Loading ...Earth to Berkeley. Come in, Berkeley.
flockwoodI’ve recommended that you check out Slate’s article on whether the Mormon Church could save (or outlast) U.S. civilization. But there’s one paragraph that’s way off base. It sounds like it was written by somebody in Berkeley or Cambridge or New Haven or The Village.
“[A well-regarded scholar] says the allure of yesteryear means Mormonism is always 25 to 30 years behind the rest of America. The church’s strong stances against the Equal Rights Amendment and gay marriage, she argues, show that the Latter-day Saints lag behind the country’s mores.”
That’s right. Latter-day Saints [and a majority of Californians and Oregonians and Hawaiians] “lag behind the country’s mores” by 25 or 30 years because they oppose gay marriage.
August 10th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Now wait a minute…I went to school in Cambridge (as did you, I think), and in Berkeley, what does that say about us?!?!? Although it is true I felt like an expatriate in both places…But, then, I’ve always enjoyed being the conservative among radicals…
August 10th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Yes, but the Mormons could have a new revelation tomorrow telling them that gay marriage is A-Ok. That’s the advantage they have over the fundies.
August 10th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
I’m one up on Fr. Van, having gone to school in Cambridge, but not Berkeley, and I’ve pointed out several times on this blog that Niall’s comment is exactly right: The “revelations” of the LDS Church always come at very convenient times. I imagine that when everyone else in the free world has decided that gay marriages are okay, and the LDS Church’s stand starts either hurting its ability to recruit members (as its racial policies was doing in Brazil at the time they had that big revelation) or going to get it in trouble with the government (as its stand on polygamy was doing in the 1800s, when the US Marshals were literally knocking on the door of the Temple with papers ordering its sale), it will no doubt have another big revelation.
In the Episcopal Church, at least we vote on it when we’re going to make big changes in the rules; it’s a lot easier, I suppose, just to say that you got an email from God.
But think about this: In 1954, when the US Supreme Court decided the Brown v. Board of Education case, every Southern and border state had segregated schools, as did the District of Columbia itself. This was considered a moral and ethical social structure by most organized churches within those states. If you had placed a referendum before those states, in the manner that has been done with gay marriage in some states, no doubt segregation would have won out by a huge margin, far greater than the margins of defeat of the gay rights initiatives. We all agree today that those states were at least 25 to 30 years behind the times.
How is this any different? The only way you can say it is different is that the result will not ultimately be the same, that is, that there will ultimately NOT be equal rights for gays and lesbians. And I can’t imagine that being the case: I believe that within my lifetime, gays and lesbians will be free to marry in every state. If this is true, then the universal feeling at that time will be the same as our feelings are toward the attitudes of Mississippi and Alabama in the ’50s.
August 10th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
I am not convinced that a moral issue, like, say, acting on one’s homosexuality, or desire to commit adultry, or even the desire to sleep around, ought to be equated with the civil rights of black people, African American, or wherever — nor with feminism and civil rights.
August 10th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Fr. Van -
You forget that racism was justified on a moral/sexual basis – hence laws against miscegenation. A black man “acting on” his desire to marry a white woman used to be thought of exactly the way conservatives think about people of the same gender marrying each other now.
August 10th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
I am not arguing that the Mormon Church is right or wrong to oppose gay marriage. But there’s precious little evidence that the Mormon Church is 25 or 30 years behind the rest of society when it comes to gay marriage. In 2009, a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage. Thus, the Mormon church’s stance is mainstream.
August 10th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
And yes, like Van and Caleb, I spent some time in Cambridge. But I was a stranger in a strange land.
August 10th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
flockwood:
Perhaps you’re right. But the Mormon church was definitely a generation behind the rest of the country on the status of African Americans. When the church leadership realized their overtly racist beliefs would no longer pass muster in the US, they changed the belief. Which is exactly what they did with polygamy a century earlier.
Which means, I think, that once homophobia is viewed the way racism is now viewed, the Church will have another “progressive revelation” about gays and gay marriage and other gay things that gay people do/want/have, etc.
Which is the genius of Mormondom, IMHO.
