14:32), whatever is announced by the presiding brethren as counsel for the Church will be the voice of inspiration. But the truth or error of any uninspired utterance of an individual will have to be judged by the standard works and the spirit of discernment and inspiration that is in those who actually enjoy the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Comment by Big Hos — August 8, 2008 @ 9:57 am
What drives me bananas is that people assume I hate gays because I don’t support gay marriage.
Or that I hate drunks because I oppose drunk driving.
Or that I hate smokers because I hate smoking.
Or that I hate intellectuals because I hate studying philosphy.
Or that I hate the Japanese because I hate sashimi.
Ludicrous. Stupid. Kind of dumb, really. Even my MIL, and advocate for PFLAG and gay rights of all kinds still loves me and respects me, despite the fact that I will always be opposed to gay marriage. She gets the Church, she understands. And yet they excommunicated her. But she still gets it. And she still has love in her heart.
It’s hard to feel sorry for gay rights activists (and those who leave the church for bitter, hate-filled reasons) when they are so full of hatred and bitterness (obviously). So, I don’t. I’ll have compassion for the ones who show compassion. Spewing forth hatred for Prophets of God doesn’t work, people. Never has. Never will.
David-
You are so brave for posting this. I realize this now.
Comment by cheryl — August 8, 2008 @ 10:20 am
I’ve never heard of postmormon.org but will check it out now to see if it’s worthy of a contribution. It’s good to know that there are those who are doing their part to support Christ’s plan of free will and to thwart Lucifer’s plan to enforce morality on everyone.
Does not the eleventh article of faith proclaim that all men should be allowed freedom to worship as they please?
As a Christian, I believe that two people who love each other should be married.
As a gay person I believe marriage includes same sex marriage.
By preventing me from marrying the person of my choosing regardless of gender, you are infringing upon my rights to worship the God of my understanding. The God I worship accepts me as I am. The LDS church is hypocritical- either live the eleventh article of faith or have it changed.
Comment by Jerad — August 8, 2008 @ 10:24 am
No one said it would be easy, just worth it.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that tit-for-tat is not a principle of the restored gospel. Unlike the moral of David’s story, it requires little faith and no sacrifice to love your like-minded buddies.
Comment by Peter LLC — August 8, 2008 @ 10:27 am
Peter LLC-
Touche.
Comment by cheryl — August 8, 2008 @ 10:30 am
I’m saddened by the Church’s stance on this issue, for political and philosophical reasons.
But I’m even more saddened by the acrimony, on both sides, that this debate causes. All this talk of “wheat and tares” on one hand and accusations of pride on the other is not what the Gospel is about. We can disagree about something, but as disciples of Christ shouldn’t we be a little more circumspect in the language we use to describe other Christians? Shouldn’t that be more important than being on the right side (whatever side you think that is) of this debate?
Comment by andrew — August 8, 2008 @ 10:34 am
So you’re thanking your God for (supposedly) helping you profit personally as a reward for discriminating against others? Holy kickback, Batman!
Seriously, is this post for real? Or is it a test of Mormon ethics like this earlier post?
Comment by C. L. Hanson — August 8, 2008 @ 10:52 am
I cannot be the only member of the church who feels like a hypocrite for saying that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, when the temple has sealings between one man and multiple women. As long as the sealings in the temple continue the way they do, then I cannot support what the church is saying it wants us to. How can we say we support marriage only being between a man and a woman when we so obviously don’t?
Comment by Tanya Sue — August 8, 2008 @ 10:58 am
Andrew said,
It seems to me that you are contradicting yourself here. You say that we shouldn’t be so concerned about being on the right side, but then the message of your post is also implying that being a Christian is the most important side to be on.
In my opinion your post is quite hypocritical.
Comment by paths — August 8, 2008 @ 11:05 am
Sophia #35-are all families expected to give that much? That is more than some people’s rent.
Comment by Tanya Sue — August 8, 2008 @ 11:20 am
Things like the LDS involvement in Prop 22 and Prop 8 and the general way religions treat people who are different are why I gave up being LDS and other religions all together… I no longer believe in any organized religion and do not feel I ever will again… I simply express my spiritual outlook with the basic golden rule and express my personal concerns to others around me in my community… may the LDS get the Karma they deserve by treating others less than they want to be treated themselves… all is not well in zion… they cannot build a zion until they want to live it fully by loving and accepting everyone equally… that is how God loves all of his children in my understanding.
Comment by Loren — August 8, 2008 @ 11:21 am
Wow… as a gay former Mormon I find this discussion and the Church’s actions in California completely disheartening on many levels.
