Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Vorpal, is your contention that there is no benefit or right extended to a married couple that would not be extended to a same-sex partnership?

I think that the Church supports Prop 8 so strongly because to allow legalized gay marriage when there is a way to stop it is, essentially, condoning sin. Acting on homosexual feelings is a grievous sin. Period.

Oh, you say, why don't we oppose alcohol or the other classic vices? I don't know. I trust that we have prophets to lead us and guide us and that they speak for God, and they have chosen to take an active stand against gay marriage.

Craig Jessop wrote:I think that the Church supports Prop 8 so strongly because to allow legalized gay marriage when there is a way to stop it is, essentially, condoning sin. Acting on homosexual feelings is a grievous sin. Period.

I don't think that's the reasoning, or at least not primarily. Elder Oaks has made several statements about why it's important in nice zippy words that he learned through his years studying law. I can agree with his reasoning without gritting my teeth a little bit, whereas your reasoning makes me grit a little.

Craig Jessop wrote:I think that the Church supports Prop 8 so strongly because to allow legalized gay marriage when there is a way to stop it is, essentially, condoning sin. Acting on homosexual feelings is a grievous sin. Period.

Oh, you say, why don't we oppose alcohol or the other classic vices? I don't know. I trust that we have prophets to lead us and guide us and that they speak for God, and they have chosen to take an active stand against gay marriage.

Agreed Gumby, this reasoning leaves much to be desired. I'd say it has more to do with worrying about potential cries about discrimination when the church refuses to sanction any gay marriage. If it isn't allowed to begin with, there will be no cause to cry foul.

Elder Wickman wrote:Some people promote the idea that there can be two marriages, co-existing side by side, one heterosexual and one homosexual, without any adverse consequences. The hard reality is that, as an institution, marriage like all other institutions can only have one definition without changing the very character of the institution. Hence there can be no coexistence of two marriages. Either there is marriage as it is now defined and as defined by the Lord, or there is what could thus be described as genderless marriage. The latter is abhorrent to God, who, as we’ve been discussing, Himself described what marriage is — between a man and a woman.

A redefinition of that institution, therefore, redefines it for everyone — not just those who are seeking to have a so-called same gender marriage. It also ignores the definition that the Lord Himself has given.

Elder Oaks wrote:There’s another point that can be made on this. Let’s not forget that for thousands of years the institution of marriage has been between a man and a woman. Until quite recently, in a limited number of countries, there has been no such thing as a marriage between persons of the same gender. Suddenly we are faced with the claim that thousands of years of human experience should be set aside because we should not discriminate in relation to the institution of marriage. When that claim is made, the burden of proving that this step will not undo the wisdom and stability of millennia of experience lies on those who would make the change. Yet the question is asked and the matter is put forward as if those who believe in marriage between a man and a woman have the burden of proving that it should not be extended to some other set of conditions.

Quoted ad nauseum, but I like how Elder Wickman puts it.

At the risk of sounding (and being called) apostate (eyes Vorpal warily), I disagree with both of those statements, the second in trend, the first in definition.

As to Elder Oaks, that argument can be used to sanction every immoral action man has put forth. The natural state of man is an evil one, hence institutions that have lasted thousands of years have been evil ones. Think dictatorships, slavery, homosexual action in general, immorality, etc. One might have said fifty years ago "we have segregated the races for thousands of years. Blacks are naturally inferior. The burden of proof is on you to show me that they are not." There are certain things that are morally repugnant by their nature, and these do not necessitate proof. That being said, any behavior that is moral CAN be proven to be superior to actions which are immoral. By their very nature, when we adhere to higher laws, the benefits are gained. They would be lost by living lower laws.

As to Elder Wickman, marriage has been continually defined and redefined. To argue that there has been one nature of marriage that has stood the test of time, and suddenly some are seeking to redefine it, is to be ignorant of history. Although I do agree with the point he is trying to make. One cannot change the nature of something without changing it for all.

(Take no thought from this disagreement that I think either man to be any less inspired than he actually is. The Lord often gives us the what's and leaves to us to try and discern the why's. I merely think in this instance, we know what the Lord's will is, but are still a little unclear as to why.)

I'd also like to throw a rant in here for a moment. It is quite topical, however, it is a bit "soapboxy" in nature, so if I've caught any of the admins in a particularly sour mood, kick this to the soapbox curb. I won't be offended.

It seems to me, that as we venture forth in an uncertain political arena, we are quick to ask, "which is the right answer?" Once we've ascertained that, (whether we decide based on tradition, authoritative decree, be it by church leader or pundit, or other methods) we are quick to champion that position, to the exclusion of all others. The problem here becomes twofold.

First, we leave ourselves vulnerable to untenability. I sincerely doubt we can ever be so certain about something as fluid as political opinion as to assign dogmatic authority to any position. We must constantly be re-evaluating (using God-given methods; reason, logic, prayer, and inspiration) our ideas, and how things can be done in a better manner (more efficient, more equitable, quicker, more painless). Otherwise, our ideas become stagnant, and our views are quickly outmoded. Often this leads an otherwise moral position to be easily discarded as antiquated, when with a modicum of effort it is strengthened and brought back to the fight.

