WARNING! ACHTUNG! Post about Mormonism
I try not to post on here about Mormonism very often as I don’t want to offend family. Even so, I feel this issue is important enough to mention. If you’re not aware of it, the LDS religion recently came out with a letter encouraging the members of the religion in California to work towards a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Surprise, surprise, I’m not very fond of this action. But, I’m not alone. Dozens of people have come together to express their disagreement with this bigoted action of the LDS religion on this website: Signing for Something. Basically, the website is a place for people to post letters to the leadership of the LDS religion. The people running the site will also personally deliver the letters the LDS headquarters in SLC. As an additional option, many people are resigning their memberships in the LDS religion because of this action and to protest the bigotry of the religion. I’m mentioning this here because I think everyone should take 15 minutes and read through some of the letters on the website. A number of them are from gay members of the religion, from heterosexual current members who are resigning in protest, from former mission presidents, etc. This position of the LDS religion is drawing ire and criticism from the group that most needs to criticize the leadership: the members.
July 7th, 2008 at 1:15 am
It’s drawing criticism from a very very small minority of members. The vast majority of us support our leaders. We don’t support homosexuality. That’s all there is to it. Gay members of the church already knew that. Why this action comes as a surprise to anyone is beyond me.
I don’t personally know anyone that batted an eye at this, and I live in central mormon-ville. Let’s not be misleading, shall we.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:56 am
Josh… It absolutely is drawing criticism from a very small minority of members. I don’t think I implied that the movement was huge… But here’s to hoping!
Also, you may want to be a little more careful in how you word things. You said, “We don’t support homosexuality.” There are a couple of problems with that statement. First, the LDS religion doesn’t actually take that stand anymore. They allow sexually inactive, homosexuals to remain members of the religion in good standing. They don’t allow sexually active homosexuals to remain members. So, technically, the LDS religion supports celibate homosexuality. Whether or not you knew that, I don’t know.
But your statement also seems to be indicating your own perspective. If you really mean, “I don’t support homosexuality,” I’m not sure what you are saying. Are you saying all homosexuals should be killed? Are you saying that anyone who identifies as a homosexual should be locked up? Or did you really mean, “We don’t support homosexual marriage.”
As for Mormonism not supporting gay marriage, no one is saying that’s a surprise. What is new is that the LDS religion is trying to legislate it’s position onto others. Think about it this way. In the US today, there are about 2.5 million people who self-identify as Mormon. Ergo, Mormons make up less than 1% of the US population. Homosexual men make up 2% of the US population, and homosexual women make up 1% of the US population. That means there are more homosexuals in the US than there are self-identifying Mormons in the entire world. Additionally, in the State of California there are over 36 million people. Why do the leaders of the LDS religion think they should force those 36 million people to do what they want? Why do they believe this is okay to do? As I wrote elsewhere, “Mormonism is trying to legislate morality, forcing people to behave in a certain way. I can understand legislating some morality, like not wantonly killing people, as doing so infringes on others’ rights. But think about it this way: By allowing homosexuals to marry, whose rights are being violated? Inversely, by not allowing homosexuals to marry, whose rights are being violated? Mormonism is trying to take away rights, whereas the Supreme Court of California was giving rights.” Why does this tiny group of people, Mormons, think they should have more rights than the 9 million homosexuals in the US?
Have Mormons learned nothing from their history? When they practiced polygamy, they had their rights removed. When they voted as a bloc in the Midwest, they had their rights removed (extermination order in Missouri). And they treated blacks as second class citizens for over 100 years, only to come under serious criticism and finally change their policy (not their doctrine). Yet, now this small group of people feel like they can dictate the behavior of 36 million Americans. They want to take away rights. I find that objectionable and sincerely hope more Mormons step up to express the same. Mormonism doesn’t have to sanction gay marriage, but why can’t it let people do what they want when it isn’t harming anyone else?
July 7th, 2008 at 10:49 am
From the context of your brief article, it seemed to me you were trying to indicate a large portion of the religion was protesting the move. If that was not your intention, I apologize for misinterpreting it.