I served an honorable mission, graduated from BYU, and spent 30 years trying to find the right woman to marry despite feeling zero physical or emotional atraction to them for 30 years. At some point around that time, I had the epiphany (which I think of as being personal revelation) that I’d be much happier being honest about who I was. Long story short, I met a wondeful man that I have been together with for eight years, and we too have been blessed with considerable prosperity.
I was excommunicated after I went to my bishop and confessed the relationship that I was in. I wasn’t bitter, I didn’t turn to drugs and alcohol, I fully respected the right of the Church to take a stand and declare me to be an immoral person not worthy of inclusion in full fellowship. I wanted to keep attending Church and did so for a year after being excommuicated, at which point I was old enough to need to move to a family ward, and mainly because I wasn’t sure how to present myself in a new ward where I fully expected to encounter either open hostility or behind-the-scenes condemnation similar to what I’m seeing on here, I stopped attending.
I still value my time in the Church and the person it made me, in many ways. Most of my famoly continues to be active members. Fortunately, none of them are in California so I don’t have to even worry about what they would be voting for on this issue.
The Church’s current position on people who are same-sex attracted (as I understand it, calling them “gay people” also implies an acceptance of someone’s identity as a homosexual, and is to be avoided) is that we love them and welcome them into full fellowship as long as they are celibate. Love the sin, hate the sinner == a nice little phrase which is very unclear when it comes to telling someone what they should actually DO or NOT DO.
To me, loving me but hating my sin would probably amount to displaying some compassion for me. After all, if I live my life as you think I should, I should now leave the man I love totally and completely and live the rest of my life alone. Express some inner conflict over the idea that as many of you claim, you have gay friends or family members and yet the Lord is asking you to tell them that their relationships aren’t worth sanctioning and in fact should be actively prohibited.
When Abraham went up on to the mountain with Isaac, was he rejoicing and celebrating his blessings all the way?
You rarely hear this sort of sympathy or empathy from active members of the Church. That’s where the charges of institutionalized homophobia come from.
Where is the love?
Comment by Mark in Portland — August 8, 2008 @ 11:38 am
#62 - Here’s a list of what the larger contributors are giving. Smaller contributions are reported at this same website, but not as frequently. By law, all contributions of at least $100 must be reported (so if you contribute $25 four times, your contributions will be publicized at that site as well.)
Comment by LRC — August 8, 2008 @ 11:43 am
Okay, I’m jumping in.
First, gay marriage and polygamy are two very different and distinguishable practices. The notion that the Church should accept gay marriage now because it used to sanction plural non-SSM (and because temple sealings imply that such unions may exist beyond this world) is nonsensical.
Two, it is a gigantic leap to argue that simply because gay folk are born gay they “should” have the opportunity to marry other gay folk (whether “should” means constitutionally, morally, or otherwise). Marriage is both a religious and statutory construct. Both the state and the Church have legitimate reasons for not recognizing gay marriage that have absolutely nothing to do with whether gay folk can “control” their sexual preference.
Three, the Church has consistently made a distinction between purely political issues and moral issues that happen to be politically driven (such as this one). Believe you me, the Church is very hesistant to jump into political matters, and I have personally seen area authorities tell individual church members to stand down in their efforts to bring seemingly very worthy political causes into the church forum.
Finally, many of us have made a covenant to consecrate all that we have to the Church. The Church operates on the earth through leaders that are called and set apart to their positions. They are entitled to receive revelation consistent with their positions and we are promised blessings when we are obedient to their instructions. In the end, each of us will choose how we will choose, but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that there will be no consequences associated with those choices.
(Gee, David, I live nowhere near California, and now *I* might even throw in a few hundred bucks.)
Comment by WMP — August 8, 2008 @ 11:45 am
I am a Utah mormon, raised in the church, return missionary, and long-time active member, but I no longer believe in the LDS church. I no longer believe in concept of God as well. I no longer pay tithing, go to church, read my scriptures, attend the temple, etc. I do give generously to charities of my choosing, who are transparent about how the money is used.
Shockingly, my family and I are still “blessed” on a daily basis, and have been for a long time, with both the temporal things we need, health, and peace and contentment in our home. Hmmm, how does that happen, when we’re so far removed from “God”? Must be “karma”, or maybe just good choices, along with a tolerant attitude, a reality-based outlook on life, and a bit of luck thrown in. God and his wishy-washy blessing system plays no part in my life anymore, and I can say that with a smile on my face and peace in my heart.
If I were still a believing member of the church, an action like this from my SP would have me seriously reevaluating things. Very fortunately, I am also the mother of a gay son, which has been one of the biggest “blessings” of my life.
Good luck with your move!
Comment by Kristen — August 8, 2008 @ 11:49 am
The same reasoning can be applied to heterosexual people. Just because they are born and want to marry the opposite sex doesn’t mean they “should.” And in this case should means legally, the civil rights that are afford through marriage. The amendment is not about your morals or church’s views.