August 10th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Fr. Van, while Niall has largely made my point, I want to reiterate that I think the current stance of the church against gays and lesbians is exactly the same as our past antipathy toward African Americans, Catholics, Jews, women, and everyone else in the world other than white Anglo-Saxon Protestant males. Niall is quite right that, in the days of segregation, the Bible was trotted out and tortured to no end, to justify segregation and racism. Today, it’s being trotted out and tortured to support homophobia.
The philosophical question, in my mind, is whether the folks that don’t see it that way are really truly open to doing what the Bible suggests they do, and just take a different theological view than I do, or whether they’re using the Bible as an excuse to justify their own homophobia. In asking that question, it is instructive to ask the same question about our forebears: Did they become racists because they truly honestly believed the Bible required it, or did they use the Bible to justify their own racism, inherited from their culture?
I take the latter view, because racism, in the bad old days, transcended all religious and cultural boundaries; people who couldn’t agree what day it was theologically could agree that they didn’t want to eat with, or have their daughters marry, people of another race.
Today it’s the same. People having a wide variety of theological beliefs, and many with no theological beliefs, are homophobic. And, like our attack on racism, it’s the same wing of the church, the progressive wing, that leads the charge for rights for gays and lesbians just as we led the charge for the rights of minority groups in the past.
In 1955, William Faulkner, a son of the South and one of its great heroes, gave a speech in which he said:
“We speak now against the day when our Southern people who will resist to the last these inevitable changes in social relations, when they have been forced to accept what they at one time might have accepted with dignity and good will, say, ‘Why didn’t someone tell us this before? Tell us this in time!’”
Well, Faulkner and others told the Southerners what they didn’t want to hear then and they wouldn’t listen. The liberal wing of Christianity is now speaking to its conservative brethren against the day when they realize that they had the opportunity to embrace their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters with Christian love and charity, rather than having tolerance forced upon them.
The question is whether they will listen now when they didn’t listen in the ’50s. And now, once again, the ball is in their court.
August 10th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
And once the Mormon church accepts gays, the church is going to become FIERCE! If you thought the straight Mormons were efficient, just wait until apocalyptic survivalism meets Madonna.
August 10th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
I just don’t think it will happen, the civil rights movement was based on inferiority not moral objections. The same thing that kept the civil rights movement alive could be the same thing that prevents homosexual behavior from being accepted.
I can’t see the gay movement depending on God like the civil rights movement did..
I do see the similarities of crimes committed against each group , but once again that becomes a civil matter not a religious matter.
Its going be a theological breakthrough before this is accepted mainstream.
August 10th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
You obviously have no idea why the Mormons thought blacks were inferior. It was based precisely on moral objections.
August 10th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
At some point playing the civil rights card for other issues becomes illogical, but those who play that card, know better but want admit it.
August 11th, 2009 at 5:40 am
I beleive it was more from fear rather than any moral objection.
August 11th, 2009 at 7:37 am
Fear, perplexed? I give you this direct quote from the Book of Mormon:
“And He had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God; I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.” (2 Nephi 5:21)
If it was a prejudice based on fear, Joe Smith soon enough gave the fear a religious foundation. To be fair, though, I don’t think this verse refers strictly to African Americans, though any Mormon with exegetical skill comparable to your average fundy preacher or churchgoer would believe, and proclaim, that it did. Smith was talking about Native Americans, because that was the milieu within which Mormonism was born–the then-popular search for buried “Indian” treasure. Still, the principle stated–and believed, as from the lips of God himself–was that White makes Right. I suppose it was sort of nice to have a revelation doing away with all this, though.
August 11th, 2009 at 8:18 am
perplexed:
That’s a both/and, not an either/or. Irrational fears are often justified on moral grounds.
August 11th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Once again, for example, black people, or women, cannot change race or gender. It is the way God gifted them. True also with Asians or Native Americans, Caucasians, etc… Yet one can change behavior and predilections. One example is alcoholism. We are told that alcoholism is innate in some people, but we don’t say, as Christians, you were born with that desire, go and drink all the more. Gluttony, too, is an example (my stumbling block). I think scripture gives us the outline of the life God wants for us, and I am sorry, but the novelty of the secular world doesn’t always fit. I think Christians are called to follow faith and practice as set out by Scripture, Tradition, and an informed Reason. I know we fall short, but that doesn’t mean we attempt to make our chosen sin acceptable.