As for the issue itself, on my mission I taught, befriended, and later attended the baptism of a celibate gay. He later went back to his old ways and lost his good standing in the church. This was over seven years ago. To this day we remain good friends, and he remains torn over this very issue. He very much feels like he wants to remain in the church, but he also embraces his own alternative lifestyle and has no intention of giving it up again. Not a very good situation to be in, and he has my sympathy. He has suffered alot of anguish as he has wresteled with this concept. I have other friends, and even relatives, who are homosexual. I feel fairly confident in saying I have a pretty good handle on the issue.
The bottom line, though, is it states right there in the Bible for everyone to read that God finds homosexuality to be an abomination. If you call yourself a Christian, why would you not want to prevent those around you, friends and family and people you love, from committing an abomination. As far as I’m concerned, Christianity is a take it or leave it religion. It’s hypocrisy to only claim a few precepts of the religion, just the ones you like to live by, for example, and integrate those into your life, but to leave everything else out. The issue of homosexuality is no different.
Some people may struggle with infidelity, with substance abuse, with dishonesty…the list goes on. Because they struggle with those things doesn’t mean they can’t be Christian. If anything, it means the rest of us Christians should open our arms a little wider and do what we can to help them. It does NOT mean that we change the rules and tell them it’s all right to cheat on their wives, just because that happens to be something they struggle with. That’s how the world works. Go with the flow, be mainstream, don’t offend anyone, always be politically correct. If a religion capitulates and gives in to the pressure of the world at the first sign of pressure, that religion isn’t worth a grain of salt. Now i’m sure right now any Mormon hater reading this is saying “Well what about polygamy. You Mormons flopped on that when the government put pressure on you!” (I know the arguments)
If you want to argue that issue, let me know and we’ll start a whole new thread.
As for your main argument: Why does this tiny group of people, Mormons, think they should have more rights than the 9 million homosexuals in the US?
That argument seems hypocritical to me. Homosexuals themselves are a minority. Why do THEY think they have more rights than everyone else in that they can change all the laws that have been on the books since the founding of this country.
Setting the hypocrisy aside, Mormons are not the only religion going against this California law. Many other churches are doing the same thing, so suddenly we aren’t a very small minority protesting this. I feel very justified in saying a very large portion of the entire country feels this way.
And we really don’t hate homosexuals. “Affirmation spokesman David Melson said. “The church has said they are open to finding new avenues and new solutions to minister to gay members, and we are taking them at their word.”
the church wants to help and support gays just as they would any member. We are not out persecuting them. We’re just sticking to our guns, nothing more.
Setting even that aside, I will finish my long and unorganized ramble by summing up: In a world where NOT being politically correct will lead to lawsuits and people hating you, someone has got to stand up for what they believe in.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Josh, thank you for clarifying. As I see it, you’ve raised two points: (1) The Bible says homosexuality is an abomination, so it cannot be accepted. (2) Religions have to take a stand. Let’s look at each in turn…
(1) “The Bible says homosexuality is an abomination.” On this point, my dear brother, you are correct. Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” I don’t dispute that. But here’s the kicker: Why do you and these other religions accept this statement in an old book as scripture but not all the others? By your criteria, you regularly engage in abominable practices. From Leviticus 19, the very next chapter:
Are you now a vegetarian? Do you insist that all your meat be fully drained and cooked until crisp to insure there is no blood in it? If not, you are a sinner.
Do you trim your beard? If so, you are a sinner. Here’s a great one…
By this standard, our mother, who just got eyeliner tattooed, is now an abomination. She is assuredly going to hell. You should deny her the right to marry!
In short, and this leads to your second point, why are you picking some verses to follow and not others? If, as you say, “Christianity is a take it or leave it religion. It’s hypocrisy to only claim a few precepts of the religion, just the ones you like to live by, for example, and integrate those into your life, but to leave everything else out.” then you are not a good Christian. You are taking select passages from the Bible that you like and choose to live by and discarding the ones you don’t like. Do please tell how you are a good Christian by doing exactly what you just said was not right to do.