Any “legitimate” reason for not recognizing gay marriage, by your line of reasoning, can be applied to heterosexual marriage.
Comment by Big Hos — August 8, 2008 @ 11:56 am
Mark in Portland-The love is here. This one has been so hard for me that I have actually been considering resigning. I don’t know how in good conscience I can be affiliated with the church. I am not sure that I can.
Comment by Tanya Sue — August 8, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
LRC (#65),
Bearing in mind, of course, that we do not know the religious affiliation, if any, of those listed.
Comment by David — August 8, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
And when we obtain any ablessing from God, it is by bobedience to that law upon which it is predicated
This is probably the most dangerously misunderstood verse in modern scripture.
Example: My mission president once told an elder that his family could surely afford to send him to the doctor because his dad was a Stake President (meaning that he must be rich).
If you feel spiritual confirmation that the house is a reward for your obedience to donate money, then I am not going to argue with David. But as mmiles mentioned in #2, this is not always the way the Lord works. In fact, my own experience tells me it mostly doesn’t happen the way it happened for David.
Comment by cj douglass — August 8, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
When I was five years old my extended family was having a party in the cultural hall of my uncle’s ward. He was the custodian and had keys. The adults were playing volleyball and the kids were playing on the stage and a man in his twenties that I had not seen before walked in the gym. Everyone stopped playing and watched as he walked over and spoke with my grandma for a minute, hugged her, and left. I later found out he was my cousin. Everybody spurned him but my grandma. My mom told me that she knew he was born gay because as a child he didn’t play rough like most boys. She knew that homosexuals were born gay long before scientific studies demonstrated it to be true but she shunned her nephew anyway because the church told her he was wicked.
If I live to be a hundred years old I will not forget the look on my cousin’s face as he left the cultural hall. Nobody told him he couldn’t stay and play volleyball but he was driven out of the room by an atmosphere of bigotry and false moral superiority. Nobody should be shunned by the family. I love my family and they do not think of themselves as hateful but they were raised in a faith that championed intolerance. Religion should not be a tool to divide and drive wedges in families, communities, or nations.
Most of us thought our grandma accepted my cousin for who he was but in retrospect I think my grandma was just more humble than we were. Today’s general authorities and today’s church could learn from a lot from an old lady that was willing to love unconditionally. I don’t know for sure how my grandma felt about homosexuality but she was humble enough to think it was the Lord’s job to judge and her job to love.
The church’s active persecution of my cousin and others like him must stop. The last time I saw my cousin was at my grandma’s funeral. He now lives in California and has been committed to the same man for decades. Now they can finally get married and hopefully they can prevail against the bigots that oppose them and stay married. The church’s involvement in the political process to change the California constitution and deny homosexuals the same rights we all enjoy is morally corrupt and an indication that those leading the church are light years away from being true prophets.
Marriage is the foundation of my life. My wife and I have been married for twenty two years and have two beautiful daughters. The gay couples we know do not threaten our marriage in any way. As a matter of fact, knowing these people enhances our lives.
Comment by Carl — August 8, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
Wait. Wait. Let me get this straight.
So you’re saying that: (a) the Church is making efforts to support measures that it believes will help maintain the integrity of marriage; and (b) you were blessed for following the counsel of your leaders.
Well, then, I can easily see what all the hub-bub is about. I mean, it’s not like we teach these things every Sunday in church. Oh, wait, we do! My mistake. Well then, it seems like this shouldn’t be a very big deal to most active members. Maybe I’m missing something.
Comment by jimbob — August 8, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
WMP- (1)the ammendment, if I remember correctly, specifically says that marriage is between a man a woman. How is polygamy between a man and a woman?
(2) I disagree. I think that we will be humiliated later, similar to blacks and the priesthood.
(3)as far as moral vs. political, my concern is their legislating all morality. Even if this is a moral issue, do we have a right to legislate it. Why should someone else be forced to live with our moral belief systems. It seems so arrogant to me. How can I demand that?
(4)I made a covenant to consecrate everything I have, but I also have an obligation to pray about things and make sure that I am doing what I spirtually should. I cannot, after fasting and prayer, get a confirmation that this is anything more than hatred fueling this.
Comment by Tanya Sue — August 8, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
I simply have a problem with the “blessing” aspect of the anecdote.
Prayers, and even blessings have 3 outcomes. Yes, No, and wait. Plain and simple.
If one were to have donated the money andnt have received a “blessing”, then maybe it meant one had to “wait” for it. If it came at a later date, then that answer would have been “wait, and yes”. If it had never come then the answer would have been “wait, and no”.