August 11th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Fr. Van, I would not think a man of your obvious erudition would use “gift” as a verb, but so be it. You seem to have bought into the “we can fix them” movement of dealing with gays and lesbians. I don’t pretend to know much about psychology or about gays and lesbians, for that matter, but I’ve been friends with many of both for many years, and the one clear impression that I have is that their “chosen sin,” if that’s what we’re calling it, is both real and natural. I mean real in the sense that they didn’t choose it, any more than I chose to be heterosexual (or to have blue eyes), and natural, in the sense that the exercise of their “chosen sin” can lead to a lifetime of commitment to another person whom they love and who loves them back. I realize that it can also lead to unhealthy flings and short term affairs, but the last time I looked, so could heterosexuality. And if we argue that gay sex is always outside the bounds of marriage, well, duh, maybe that’s because we ban gay marriage.
Addiction is real, too, but it’s not natural, in the sense that one has no legitimate desire for a substance of addiction, and the exercise of that desire is always harmful.
To me, this issue is exactly the same as the civil rights movement, because here we have a group of folks who were “gifted” by God, as Fr. Van would say, with a particular set of desires, and no legitimate way to express those desires under our current legal and theological systems.
August 11th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
I think “gifted” is such an Episcospeak word, that I just love it… For example, “gifted” is what you “did” to me by saying I was a person of “obvious erudition” … I hope none of my former teachers and professors write in to contradict you…Though, no doubt in time, dear Caleb, I will disabuse you of the notion…As to the gay thingy, all I can say is, Stop it! Before you go blind! There, now don’t you feel disabused?
August 11th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Or perhaps merely advised to stop the abuse . . . LOL.
My accusation of erudition stands unrefuted . . .
August 11th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Van Windsor -
It’s really sad to see making the stupid argument that rights only apply to things about ourselves that we can’t change, and for two reasons. First, this would mean that rights that are decided precisely to defend our *choices*, can’t be valid, such as freedom of religion and political affiliation, which are clearly (at least in our society) matters of personal choice. Second, there is no evidence whatsoever that gay people can change their orientation, so your argument actually supports their rights.
Which just goes to show you really haven’t thought this thing through.
August 11th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
The point you guys are missing is the religious sect isn’t obliged to honor what they think is a sin. For some reason this is just doesn’t seem to register. Gay matters are civil matters that are trying to encroach on religious beliefs and the majority just isn’t up for it.
Nail, the Mormons are a closed sect whose teachings come from within. The amount of information that is available now compared to then is simply staggering. The Bible may have been the only book that the majority of adults ever saw or handled. How could they get pertinent information other than what their scholars told them?
August 11th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Niall just can’t believe that you are making the “stupid” argument that my argument is “stupid.”
“Second, there is no evidence whatsoever that gay people can change their orientation, so your argument actually supports their rights.” Obviously, dear Niall, you are the one of whom it can be said, “just goes to show you really haven’t thought this thing through.” I said nothing about changing “orientation,” I was speaking of changing behavior. I have no problem with a secular, pluralistic, society, like ours (though admittedly with a civil religion of some fashion), allowing GLBT folks to have unions, and receive the benefits that other citizens enjoy. I just don’t think the Church has to embrace everything the society allows… Please when you characterize my comments do it correctly.
August 11th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Perplexed, there’s no doubt that religious groups can declare something that’s perfectly legal (and to many people perfectly moral) a sin; many Jews don’t eat pork or shellfish, perfectly legal foods, and many religious groups ban alcohol; the Mormons go so far as to include caffeine, too. As far as I know, none of them ban fried chicken, though the Baptists may think it a sacrament.
But the question here is whether there is an absolute requirement in Christianity that homosexual activity be declared a sin. I realize that most churches do believe that, but those of us who don’t are simply saying that this is a choice: If you want to ban caffeine, fine, but don’t act like a reasonable interpretation of orthodox Christianity requires it.
And, speaking only for myself, and referring to my Faulkner quote, my point is that it is clear (at least to me) from society’s changing attitudes toward gays and lesbians that, within a short period of time, as Jose has said, discrimination against them will seem as outdated and ridiculous as discrimination against blacks or women does now.