(2) “Religions have to take a stand.” I can understand your rationale - you want your religion to make you “different.” In the case of Mormons, “different” is good. In the case of homosexuals, “different” is bad. But that’s beside the point. Sociologically, having your religion make you different actually confers a number of benefits, but primarily increases in-group solidarity and leads people to continue to affiliate with the religion. That’s great!
But, and here’s the kicker, religions have done nothing but accommodate and evolve over time. Show me a religion that has not changed to accommodate the broader society since its inception and I’ll show you a very new religion (less than a day old). As many Mormon historians have pointed out, Joseph Smith would not recognize the church he started. Mormonism has changed so dramatically since 1830 that it is only loosely the same church. Examples:
-The First Vision went through half a dozen iterations until its current form, which was developed in the late 1830s, not when it was alleged to have happened in 1820.
-Their used to be a presiding patriarch; that position doesn’t even exist anymore.
-There never were mission presidents or area authorities in the original make up of the religion.
-Brigham Young, not Joseph Smith, taught that Adam was God the Father; that doctrine was taught in Mormon temples for almost 30 years and now is denied entirely.
-The original temple ceremony is radically different from the modern one. Parts have been changed to accommodate society, like the removal of penalties and the diminished role of Satan. There also used to be a Protestant Pastor who made an appearance. That was too objectionable, so it was changed.
-Brigham Young (and maybe Joseph Smith) disallowed blacks from the priesthood. That changed.
-Joseph Smith instituted polygamy. That changed.
-Joseph Smith instituted communitarian living. That changed.
I can keep going, but I think you get the point. Mormonism of 1830 is substantially different from Mormonism of 2008. If you really want to argue that religion should take a stand because someone should, all you’re arguing is a conservative perspective: “Society shouldn’t change because change is bad.” By that standard, we should both be slaveholders and own our wives and children. We should also have a king, not a democratically elected president. That argument is, when deconstructed, not tenable at all.
In sum, if you want to give me an argument for why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, you are going to have to argue from the perspective of civil rights and harm to marriage. I have a standing challenge: Anyone who can illustrate to me how homosexual marriage hurts heterosexual marriage gets $100. I’d also like to know how you justify denying homosexuals civil rights.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Fantastic refutation of baseless, hateful arguments, Ryan.
Oh, and God also hates shrimp!
July 7th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Awesome link, Dave! Those damned shrimp!
July 7th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
hateful? now my arguments are hateful? Didn’t I just explain I have good friends and relatives that are homosexuals?
I should have known better…
Trying to have a conversation about how my beliefs differ from yours and i’m labeled ‘hateful’.
You are right Dave, I am hateful. I hate people that are so full of themselves they can’t have a meaningful conversation with those that believe differently then they do, without labeling them as haters, bigots, and racists… I’m here, on my very Liberal brother’s website, trying to contribute a different point of view, and i’m labeled a hater.
I’m done. You guys win. I didn’t know it was a contest, I thought we were having a discussion, but apparently I was wrong. You win.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Josh, don’t do that. Dave didn’t say YOU were hateful. He said YOUR ARGUMENTS were hateful. Try to understand Dave’s perspective. He was a graduate student friend of mine and is now a Sociology Professor, like me. He also views homosexuality the same way I do and thinks that any argument that tries to limit the rights of homosexuals is “hateful” of homosexuals. That doesn’t mean you are hateful. That means your argument is. You may not see it that way, but from his perspective and the perspective of homosexuals, what you are saying is hateful. Think about it, you are saying “homosexuals and homosexuality are abominations.” That’s kind of “hateful.”
Calling the conversation quits also seems kind of like a cop-out. I liked the conversation and liked discussing this with you. If you choose to end it here, that’s your prerogative, but I thought we were making headway.
July 8th, 2008 at 6:17 am
What Ryan said. I don’t know you from Adam, Josh. You might be the sweetest guy on the planet, but your arguments and thoughts on homosexuality are hateful, period.
Oh, and I know a guy who thinks Mormons are, and I quote, “batshit f*cking morons.” Think you’d feel the same way about him and his arguments?