It doesn’t matter who you say gave you the “blessing” the outcome will always be the same. Yes, No, and Wait.
If the Author believed in the abominal snowman to have been his “savior” and he has asked for a monetary donation to the same cause, and the same scenario was in place. The same outcome happened, then one could just as easily have said that the abominal snowman blessed them because they were “faithful” in having paid the money that was asked of them.
Still. If this was money that was supposed to go towards a house, but went to a polical cause instead, I hope your God helps you find the money to pay for the house now. Sure you may have gotten the approval message, but what about the money now? Maybe you can ask your SP for a loan since you were so faithful and “donated” to the “cause”.
Comment by Lilth — August 8, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
#71 - Yes, no religious affiliation is included on the Secretary of State’s website. I, however, recognize LDS people from current and former wards and stakes, and there are more than a few of them.
Comment by LRC — August 8, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
Glad you made this tough choice. This whole issue is going to make life very interesting over the next decade or two. Here’s my take on it, if you’re interested:
http://ckbigelow.blogspot.com/2008/07/worst-case-scenario.html
Comment by Chris Bigelow — August 8, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
Sophia #35-
I think your numbers are slightly off. I live in one of the most affluent stakes in SoCal, and I know that at the stake level we have been asked to contribute at least $110,000 to the coalition. Starting August 16, our stake is organizing phone banks and ‘neighborhood’ captains to start contacting each registered voter in the area of responsibility we have been assigned as part of the effort.
Comment by mtz — August 8, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
Long ago, a wise man said, “Let us force people to live moral lives. This way, none of them will do bad things. We can be responsible for making sure that everyone follows God’s law and there will be no sin.”
And then another, even wiser man said, “No, it is wrong to force the human will. We should let them choose for themselves. In choosing they will grow and become responsible. Free agency is more important than that, it’s worth having people make bad choices and it’s worth the consequences that may follow.”
I think all Mormons know who those two people were. Which side of the war are you on?
Comment by Draconis — August 8, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
This is the Justin from #14 and 34. I’m glad some of the edge is starting to leave this conversation so that we as a community can discuss this and come to an understanding. I think Andrew really had a point in his post (#59). I don’t find many people, in and out of the Church, who can “love the sinner, hate the sin.” There are enough people in the Church willing to spew hateful remarks and shun those among the flock who are homosexual. But we should rise above that and love them.
Whether we choose to support Prop 8 is an individual, political choice. If you hold a temple recommend, you have already proven your dedication to the doctrine behind this political issue. More importantly than gay marriage, the Scriptures teach us to love, to forgive, to understand. It’s hard, and frankly it’s often against our natural inclinations. The most dangerous aspect of all of this condemnation of other people is that once we begin to pass by one Samaritan, we begin to pass by others. Eventually, we stop for no one, putting doctrine and dogma before people. I sincerely hope that we treat other members of the Church, and others in general, with a more Christlike attitude than judging them to be chaff, tares, or goats. We are better than this.
Comment by Justin — August 8, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
I appreciate that there are many divergent viewpoints regarding Proposition 8 and the Church’s involvement with it. I’ve tried to allow all to be represented.
That said, I think we’ve read enough bitterness, sarcasm and anti-Church/anti-proposition lobbying. Are you trying to persuade people to your point of view, or are you just taking cheap shots to show off to your friends and for self-gratification?
Any further such comments will be removed from this string.
Comment by David — August 8, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
Its amazing that the LDS Church bases its homophobic behavior on a mistranslation of the writings of Paul. The word arsenokoitai in Greek is a made up word by Paul. Means - man-beds - and if taken in context refers to temple prostitutes. If Paul had been referring to normal male homosexual behavior he would have used the word paiderasste. In Martin Luther’s time the term was translated as masturbator. Now it is homosexual. Which is a 19th-20th century term. The Church really should stay out of politics.
Comment by Wil Wilson — August 8, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
Why is the LDS so intent on persecuting people? No one has to marry anyone of the same sex but the individuals who want to and the Supreme Court of California has said it would be illegal discrimination to prevent them from doing so.
There has never been a US law since Jim Crow that discriminated against a group. It’s not time for one now. And people who give money for Prop 8 are wasting it because it’s going to lose. …just like the money those people will lose in vain.
Why not just be human beings if that’s how you expect to be treated?
Comment by alice — August 8, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
I think that this is a sickening law because it allows for a certain group of people who were born that way to be discriminated against. What people do in the privacy of the bedroom is not my business. I think some people are born with homosexual tendencies, just as someone is born with brown or blue eyes. If you’re truly on the side who said that people should be free to chose how to live, then you’d be against this law.
Comment by Adrienne — August 8, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
Looks like Nine Moons may have set a new site record for first-time readers.