August 11th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
perplexed: I get it, but thanks, we are in agreement on a least one point—which to me means you are not that “perplexed” at all….
August 11th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Fr., beleive me when I tell you, some days are really perplexing!!
August 11th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Van Windsor-
Your argument is stupid because it assumes rights only apply to things about ourselves we cannot change. This is clearly and obviously false, otherwise there would be no right to freedom of religion and political affiliation.
And if you think all gay people need to do is change their “behavior”, and therefore they are not covered by any civil rights, well, one could make exactly the same judgment about heterosexuals, since they can certainly refrain from heterosexual behavior. Therefore heterosexuality can’t function as a moral norm.
QED.
August 11th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
“Therefore heterosexuality can’t function as a moral norm…” OMG! Brilliant!And to think I thought I could even talk with you! You who gives us the definition of “stupid!”
August 12th, 2009 at 7:22 am
“And if you think all gay people need to do is change their “behavior”, and therefore they are not covered by any civil rights…”
Once again, that is not what I said.Niall, I think you twist the words of others, just to justify your own views.
August 12th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Fr. Van denies that he ever stated he wasn’t asking gays to change their orientation, only their “behavior”. As he says, “Once again, that is not what I said.Niall, I think you twist the words of others, just to justify your own views.”
Yet just a few comments above, Fr. Van wrote:
“I said nothing about changing “orientation,” I was speaking of changing behavior.”
So let’s add mendacity to stupidity on your rap sheet. The fact also remains that you believe rights only apply to aspects of ourselves we can’t change, which is demonstrably false, both historically and logically.
Game over.
August 12th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Niall, I’m a lot closer to your point of view on this issue than I am Fr. Van’s, but like Mark Twain says, throwin’ mud ain’t arguin’. Game forfeit.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
“The fact also remains that you believe rights only apply to aspects of ourselves we can’t change, which is demonstrably false, both historically and logically…”
Once again, you are fabricating an argument and attributing it to me. The discussion was about differences between the civil rights causes of people of color and women vs that of GLBT people. While I believe all citizens should share in the same Constitutional rights, I do not believe the struggle of GLBT people to gain the right to sexually “act out,” or to be “married,” on a par with that of blacks, for instance, striving to actually be given the same rights that white people enjoyed.
Your argument would seem to be that “desire” or “behavior” should not be legislated—as in the case of GLBT, but if that is the basis for such judgements, what about pedophilia, or Bestiality, multiple marriages, murder, mayhem, or anything else driven by unchecked behavior, desire, or drive? Sort of like your last comment. “Game over,” indeed…
August 12th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
I’m not fabricating anything. I’m just taking you at your word. You contrasted aspects of self that (you believe) cannot change with those that can be changed. On the basis of this distinction you made a further judgment as to where civil rights apply and where they don’t. But, as I pointed out, this is doubly stupid. First, because many of our most basic civil rights involve things that are absolutely our free choice, and our choice to change. Second, because there are conditions that people cannot change (i.e., pedophilia) that we nevertheless have no problem seeing as wrong and not covered by civil rights.
So your argument is incoherent no matter how we look at it.
“Your argument would seem to be that “desire” or “behavior” should not be legislated.”
No, I made no such argument, nor would I. I simply pointed out what you yourself had said: that we can distinguish a change in inner orientation from a change in outward behavior, and this distinction is somehow important for how we think about the rights of gay people. You then turned around and flatly denied you had talked about changing behavior. Which compelled me to quote you verbatim doing exactly that.
When you decide what your argument is, let me know.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Fr. Van, I guess as usual the question is whose ox is being gored. What is sexually “acting out” to you is, to a person who is gay, and has no choice in the matter, the same as a heterosexual person’s right to marry — a right recognized by both the Bible and the constitution.
In an analysis that I still think is correct, the California Supreme Court found that the right to gay marriage is very much analogous to the right of a person to marry a person of another race. The miscegenation laws were struck down on the constitutional basis that every person has a right to marry, even if their chosen spouse is of another race. Those of us on the progressive side of this issue merely want to apply the same logic to those who have been “gifted,” to use your Episcospeak, with a different sexuality.