(Sorry if I disrupted your conversation, Ryan. There are few things I have less tolerance for than hate disguised in religious clothing.)
July 8th, 2008 at 6:45 am
No worries, Dave. All comments are welcome on my blog.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:36 am
I’m not sure all religions’ and religious people’s reactions to things like homosexuality are purely hateful. I think a lot of it is based on fear and is a self-defense mechanism. Religions thrive on their dogma, and it is hard for them to change. On the one hand they claim to offer something good and pure. On the other, that often includes things that are wrong (sexism, racism, and homophobia to begin with). Eliminating the bad parts of the old dogma induces fear that their whole belief structure may shatter. To those who view Mormonism for example as a big business, whose product is sold as “the whole truth,” changing views on homosexuality is like acknowledging fraud to your customers. It’s not good for business (unless perhaps you’ve got a consensus that the change is good). Any way you look at it, I’m not really sure that much of this homophobia is based on hate, but probably more on fear or misunderstanding. It’s probably also fear of the unknown. When people like this get to know people who are gay and the way such people are and live for example, it usually either changes their perception of such things or it induces a strong fear/self-defense response due to the near-shattering of beliefs (cognitive dissonance for those who hold on to the dogma so strongly for some reason). It’s similar to why cults and such groups try to isolate themselves, I think. When many/most people see how other people are, it challenges such dogma because the truth is that people are people, and people from different backgrounds are, at the core, really no different from anyone else.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Good point, Steve. I really don’t think Josh is hateful. I know him; he’s a very nice guy. His thoughts can be interpreted as hateful, but I doubt that is why he holds them. He holds them more for the reasons you give - tradition, fear of the new, etc. - not because he hates gays. Well put.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Wow. Where to start…
First off, let’s address the accusation of me “copping out”.
he was a good teacher.) However, Accusing me of copping out was a poorly veiled attempt at goading me back into the fight (somehow it worked…) because you well know that I have never even once backed down during a religious discussion. Accusing me of copping out is ridiculous, and you know it. I’ll continue along that thread later. But alas, I failed to head you off at the pass and apparently we must re-hash old things:
Please refer to the statement in parenthesis in my second post. I was pretty confident Ryan’s first line of defense would be to jump on the whole “Religions Always Change” thing. That’s why I was trying to head him off at the pass. I feel like I’ve had that discussion with him so many times I could have argued both sides of it myself. I, in fact, have argued both sides of it myself. I always try to see things from both perspectives. Regardless, I knew that’s where the conversation would be heading and I was hoping for something new. (This is why I can beat Ryan at Chess now, I try to plan a move or two ahead
RELIGIONS ALWAYS CHANGE- Of course religions change. When Christ came to Earth, he changed all sorts of things. He got rid of the Mosaic Law, he instituted the sacrement, he played scrabble…the list goes on. Of course religions change. Religions should change. The point, however, is religions SHOULD only change when directed to do so by divine authority. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, but he is not stupid. If he directs his church to change, that’s when you change. You should not change due to political or social pressure, or because Professor Dave in Tampa thinks I’m full of hate.
As I said before, I could probably have this argument with myself. Those of you that apparently hate me are probably thinking “well Josh’s argument is of course that mechanism evil church leaders use to justify controlling their congregations,” or maybe something along the lines of “well how do you explain Mormons flipping on polygamy when the political pressure came down, Mormon Boy?” Am I close? If i’m not, please, please send your argument my way. I love learning knew things and testing out new points of view. However, if you were thinking something along those lines, save it for someone else. I’ve had that conversation about 27 times too many.
On top of that, if I know Ryan, he is right now anxiously thinking of about 43 examples in Mormon history of when the leaders of the church have changed something on a whim, in direct contradiction to what I just said, with no seeming apparent direction from God. (am I close?) If you want to go down that road with me, just let me know, but I’m fairly certain we have already been there.