Comment by John Mansfield — August 8, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
One of the most compelling reasons I have heard for members of the church supporting this proposition is that if gay couples are extended the same right to participate in a legal marriage, the church would be forced, by the resulting anti-discriminatory law, to perform same-sex marriages whenever requested including performing marriages in the temple.
Does anyone know if this is true? I know the ‘nacle is crawling with attornies.
Comment by Ryan — August 8, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
David:
I appreciate your plight in making this thread positive. However, this is a passionate issue. Many active LDS people do not believe this action to be the correct one. I understand “follow the prophet”, but many active LDS people believe that our church and other churches should not dictate to non-believers how they should conduct their lives. After, in their view, it’s the only life they have.
Having studied homosexuality in depth the three years since my son came out, I am not going to contribute to any more suicides.
Comment by Holden Caulfield — August 8, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
Comment by robert — August 8, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
After nearly a decade of sincere prayer, scripture study, meditation, etc., I just recently made the extremely difficult and tearing decision to walk away from the LDS church’s expectations of me.
During that decade of faithful stewardship in the LDS church, I was completely unable to hold a steady job… there were days when I simply could not get out of bed… I was completely unable to support myself.
The very week I sat down with my parents and told them that I had decided to seek a male spouse and raise a family with him, I found a job and an apartment. A few months later, I saw a posting for an ever better job, one in the field I would like to really start my career; I applied and within a couple days was hired. I just checked my bank account, and I have sufficient money to provide for myself. Staying in bed is no longer ideal; life finally is livable.
To be honest, I feel very much lead by the Spirit to the decision I have made for my life, and I cannot contribute the goodness that has come into my life since making such a decision as anything but the Goodness of God. Indeed, I have never felt closer to God than I do now, nor do I feel as though I have given up my eternal birthright.
Now, I don’t write this as a proponent of legalizing gay marriage — I frankly don’t care if my future family is seen as valid in the government’s eyes… sure, if it doesn’t happen, it may create some hurdles, but if there’s anything I’ve learned from the past 10 years, it’s how to handle hurdles.
I simply write to share my testimony.
P.S. There would be far fewer gay members leaving the church if their celibate offerings were supported in the way the church is supporting Prop. 8… come to think of it, I’m beginning to think it is, indeed, the Lord’s will that the church act so heavily on the issue; the hostility gives sufficient courage for many to detach from the church and choose the best life… maybe the two (the best life and membership within the church) will be congruent for a homosexual one day… I hope so.
Comment by Andrew Pankratz — August 8, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
David, I appreciate that you don’t like bitterness. this is Carl from post 73. I grew up in the church though I am not active now. I am not bitter. What you are seeing here is people that are speaking out for the rights of people they care about. That isn’t bitterness. It is love.
Some people they speak out because they love the Mormon church and don’t want to see it in a bad light. I don’t know if you are old enough to remember blacks not holding the priesthood but the brethren needed somebody to point out the error of their ways. those people were ridiculed and debased as bitter. I call them heroes.
I hope I haven’t offended anybody because I am not trying to be antagonistic. Mostly I am would like for people to understand that same sex marriage isn’t just an ‘issue’ and it goes beyond political dogma. It is about real people trying to live good lives.
Comment by Carl — August 8, 2008 @ 8:16 pm
At times in the scriptures we see a punishment extending for generations. I wonder if this is the case for past racism. Is the true punishment for our society going to be the continual usage of our prior misbehavior to justify discarding moral truths which form the bedrock of good society? Past generations were wrong about blacks so we must be wrong about homosexuals as well? What sin could we not justify in the exact same manner should sufficient sympathy gather behind those that desire to partake in it? When history ends, and our ancestors are judged, will they be shown that their incorrect treatment of their fellow men, solely due to their having the wrong skin color, provided easy ammunition to be exploited by the adversary to rip apart morality?
Comment by Aluwid — August 8, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
The Church was wrong about blacks and the Priesthood.
So they must have been wrong in banning polygamy too!
Bring it back I say!
Comment by Seth R. — August 8, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
So should Reverend Jesse Jackson and Reverend Al Sharpton get themselves and their churches out of politics?
Should the Rev Martin Luther King Jr. have stayed out of politics?
What about all those times that Bill Clinton, as a candidate, and then as president spoke at churches? And those churches and their membership supported him and his politics?
What about Rev Wright? Was he ever political over the last 20 or 30 years?
No, the only time it’s evil for a church to get involved in politics is when that church pushes something perceived as a conservative cause. That’s the only time we can’t have a church get involved in politics.
Comment by Bookslinger — August 8, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
I walked out of Sacrament when the Pro. 8 letter was read in church.