The second is that we become overzealous, and the position which would posit morality upon a people instead becomes caustic and divisive. We get this big stick of morality, as we suppose, and we begin to swing it at those we percieve "the enemies of righteousness". We misunderstand the saying "there is good, and there is evil, and there is given to us to choose between the two," assuming it refers to people and not ideas. We swing that stick forgetting that the man on the other end is our brother. We would assume because the actions of a few are malicious, that it speaks to the intentions of an entire group. We dehumanize those we percieve to be our enemies, and in so doing, give them the moral high ground.

We must always, always, always love first, and disagree second.

"A redefinition of that institution, therefore, redefines it for everyone..."

I have never understood this statement, especially when you consider that the church has a different definition of marriage from everyone else anyway. Catholic marriages don't force us to change our definition of marriage. Hindu, Jewish, atheist, whatever definition you choose, it really doesn't affect the Lord's definition of celestial marriage at all.

Gay marriage has existed for 6 years in MA - and yet no LDS marriages have been "redefined" in that state. The church has not been forced to perform gay weddings in its temples or chapels. Nor has any other religion. Gay marriage has been legal in the Netherlands for 10 years - again, without any religions being forced to do anything (including our temple). In fact, the church prohibited interracial marriages for years after they were legal in the united states. Again, they were never forced to preform any type of ordinance. I really think this argument boils down to a lot of FUD.

I think that what it boils down to, is that the prophet has told us that we need to support this issue, and I intend to follow the prophet. I don't understand everything that the general authorities say, but I know that they know more than us.

Kissables wrote:I think that what it boils down to, is that the prophet has told us that we need to support this issue, and I intend to follow the prophet. I don't understand everything that the general authorities say, but I know that they know more than us.

That's basically it. The Prophet said so in his official capacity as President of the Church, and that means that this is what the Lord wants -- or, if you'd prefer, scripture.

Craig Jessop wrote:

Kissables wrote:I think that what it boils down to, is that the prophet has told us that we need to support this issue, and I intend to follow the prophet. I don't understand everything that the general authorities say, but I know that they know more than us.

That's basically it. The Prophet said so in his official capacity as President of the Church, and that means that this is what the Lord wants -- or, if you'd prefer, scripture.

Personally, I'm hesitant to use the "because he said so" line of reasoning. I think you guys are leaving out an important step in the process because it sounds like you are advocating blind faith. We are not expected (nor encouraged) to take his words on blind faith. Whenever we hear the prophet say something that we're not quite sure about, we are encouraged to pray about it and ask for a confirmation of truth via the Holy Ghost. We are entitled to that confirmation. When it comes, we develop a personal testimony of the prophet's words. Without that element of personal testimony, you're missing the whole point.

Now, I know what you're going to say. You've already developed a testimony of the prophet and that testimony should trickle down to include the things he says. But what happens when he says something that you, in your heart of hearts, disagree with? I think that is the fundamental issue here--some people don't feel like they've received a confirmation of truth on this issue. Now, I don't know how many of the people in that category are actively praying and seeking guidance, or are doing so with real intent. Maybe none of them, maybe all of them. But I absolutely believe that each person is entitled to receive a personal confirmation of truth. If they've been praying and they still haven't received it...well, I don't know what to tell them.

Nobody satisfactorily answered Vorpal Blade's question about benefits vs. rights, and I think that is a very important distinction. There are so many benefits and privileges that people think that they are entitled to, but they really aren't because they are not rights, they are privileges.

As I am especially concerned with military matters, I posit that most of the list that "Arcaiden" posted are NOT rights, rather privileges granted for following the rules, especially:

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
...
Veteran’s Discounts
and Vermont's State pay for military service benefit.

If a person is in violation of the rules pertaining to a certain benefit, they are not entitled to the benefit. Don't ask don't tell is a separate issue, but no amount of being gay married entitles a gay person to ANY military benefit. They are not rights, they are privileges.

thebigcheese wrote:Now, I know what you're going to say. You've already developed a testimony of the prophet and that testimony should trickle down to include the things he says. But what happens when he says something that you, in your heart of hearts, disagree with? I think that is the fundamental issue here--some people don't feel like they've received a confirmation of truth on this issue. Now, I don't know how many of the people in that category are actively praying and seeking guidance, or are doing so with real intent. Maybe none of them, maybe all of them. But I absolutely believe that each person is entitled to receive a personal confirmation of truth. If they've been praying and they still haven't received it...well, I don't know what to tell them.

I understand your point, but I disagree. I think there comes a time when everybody has to simply do without second guessing or understanding or agreeing, almost as if the Lord is trying our faith. When an answer about a particular prophetic statement refuses to come, I absolutely think it's best to take it on faith and hope the confirmation comes later, and if it doesn't, be true to the faith no matter what. It is far safer than trying to second guess the prophet of God.

thebigcheese wrote:Now, I know what you're going to say. You've already developed a testimony of the prophet and that testimony should trickle down to include the things he says. But what happens when he says something that you, in your heart of hearts, disagree with? I think that is the fundamental issue here--some people don't feel like they've received a confirmation of truth on this issue. Now, I don't know how many of the people in that category are actively praying and seeking guidance, or are doing so with real intent. Maybe none of them, maybe all of them. But I absolutely believe that each person is entitled to receive a personal confirmation of truth.