To sum that up, no I was not copping out. I already knew how I was going to respond to you before you even wrote your next post!
this next part is for my new friend Professor Dave:
Dave, I really am not trying to pick a fight with you. If your good enough to be pals with my brother, then I’m sure you’re a swell guy and the next time i’m in Tampa we can all go out to dinner and you can bring all your gay friends and we will have a whale of a time.
However…
When I logged on a few days back, eager to continue the discussion, I was incredibly disheartened and disappointed to see the direction the conversation had taken. There are probably not two more diametrically opposed views on religion than Ryan’s and my own, but never once in any of our discussions has either of us resorted to name calling, slander, or language anywhere near as potent as the word “hate”. For you to blindly throw that word at me is astounding, and I would expect you to back up your statement by explaining this dichotomous picture you have painted, of me hating my gay friends and relatives. I honestly hope you can bring the emotion down a notch or two so we can have an enlightening discussion. If you don’t want to that’s fine as well, but I have no desire to argue with anyone.
Now, I agree with alot of what Steve said. I, in fact, know many Mormons that base their views on fear of the unknown and fear of change. I do not count myself among them. There is not alot of fear in me, and I certainly do not fear homosexuals. I’m fairly certain the last time I had dinner with someone I knew was gay I didn’t take any special measures NOT to bend over. You just never know, right?
I am not homo-phobic. Call me a hater with hateful arguments all you want, but I have gay friends and family. Now I will TRY to explain the BASIS for my “baseless” beliefs. Whether or not anyone tries to see things from my perspective… who knows.
Sin. I feel it safe to say we all understand the Christian view of what sin is, yes? That being said, let’s briefly discuss how a Christian should treat a so called sinner. (I imagine your going to have a field day with that last sentence.) Religion is a construction made for men who sin. If we were all perfect, we wouldn’t need to go to church. The Christian strives to live a sin free life, but it is accepted that that lofty goal is unattainable. We all sin, and we all know it. I, myself, sin all the time. As Ryan has often encouraged, it is fun
Those people around me, all of them, they all sin. Sometimes they use a bad word, sometimes they say mean things, sometimes they cheat on their wives. Do I hate them? No, of course I dont’ hate them. They are my friends! They are my family! They are me! I do not hate someone because they sin! But, you may ask, why then does sin concern me? I will tell you! Sin concerns me because I view it as detrimental to a persons well being. (Are we still looking at things as a Christian would? Good, i’ll try to be as brief as possible).
The man called into the show, and explained he was recently divorced, with several small children, and the reason for the divorce was because he quite suddenly decided he was gay. Now I don’t know the inner workings of this man’s mind, I don’t even know the man, but it is one single example of how homosexuality can be detrimental to one’s well being. His whole family is now shattered because he decided he wanted to be gay. (Maybe it is only a problem because of social stereotypes and his family should accept him for what he is? Anyone thinking along those lines? I kind of was)
When a person uses drugs, Mormons classify that as a sin. Do we hate that person? (I hope not, or I better start hating alot of people) We do not hate a person because they commit a sin, we are concerned for them, we want to help them. We want them to have good health and for them to be happy.
When a person cheats on their wife, do we hate them? No, we want both the wife and husband to be happy, to raise their kids in a two parent home, to love each other, to live the American dream. We want to be there for them, to help them in their time of need. We don’t hate them for the sin, but we are concerned for them, because we love them.
Homosexuality is exactly the same thing! Yes, it is viewed as a sin. NOT soley because of some obscure passage in the bible, more because Christians generally view it as detrimental to the well being of the person. I have never once felt anger, hatred, or any other such emotion in the presence of a homosexual. To accuse me of such a thing is ignorance in all its glory.
To expound on that, just yesterday I heard a guy on the radio on the Dr. Laura show (yes, I know, Dr. Laura… listening to her is probably a sin in and of itself
Now I could give some more examples of when I have seen homosexual activity as detrimental, but I really don’t want to. Those are dangerous waters, and I really don’t want you to think I’m labeling every homosexual as degenerate and unhappy and crazy. For me to do that would be ludicrous and outrageous. George Takai seems pretty happy to me.