At our last F&T meeting, one brother cried as he talked about the
righteousness of Pro. 8, followed by a young brother who couldn’t
understand the church getting involved in politics. After the meeting,
people lined up to shake the hand of that brother who spoke so
honestly about his concern. This is a troubling issue in our church.
I attend church for spiritual renewal. I vote using my own agenda.
Comment by George — August 8, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
David,
I don’t think most folks are taking shots at the church here. I think they are expressing their heart-felt feelings. And, unfortunately, many folks simply disagree with the First Presidency. I know that isn’t very palatable to you, but it isn’t very palatable to me, either. You see, I also have put a lot of faith and trust in our church leaders over the years, and like many, many other members, I feel that it is the leadership that has betrayed us. I feel they have in many ways gone against their own teachings and their own counsel.
You’ve deleted my comments here before, although I’ve said nothing inflammatory, not used any foul language, merely pointed out that I and others think the church is wrong on this issue.
You can donate your entire house and spend your daughter’s college fund money, and all of your retirement savings. You’re fighting on the wrong side. The Lord is doing everything he can to make it clear to His leaders, but they just aren’t listening.
The reason so many of the membership is upset is NOT because we are out of touch. We are the regular workaday members, holding callings, blessing the sick, etc. We just can’t see what harm this does to anyone to encourage marriage. Also, we don’t understand the church getting involved in this “moral” issue when it has declined to get involved in this same issue time and time again all over the world. There are lots of issues here, and the leadership needs to listen.
They are going to continue to waste our tithing funds on this failed effort, and in the end, the so-called new friends we are making in the Protestant churches are going to turn on us anyway. We are playing with fire, and we’re going to get burned.
Comment by Andrew C — August 8, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
Perhaps it will shown that their incorrect treatment of their fellow men regarding skin color (or sexual orientation) was wrong and, in fact, very evil instead…Perhaps the “ammunition” is required when the faithful stray so far away from the spirit of Christ’s compassion that they begin to feel that they are “morally superior” to their fellows. Somehow, I don’t think Christ would approve of such an attitude.
PS I have to post late into your night as I am being censored by the blog owner.
Comment by robert — August 8, 2008 @ 10:47 pm
I’m reading these comments saying that so many of the membership are upset. I’m just not seeing that, at least not in the wards in my stake. I suspect that those who are disenchanted with the church on this issue are a small percentage but are being very active in blogging this issue all over the place lately.
Seriously, I think the majority are in line with the prophets and apostles on this one. Those who hold temple recommends have acknowledged that they support the general and local authorities of the church. Like me, they will be walking neighborhoods asking others what they think and sharing information.
I will be very interested in the results of the surveys when they are reported back after we finish walking the precincts the first or second week of September. If it is anything like it was back in 2000, we will find a lot of apathy or lack of knowledge. I’m sure our efforts over the next few weeks will raise that awareness.
The opposition will outspend us two to one just like they did back in 2000. The vote then was 61.4% approved. It will probably be closer this time. But no matter what the results, this issue is serving the purpose of defining who is on the Lord’s side. Visit ProtectMarriage.com to get more information and to volunteer.
Comment by Tim Malone — August 8, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
Tim,
You have a Constitutional Right to go out and walk your precincts, etc. The gays have a Constitutional Right to get married.
Notice who is trying to take away the Constitutional Right of the other, and saying it’s God’s idea?
If you guys win, you open the door to somebody else deciding next year to restrict the right of Mormons to marry in the temple in California, by passing an amendment to Protect Traditional Marriage from Secret Ceremonies.
Be careful when you seek to take away the liberties of others, for in doing so, you put your own liberties in jeopardy.
Comment by Andrew C — August 8, 2008 @ 11:13 pm
Are you freaking kidding me? You think that in some sort of equivalent-to-the-blessings-of tithing sort of way you were blessed for making a politcal contribution? This story is so troubling to me on so many levels. I guess I am happy for you if you are happy, but this looks like priesthood authority run amok in support of a misguided political effort. Thank heavens I do not live in CA.
Comment by Martin Willey — August 8, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
Ryan #88. The argument that without Prop.8 the Church will be required to perfrom gay marriages is, to put it charitably, a load of crap. It is the same kind of scare tactic that was used against the Equal Rights Amendment, for those of of old enough to remember that issue. The First Amendment probints Congress from making any law respecting the practice of religion. Sheesh.
Comment by Martin Willey — August 8, 2008 @ 11:55 pm
“If you guys win, you open the door to somebody else deciding next year to restrict the right of Mormons to marry in the temple in California, by passing an amendment to Protect Traditional Marriage from Secret Ceremonies.”