Well put.

Craig Jessop wrote:

Kissables wrote:I think that what it boils down to, is that the prophet has told us that we need to support this issue, and I intend to follow the prophet. I don't understand everything that the general authorities say, but I know that they know more than us.

That's basically it. The Prophet said so in his official capacity as President of the Church, and that means that this is what the Lord wants -- or, if you'd prefer, scripture.

Craig, how do you put that in the context of how past prophets have taught new doctrine/scripture is established? For instance, Harold B Lee taught:

"The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church." (Harold B. Lee, The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24–26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses, 69.)

See this answer of mine for more on what constitutes binding church doctrine.

Now, certainly, that god's definition of marriage is between a man and a woman is revealed, binding doctrine. But those who are uneasy with Proposition 8, could, I think make a case that the Church's support for proposition 8 comes from our smart and devoted but fallible human leaders attempting to apply the revealed doctrine in the public sphere. I'm not making that case (I tend to agree with our leaders) but I certainly don't think those who disagree with the brethren on this one are in any way apostate.

Here's my personal feelings on the issue:

My faith that the Brethren are inspired and leading us aright is stronger than my personal leanings on the matter we're discussing. Supporting Prop 8 doesn't and shouldn't affect temple worthiness, but I think that members who see the issue differently should tend more to silence than to outspoken disapproval. It is extremely difficult for me to think that 15 of God's anointed royally screwed up here. It is much easier for me to come to the conclusion that my feelings are less informed and possibly "incorrect" than the conclusion that the Brethren are off-base on the matter.

Call it blind faith, but when I follow the counsel of men for my entire life and they never lead me or my family astray, I don't think it's "blind" to accept further exhortations without receiving direct, significant, spiritual confirmation of the accuracy and validity of their words. Personally, I think that sort of decision-making is more informed than reading all the news media that I could possibly stomach on a given issue.

Anyway. Continue discussing—that's just how I feel.

Gimgimno wrote:I think that members who see the issue differently should tend more to silence than to outspoken disapproval.

Why?

If I'm extended a calling I don't want, I will say yes. I won't necessarily love it, but I'll do it. Even if I hate it, I'm not going to complain to everyone in the ward about how I'd rather be doing something else.

I think there's some parallel, at least in my mind, between that situation and this situation.

Gimgimno wrote:If I'm extended a calling I don't want, I will say yes. I won't necessarily love it, but I'll do it. Even if I hate it, I'm not going to complain to everyone in the ward about how I'd rather be doing something else.

I think there's some parallel, at least in my mind, between that situation and this situation.

I can see a couple of things wrong with your analogy:

(1) Accepting a calling you don't want sounds like voting for Prop 8, even if you didn't initially want to. I thought you were talking about people who voted against Prop 8 (which is more analogous to turning down the calling). Am I mistaken?

(2) Even if you are talking about people voting for Prop 8 but being unhappy about it, there's a big difference between not wanting to serve in a calling because it's boring, hard, time-consuming, exhausting, scary, beneath you, etc., and being asked to do something that you feel to be actively morally wrong, which is how many people felt about the Church's actions surrounding Prop 8. If someone was called to serve in a calling that gave them as much moral anguish as I've seen surrounding Prop 8, I would absolutely encourage them to refuse the calling, seek for personal confirmation that the calling was, indeed, inspired or speak to their bishop about their reservations.

Gimgimno wrote:Here's my personal feelings on the issue:

My faith that the Brethren are inspired and leading us aright is stronger than my personal leanings on the matter we're discussing. Supporting Prop 8 doesn't and shouldn't affect temple worthiness, but I think that members who see the issue differently should tend more to silence than to outspoken disapproval. It is extremely difficult for me to think that 15 of God's anointed royally screwed up here. It is much easier for me to come to the conclusion that my feelings are less informed and possibly "incorrect" than the conclusion that the Brethren are off-base on the matter.

Call it blind faith, but when I follow the counsel of men for my entire life and they never lead me or my family astray, I don't think it's "blind" to accept further exhortations without receiving direct, significant, spiritual confirmation of the accuracy and validity of their words. Personally, I think that sort of decision-making is more informed than reading all the news media that I could possibly stomach on a given issue.

Anyway. Continue discussing—that's just how I feel.

Perhaps I should clarify a bit. I think your point of view is perfectly fine. From the looks of things, you've already received sufficient personal revelation--you don't seem to take issue with the Church's stance on Prop 8, and you don't feel that it's necessary to seek additional revelation on the matter because you don't feel overly conflicted about it. All I'm really trying to say (perhaps I didn't communicate this very effectively) is that, for those members who do feel conflicted about it, they are entitled to receive a confirmation of truth from the Holy Ghost (if they choose to seek it).