The point being: a Christian will NEVER hate someone because of a sin. The whole idea is to LOVE that person, possibly to love them even more because they may be struggling a bit. Granted I am speaking in huge generalities. There are millions of Christians out there that are exactly what Steve said, afraid of change, freaked out by the whole concept, but that is in and of itself a sin, and something those people will have to deal with.
Now you probably disagree with me. I know that. I’m ok with that. You probably take exception to the fact that I view homosexuals as sinners, but if you can at least accept that I am motivated by love and concern and not hate, never hate, then maybe we have accomplished something.
I very much understand where you are coming from, Professor Dave. Being a homosexual cannot be easy. There are people out there that baselessly hate them, as you say. There are people out there that are afraid, as Steve pointed out. States don’t acknowledge their relationships as legally binding, which of course then means they don’t get that coveted tax break
Never in my life have I seen such anguish as I did when my friend Antonio had to choose between his alternative lifestyle and becoming a Mormon. Sure when I was a kid, I figured being gay was probably a choice, or something you could just turn on or off. That was before I had any gay friends. I understand the difficult situation they face, at least as much as a heterosexual can understand it. I do not view homosexuals as lesser-humans. I believe they should have all the same rights and priveleges as the rest of us. If they want to live together, than they should qualify for a tax break. However, (read this next part in your best Shwarzenegger voice) Marriage should be between ze man and ze voman! yaaaah.
There is more I could say, but I think I have been clear enough for you to understand where i’m going with this. For me to be called a hater…it’s just not true. Please respond with any disagreements you may have as i am more than happy to discuss your point of view, and will do my best to understand it. But if anyone else tries to tell me why I hate gays… me and the Govanator are going to go on the rampage!
July 8th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Woops. that last post was from me, if you hadn’t figured it out. I just wanted to add that I re-read my second post, and I can see just a little better what set Dave off. In that post I was arguing solely from a scriptural point of view, and not such a humanistic point of view.
As you stated Dave, you don’t know me from Adam, but for future reference, occasionally I will take a vigorous stance in a variety of positions, if not to play devil’s advocate, at least to get a little variety into the discussion. I’m really not a heartless bastard, contrary to popular opinion at the moment.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Josh, welcome back. I thought you’d taken your toys and gone home to play
Let’s see if we can take your arguments one at a time:
(I)As for religions changing… Frankly, I have no problem with religions changing. In fact, much of my sociological theorizing is all about how religions change. The only reason this is an issue for some religions is because of the religions themselves. Here are the problems laid out in premise form using Mormonism specifically:
1) Mormonism claims to be god’s church.
2) Mormon leaders claim to be guided by god in determining religious doctrine.
3) Mormons claim god is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
4) The Mormon religion changes. This is more than just structural change; there are also changes in doctrine and policy.
Now, from a logical standpoint, if (2) is true and (3) is true, then (4) cannot be true. Alternatively, if (4) is true, then either (2) is not true, or (3) is not true, or neither of them is true. Thus, from a logic standpoint, when Mormonism changes doctrine, it undermines some element of Mormon belief, as illustrated by the logic as laid out above. If I’m wrong, please point it out by illustrating which of the 4 premises above is wrong.
How can Mormonism deal with this potential problem? Simple. Redact and/or modify number 2 as follows, “Mormon leaders do their best to interpret god’s will in determining religious doctrine and Mormon policy, but some times they get god’s will wrong.” While a critic, like myself, would point out that this makes the leaders of the religion no better than Joe Blow and this is just “an out†for making mistakes, it is also “AN OUT” for when they have to change things later on. Mormonism would have to deal with the fallibility of the leaders, which is kind of an issue, but change would no longer be an issue. Currently this is accomplished through a tortuous process known among apologists as “retroactive humanizingâ€: Whenever a prophet said something that was absurd (e.g., Brigham Young said there were people living on the moon and the sun), apologists say they were speaking as men, not prophets. How do you tell the difference? Simple, whatever is believed to be doctrine today was divinely inspired, until it is no longer believed, then it was the guy speaking as a man and was not divinely inspired. It’s about as disingenuous as my approach, but much more deceitful since it involves re-writing history. In my approach, the leaders would simply admit to being wrong sometimes, which is a big no-no in Mormonism.