Yes, yes, yes to that. By the way, since the church acknowledges civil marriage without the temple blessing why do they insist on the anti-gay rhetoric with respect to a civil marriage issue?
Repost the original blog and link wherever you can. Everyone should read this.
Comment by robert — August 9, 2008 @ 12:02 am
Nice that all of you new guys came out to comment.
Now, will this be the last thread that we have the pleasure of your company? Or are you here because the blog actually interests you?
Andrew C,
No, gays do not have the right to a government endorsement of their “marriages.”
But then, neither do Mormons, Catholics, or Southern Baptists.
Better to take government out of the business of issuing marriage licenses altogether. Then people can call themselves whatever fool thing they want - on their own dime.
I also find it odd that until about 10 years ago, no one in the gay community even seemed interested in getting “married.” They were all too busy talking about how marriage was an “outmoded religious relic.”
But now, suddenly, it’s all the rage. Wonder why…
Personally, I think a lot of gays are doing it purely to piss people off. Others may have simply started believing their own press.
Comment by Seth R. — August 9, 2008 @ 12:03 am
Andrew,
Everyone has the right to get married, but marriage has never been between members of the same gender before, this is a whole new illogical idea.
Establishing a right for “Same Sex Marriage” was never the intent of the people of California, and it wasn’t a recognized right until this summer when 4 out of 7 Judges decided it to be true. The point of the amendment is to inform them that they were wrong and to prevent such misunderstandings from occurring again.
Note that other states have had similar cases and their courts have determined that there is no constitutional right for two members of the same gender to marry.
Comment by Aluwid — August 9, 2008 @ 12:08 am
Seth: I agree with you. Get the government out of the marriage business. The Church can and should define marriage they way it wants, which I will fully support. Others can live they way they want.
Comment by Martin Willey — August 9, 2008 @ 12:17 am
Bookslinger (#95):
You are being a little disingenuous with your examples of the Revs. Jackson, Sharpton, King Jr., Wright, et al.
First of all, “everyone else is doing it” has never been a valid defense and secondly, members of their congregations are free to come and go as they choose according to their conscience, charismatic appeal of their leaders, even political views. Members of the LDS church, on the contrary, do not enjoy this flexible membership policy–they join (and are expected to remain members) because of a testimony of the gospel. no matter the goat or sheep who might be leading them at any given time, or the highly charged political issue of the day being pressed upon them.
I believe we all do each other a favor when we focus as a church on the kind of compassionate service that saves souls rather than draw politically motivated lines in the sand and make crossing them a test of faith/obedience/membership for a captive audience. We would do well to avoid adding a political component to church membership requirements as outlined in, say, D&C 20:37.
There is always a moral question at issue in politics and while the church certainly could join the fray of political lobbying and demagoguery a la Wright, I cannot see through my own dark glass just how this would further God’s work and glory.
Comment by Peter LLC — August 9, 2008 @ 12:34 am
So if Church and State are supposed to be separate, and all men (and women) are created equal, then shouldn’t all men (and women) have the same rights? Shouldn’t religion stay out of the constitution of marriage? No one if forcing a religion to marry 2 men, or 2 women together.
Why is it that only some men and some women are allowed to marry and benefit from government tax breaks, cheaper health benefits, etc etc, while others who want to marry and share those same benefits withtheir straight counter parts, can’t just because they aren’t “allowed” to marry someone they love?
Again if humans are created equal, and we were all created in “His” image then something isn’t adding up here. I agree we should let people be free and equal and any “sins” people think others are harboring will be judged by the proper “person” when that time comes. If it seriously doesn’t affect or effect your place in the Celestial Kingdom, then what do you have to worry about?
If it’s such a sin, then doesn’t that open an extra place in heaven for somemone more worthy of the position?
Comment by Lilth — August 9, 2008 @ 12:49 am
I’m going to leave aside my thoughts on Prop 8. (1. Living in New York, I have no say in the matter and 2. My thoughts are still not fully formed on the matter).
But I do want to comment on the premise of this post.
David, I’m happy you were able to close on your dream house. Seeing how the real estate market is in California these days, congratulations! That said, tying that success to the substantial amount you gave to the political Prop 8 movement skews things. Your post feels like a “call to arms” so to speak. It is a “testimony” that shows that one individual received material benefits by “following the counsel of God’s representatives.” It adds to the larger mythology that we reap immediate benefits from “paying tithing immediately” or this or that last minute dramatic event.
We hear of many such dramatic coincidences but fail to realize that when looking at the whole picture of a person’s life, such events are rare. I’ve had one such incident in my 33 years. I worked as a sales associate at Men’s Wearhouse in California just after high school. About a year into my job, I began paying tithing. Not a month later, I was offered a promotion to a salesman, doubling my salary. Was it because I began paying tithing? Most likely. But just because I continue to pay tithing hasn’t given me other sudden material wealth.