What we’re really bumping up against is our continually emerging knowledge about human nature, psychology, and conduct. It is clear that the writers of the bans on gay sex in the Bible believed that any form of homosexual conduct was merely a premeditated sin, perpetrated by people whose “natural” inclination was heterosexual, but to get some extra thrills, one presumes, decided to have some homosexual relations on the side. We know now that this is not the case, that gay people are either born with the disposition to be gay, or pick it up in some manner at a young age.
And, it is equally clear, in Biblical times homosexual conduct was almost always associated with the more “powerful” partner forcing himself on the other, or was part of some sort of ritual temple prostitution that we don’t fully understand. What we do understand is that, in ancient times, there were no gay or lesbian partners who lived together in mutual love and respect as many gays and lesbians do today.
To me, it’s a question of living and learning, and not being hidebound by traditions begun to address conditions that are no longer in existence. I think the “liberal” wing of our church is going about this the right way, through thought and prayer and reflection, which will result in the same sorts of mutually accepted mores that we have with respect to heterosexual conduct.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
“You then turned around and flatly denied you had talked about changing behavior.”
“Fr. Van denies that he ever stated he wasn’t asking gays to change their orientation, only their “behavior”.”
“I said nothing about changing “orientation,” I was speaking of changing behavior.”
Methinks thou protesteth too much…and then create points that I never made….You quote me “verbatim” about behavior and orientation, and then make up arguments I have never made, i.e., “I simply pointed out what you yourself had said: that we can distinguish a change in inner orientation from a change in outward behavior, and this distinction is somehow important for how we think about the rights of gay people. You then turned around and flatly denied you had talked about changing behavior. Which compelled me to quote you verbatim doing exactly that.” You must be a follower of new math 1+1= 3 or 6 or whatever number you fancy at the moment…
August 12th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Caleb, I understand your argument, and respect it. While I think you make a logically sound argument, I have difficulty with your conclusion.
“To me, it’s a question of living and learning, and not being hidebound by traditions begun to address conditions that are no longer in existence…”
Are you making an argument of sexuality issues facing the Church based on the concept of “Continuing Revelation?”
Understand too, that I am not speaking in relation to secular society as to the Church…
August 12th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Windsor:
What are we arguing about now? You clearly stated that were talking about gay people controlling their “behavior”, not their orientation. You then denied this. I quoted you verbatim doing exactly that. You can apologize for your mendacity, or we can move on. But you aren’t doing either.
August 12th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
No, Fr. Van, I’m making an argument based on common sense. I’m not much for theoretical theological arguments; I’m more into doing what’s right for the good of people. If we once thought, for example, that left handed people were evil (which we did), then later found out they were not evil (which we also did), I think we’d be well served to stop discriminating against left handed people. Which, again, we did, all without saying that we had a divine revelation to do so.
Now, if you want to put that down to continuing revelation, fine, but I put it down to common sense. To me, doctrines like continuing revelation are just putting layers of theological doublespeak on what is no more than recognizing changing conditions in society. If, like the Mormons, you need a divine revelation every time we learn something they didn’t know in Biblical times, then you’re welcome to the doctrine, but to me the revelation didn’t come from God, but from our own learning process and our continual growth as human beings. All of which, I suppose, can be put down to using the brains that God gave us. So, maybe it is a divine revelation after all, but I’d rather just fix the problem and then let the theologians decide how many divine revelations can dance on the head of a pin.
August 12th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Niall, Niall, Niall, (sigh)I think the problem is that you are using the words “orientation” and “behavior” interchangeably, and attributing it to me, which is incorrect. But then, you are being so mendacious about my stupidity that you probably don’t have time to reflect on what I’m actually saying (can’t stand not getting the last word can you…a pathology?)…
“What are we arguing about now?” Not to worry, I am sure you will dream up something…
August 12th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Fr. van:
All I’m doing is *quoting you back to yourself*. You’re the one who made the distinction between orientation and behavior, not me, so it’s up to you to defend it. Then you denied you said it, and I had to quote you again.
If you don’t know what you’re saying, perhaps you shouldn’t be saying it?
August 12th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Naill, in life you have have choices, you can act on impulses or you can think things through and come to sort sort of a conclusion of what your choices will lead you into.