Another point to address here, “Religions should only change when directed to do so by divine authority.” When do you know when that is happening? How do you, Josh, determine if something is “divine authority” or if it is Thomas Monson just making stuff up?
(II) Sin
“I feel it safe to say we all understand the Christian view of what sin is, yes?” Actually, no, I don’t think we’re on the same page when it comes to sin. You believe in it; I don’t. You also choose what you want to be a sin selectively out of the Bible (you never addressed this argument by the way), so I don’t know what you think is a sin and what isn’t.
That aside, let’s look at the other issue: How do you treat a sinner? Let’s say you believe in sin and therefore believe in sinners. Let’s also say you adhere to the idea of hating the sin, love the sinner. Fine, so be it. But your example from Dr. Laura is terrible. Could you not have the same thing happen (and it does, with much greater frequency) when a heterosexual couple splits due to irreconcilable differences? Or what if one or the other cheats? Just because homosexuality has caused difficulties in someone’s life doesn’t mean we should consider it sin. Has sex never caused a difficulty in your life? What about drinking Mountain Dew (hint, hint, nudge, nudge)? What about spending too much time in church or putting church before family (think our Dad)? If you’re now defining as a “sin” anything that could ever be harmful, we need to rule out pretty much everything: guns, sex, TV, food, etc. This is not a sufficient criteria for considering something a sin.
Continuing in this vein, there are literally millions of satisfied, happy, content homosexuals in this country. Sure, their homosexuality may occasionally cause them problems, but it’s usually because someone else is discriminating against them and not because of their homosexuality. It’s actually very similar to you being Mormon. Mormonism probably occasionally causes you problems, but many of the problems you face as a Mormon probably stem from people treating you differently because you are a Mormon. You, Josh, are in the same situation as homosexuals. Yet, for some reason you are saying their derivative problems mean they must be sinning but yours are from righteous persecution. I don’t buy it at all.
Also, you seem a bit schizophrenic about sexual identity. In the Dr. Laura case you say the guy suddenly “decided he wanted to be gay,†but with your mission friend, you say it isn’t a choice. Careful how you word things.
I’d love a set of premises like I gave above for determining what is a sin. Here’s my stab at it from a Mormon perspective:
1)God’s will can be known.
2)Mormons know god’s will through the inspired teachings of the leaders of the religion.
3)Anyone who knowingly acts against god’s will sins.
4)Not every action is a sin (else why call it a sin, just call it an action).
5)Anyone who unknowingly acts against god’s will is not sinning.
6)What is a sin can change over time (see the religious change premises outlined above).
How did I do?
(III) Is saying homosexuality is a sin hateful?
Okay, I know you didn’t like having your thoughts called hateful, but I think this warrants teasing out a bit. This boils down to an issue of perspective. Josh’s perspective: For some reason, homosexuality is a sin (but eating shrimp isn’t); I challenged you to come up with a better reason for why it is a sin above. Homosexual’s perspective: You are calling my sexual identity, something about me that I cannot change, a sin. From Dave’s perspective (not that I need to speak for him, but I think we’re about on the same wavelength here): Calling a part of someone’s identity that they cannot change a sin isn’t very nice. Why? Because they cannot change it! That’s like saying black skin is a sin (which some Mormons still believe, kind of). If someone is a certain way and there is nothing, literally nothing they can do about it, how can you call that a sin? That’s like me saying you being born in Utah is a sin or being born in the 1980s is a sin. Is there anything you can do about it? If not, then you are basically condemning people for something they are not responsible for. How, in any moral system, is that just? How, in any moral system, can that be seen as anything but negative?
Let’s go with logical premises again:
1)If there is something about Person X he/she cannot change no matter what he/she does,
2)And Person Y discriminates or insinuates prejudice against that person as a result of the characteristic he/she has that he/she cannot change,
3)Then Person Y’s behavior toward Person X is negative (a.k.a. “hatefulâ€).