My trouble with this kind of story is that it paints a false hope picture in one’s mind. It’s like finding a piece of gold in a river. And it is especially worse because it is tied to such a politically divisive issue. It makes those who don’t like this proposition feel more anger and conflict. It reinforces the views of those who are for this proposition. They feel inside that “hey, look we are right. Mr. So and So is a blessed man because he listened to the Lord’s anointed.”
Comment by Dan — August 9, 2008 @ 4:41 am
Seth R- Thanks for the welcome, I actually “lurk” here a lot, this is just an issue that is so personal to me that I felt the need to say something. Normally I am quiet in the backgroud.
Comment by Tanya Sue — August 9, 2008 @ 5:36 am
Dan, I agree that the story does provide some interesting thoughts. I really struggle with the concept of “blessings”. If we say something is a “blessings” are we saying that the person who didn’t get that same thing wasn’t blessed?
With the housing market as it is, I am pretty confident that someone will choose to support the amendment and then lose their house for some unconnected reason. That begs the question, were they not blessed for some reason. I have some healthy issues. If I donate money to this (which I won’t because no matter how hard I try, I cannot support it)and then land with a huge medical bill, was it because I didn’t give enough, or because “sometimes blessings don’t work the way we want them to”?
Comment by Tanya Sue — August 9, 2008 @ 5:45 am
Aluwid,
And, until 1947 interracial marriages were illegal in California. In many southern states they were illegal longer than that. Racially discriminatory ballot issues passed overwhelmingly all throughout the south (and even a few other places) for generations. Limiting the rights of the minority blacks, expressing the will of the people that blacks could not have the same rights as whites. And, the majority opinion was in large measure based on the same religious texts that are now being used to justify denying rights to gays and lesbians.
Before 1947 blacks had the right to get married in California, just not to whites. So if a black person was in love with a white person, they couldn’t get married. Now, you claim that gays have the legal right to marry, just not someone of their same gender.
Should we go back to the ban on interracial marriages also? I don’t think so. I’d be just as opposed to that.
Comment by Andrew C — August 9, 2008 @ 7:25 am
Andrew, we’ve already told you. There are fundamental differences between the race issue and the homosexuality issue. They are not equivalent.
And just because the Church “was wrong” on blacks and the Priesthood does not mean it’s wrong on homosexuality. That kind of logic could be used to justify just about anything.
Comment by Seth R. — August 9, 2008 @ 8:47 am
Seth:
What precisely do you find as the “fundamental differences” between the race issue and the gay issue? In both cases, we are talking about adults who enter into a civil law contract. What is so different except that “being gay” if you are not gay is something of which you know absolutely nothing about. If you are white, you cannot know what it is like to be black.
Comment by robert — August 9, 2008 @ 9:24 am
Seth,
That is certainly true. Perhaps we can look at just the stands the church has taken on homosexuality over the past 25 years:
1. There is no genetic component to gay identity. The church has now reversed its position on this question, with Elder Oaks and Wickham acknowledging that there may well be, and probably is, a genetic component.
2. Gay men should find an outlet for their sexuality by marrying straight women. Marriage was treated as a cure for their homosexuality. That counsel was given for decades, and created a great deal of misery, heartache, and divorce. The church has now reversed its position, and explicitly states that marriage to a heterosexual female should not be seen as a “cure” for gayness.
3. On the campus of BYU, we performed aversion therapy on gay men in an effort to turn them straight. We showed them gay porn and then administered an emetic. Some credible reports say that this therapy even involved electric shock treatments. The therapy resulted in several suicides. The church has now reversed its position, and no longer attempts these crazy cures.
4. Gay people used to be expelled from BYU, simply for identifying themselves as gay. The church has now reversed its position, and allows people who openly identify as gay to study at BYU as long as they are chaste. BYU sponsors an organization for its gay students.
That really isn’t a very good track record on issues involving gay people. We have been very wrong on at least 4 things in just the past 30 years, by our own admission. So, you can’t blame people for wondering about the current policy.
Comment by Mark IV — August 9, 2008 @ 9:29 am
Seth,
JUST because the church was wrong on blacks doesn’t mean it MUST be wrong on homosexuality, but it CERTAINLY opens the POSSIBILITY that they MIGHT be wrong. They were blatantly wrong for a very long time on the issue of blacks and the priesthood. Why do we continue with the MYTH that “when the First Presidency speaks the debate is over, because the will of God is known.” This OBVIOUSLY isn’t ALWAYS the case. SOMETIMES they are ARE WRONG. We do not claim INFALLIBILITY in our leaders, do we?
We do make the claim