I think Fr. Van was implying that you chose to act upon whatever your genetic profile leads you into, on the other hand you can change how you act and not change your genetic profile. That’s working your mind and not your body. Many heterosexuals are not sexually active, there not active for a number of reasons, many personal, some are rituals believe to enhance a spiritual journey seeking guidance from the Lord or God.
Behavior can be modified only if the parties involved are wanting to change. The change would be to seek a religious infusion of guidance. Many believe that sex interferes with the journey. It used to be you had to wait seven days after sex before entering into a place of worship. I strongly suspect the honor system failed on that on.
One last thing, if you don’t agree with what somebody writes, try saying you don’t agree, stupid is a derogatory term that has no place here.
August 13th, 2009 at 11:38 am
But perplexed, you analysis is kind of trivial, isn’t it? Because it doesn’t help us understand which impulses should be denied and which allowed. As I pointed out, we could just as easily say that since the heterosexual impulse can theoretically be controlled, that therefore it should be suppressed. But I don’t think you’d buy that argument at all. Similarly, just because you believe gay people can change their “behavior” if they choose, that doesn’t mean they should or must.
And civil rights do apply to things about ourselves that we can change. Otherwise we’d have no freedom of speech, religion or thought.
August 13th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Its a good argument but what would you call a heterosexual that abstains from sex? Abstinent? What would you call a homosexual who abstains from sex? The same.
Your point elude me Naill, what is it?
If the journey is about about religion, why not make it about religion instead of sexual orientation.
Civil rights get you through the door, your behavior keeps you there or puts you back on the street.
August 14th, 2009 at 10:55 am
“Similarly, just because you believe gay people can change their “behavior” if they choose, that doesn’t mean they should or must.” FINALLY, you’ve mad a point, a wrong one, but a point…They don’t have to change behavior, unless they are attempting to live a Christian Life (conform) as put forth by Scripture and Tradition, Niall.
Perplexed, thank you for your clear thinking and writing.
August 14th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
“what would you call a heterosexual that abstains from sex?”
A husband, of course.
“What would you call a homosexual who abstains from sex?”
A figment of your imagination.
August 14th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Naill, are you sure that your portrayal of homosexuality above, is the one you want to leave on this blog for all to see and form an opinion from?
Damage Control!!
August 14th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
What picture is that, perplexed? And what picture would you prefer to see?
August 14th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Niall: I hope you will tell everyone here what denomination you belong to???
August 15th, 2009 at 5:17 am
My preference on how you present yourself has no bearing on how you portray yourself here. The picture you paint of yourself is not representative of the gay movement seeking marriage and appointment in the church or is it?
August 15th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
perplexed:
Meaning what exactly? Why is it so hard for you to answer my questions? Particularly when they were prompted by your own.
August 15th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Come back in the room Naill and read what you have written, read how others have responded to you and then tell us what exactly it is, that you want from us. Do you want to participate? Do you represent the gay movement who’s objective it is to gain marriage in both civil unions and church unions? Do you represent the faction of the gay community that seeks appointment in the church hierarchy?
Do you need my glasses and a hearing aid?
August 16th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Perplexed -
All I did was answer your questions. And I’m not gay. The gay community has shown it is quite capable of representing itself. It doesn’t need me.
The only POV I represent is that of reason and reality. On the subject of gay marriage, well, I thought gays had suffered enough already.
And could you at least try to spell my name right?
August 17th, 2009 at 3:45 am
Thank you, Niall.
August 17th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
“But the Mormon church was definitely a generation behind the rest of the country on the status of African Americans.” -Niall.
You know, I know exactly why people say this, and I really can’t blame them. However, it might be good for some of you to know that the LDS church was probably the first in the US to allow people of all races to worship together. We’ve never had segregated congregations, ever, in the history of our church. Yes, those of African descent were not allowed to hold the priesthood until 1978, but I still see segregated congregations in many “mainstream” protestant religions. I mean, really, have you seen a “black” Mormon congregation like you see with say, some Baptist congregations or the AME Methodist church?
Even before the withdrawal of the “ban,” we had plenty of black members (no, not as many as other churches, I would never claim that) but still had plenty around the world and they were never asked to worship in different congregations from anglos.
As far as if it would have been better to lift that ban, I do not deny that I wish it would have ended sooner, and you can call the revelations of the church convenient, but one thing about God is that he will not force himself on anyone and if a people are not ready for some things then he probably won’t reveal himself or He might actually give them what they want, rather that what He knows would be best for them. (See the story of the Israelites and their want of a King during the time of the prophet Samuel.) As with the revelation called “The Word of Wisdom,” which is where we get our health code, it came when Joseph witnessed those among the members who were smoking and chewing tobacco and wondered if it was good for them. Thus the revelation came when the Lord was asked. Do I wish that it would have been Brigham Young that asked about equality for blacks in the priesthood? You bet I do. However, I wonder how other people, leaders of other religions who already hated the Mormons in particular, would have reacted if they would have actively “recruited” (Caleb’s word) blacks, baptized them, and then ordained them to the priesthood. I also wonder how many other churches were actively doing that, not as part of separate black congregations, but white religious leaders actively ordaining blacks to the priesthood of their churches? There might not have been a ban, but there certainly wasn’t desegregation in many churches in the US and in some segregation, to a large extent, still exists.
Also, I do not find that our ideas regarding the sanctity of marriage are “behind the times” in any way. One reason I do not believe that our prophet will ever receive a “revelation” changing our views on homosexuality is simply because I believe it contrary to the plan of happiness that our God has given us. Also, to be quite blunt, being black was never a reason for excommunication from the church, obviously, but ACTING on homosexual feelings can be. (Notice I said acting upon, not feeling itself.)
August 17th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
“Second, there is no evidence whatsoever that gay people can change their orientation…” -Niall
Really. If there has been even one that has, then your statement is proven false, and there has been at least one, as found in this article:
http://www.evergreeninternational.org/my_battle.htm
In fact, many times when I read the posts of some here, I find that they state how Mormons feels about those of other races or of those that experience same-sex attraction. I put this link here and challenge any and all to read some of the articles and then state that we somehow hate those of the gay community.
http://www.evergreeninternational.org/Articles.htm
August 18th, 2009 at 11:37 am
David -
Put the crack pipe down. I remember when I was receiving my “six lessons” from the Mormon Missionaries in the early 70s (my father had remarried a Mormon woman, and she asked me to at least sit through a couple of them), I was told explicitly that blacks were inferior to whites in God’s eyes.
And to say that the Mormon church wasn’t racist because it allowed all races to worship together is a bit like saying the Birmingham public transit authority was progressive because it allowed people of all races to ride the same bus.
“One reason I do not believe that our prophet will ever receive a “revelation” changing our views on homosexuality is simply because I believe it contrary to the plan of happiness that our God has given us. ”
Well, that plan used to include polygamy, a belief that was fundamental to the LDS. If they could get rid of that, they can certainly accommodate gay marriage, which at least is an affirmation of marriage, and of monogamy.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
“it might be good for some of you to know that the LDS church was probably the first in the US to allow people of all races to worship together….” Well I think The Episcopal Church is right up there.”
August 18th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Fr. Van, I realize that many Episcopal churches in the South were segregated by custom, but I don’t know of there ever having been a national rule, written or unwritten, that blacks and whites couldn’t worship together, do you? I would imagine that in liberal areas, such as New England, inter-racial Episcopal services were held long before the Mormon church was ever conceived. And, if you include the Church of England, I know that to be the case. We tend to forget how new the Mormons are in the grand scheme of religion.
August 19th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
I was rector of St. Paul’s Church in Woodville, Mississippi, and even during slavery years blacks and whites worshipped together…Segregation, per se, started in 20th Century.
August 19th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Certainly the segregation laws were first passed in the 20th century, though I imagine a lot of informal segregation went on before that. Kentucky didn’t pass its law requiring private schools to be segregated until 1910.
August 20th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I meant to mention Caleb, my mother’s family all are from Kentucky, and I lived there a large potion of my life, graduating, H.S. and attending Transylvania and ETSKy …Wasn’t it you that mentioned living in Ky.?
August 20th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Yes, Fr. Van, I am a lifelong Kentuckian, but for that little trip out of state for law school; you and I were actually in college together at Transy, but you don’t recognize me because I’m using an assumed name. Hah! Send me an email at Lexington40502@aol.com and I’ll reveal all.