Again, please refute.
(IV) Why deny them marriage?
Finally, we get to the main point – why deny homosexuals marriage? You think they should have all the same rights as married people, at least that’s the impression you give by saying they should get the same tax breaks. I’m assuming you’d also be okay with them getting visitation rights in hospitals, inheritance rights from death, decision rights for end of life care, etc. If you’re okay with homosexuals having all the same rights, then why deny them marriage? Marriage, in the secular sense, is just the formal process required to give these people all of those rights. How do you justify not letting them get married in a secular ceremony?
Logical premises are fun:
1)Josh thinks all people should have the same rights (except, perhaps, prison inmates).
2)Homosexuals belong to the category of “all peopleâ€
3)Marriage is a right.
If you do not think homosexuals should marry, then you do not actually believe in premise 1. If you don’t really believe in premise 1, then you do believe some people (more so than just prison inmates) deserve to be treated as second-class citizens. Please refute.
July 9th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Your logical premises are silly.
I started writing another long spiel about all your logic premises but I accidentally closed the browser and lost about 25 minutes worth of work. I’m going to take that as a sign from God
and try a new, abbreviated approach:
Your first point about religions changing (another tired point which I indicated you would bring up): We’ve already addressed this. You say our dogma is contradictory because we believe in change but we also believe we are led by an infallible God who never changes. That is overly simplistic and ridiculous. Of course God does not change. However, societies, technologies, and the world all change. Since a church is an organization created to exist on THIS changing planet, a church must be flexible. To insinuate that the leaders of the church are charlatans because they occasional change doctrine and that is in direct contradiction to what we believe is very flawed logic. Our doctrine indicates it will change. God reveals line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little. We may continue to gain, or in some cases, lose points of doctrine. Those individual points of doctrine may even change. Back in the day, it was ok to sacrifice a sheep. Now, not so much. The doctrine changed. Back in the day, it was required to take only a certain number of steps on the Sabbath to keep the Sabbath holy. Now, not a problem. Yes, the doctrine changes. Your logic is flawed. God has the same view on everything, he always will, but that doesn’t mean he can’t change things in his church as he sees fit, to adjust to the changing times and the changing needs of the members.
Your question: “How do you, Josh, determine if something is “divine authority†or if it is Thomas Monson just making stuff up?”
Answer: Because I have never once in my life regretted doing anything a Prophet of the Lord as told me to do. Because what he tells me to do makes sense to me. And finally, because I have faith that he will not lead me astray. I could of course go into the whole confirmation by the holy ghost thing, which is quite important, but I know we’ve gone over that at least twice in the last four years.
On to your second point, sin: I feel like i’m arguing with a child. I stated I thought we all understood the CHRISTIAN view of sin. You then decided to state the obvious, that you don’t believe in sin. Duh. I know you don’t believe in sin, but as an ex-mormon, I also know you have a good understanding on what a CHRISTIAN view of sin is. Why are you wasting my time? Then you basically repeated half of my previous post back to me. Yes, Mt. Dew can be a sin. Yes, sex CAN be a sin. Yes, spending too much time at church IS a sin. All those things you listed, thinking I would balk at calling them sins, yes, they can all be sins. Chew on that a little.
And yet again, I try to steer the conversation in a different direction but you predicatably want me to tread the dangerous waters of why I see Homosexuality as a sin. This, my friend, would be tantamount to walking into a trap. I gave you a single, albeit poor, example of how I saw homosexuality could be detrimental and now you want me to blast gay people so you can rake me over the coals. Not going to happen, cracker jack! I see homosexuality as a sin. that’s it. I don’t need to justify myself further.
And that brings us back to the topic of hatred. Either you missed the point I painstakingly brought up in my last post, or you ignored it and flipped it around. The point I was making was I don’t baselessly hate gay people. You turned that around and said “Well calling people sinners for something they can’t control is not very nice.” Allright, we can discuss niceties later, but the point remains I don’t hate gay people.
Now, you are correct, I was fairly unclear in the previous post on where I stand about homosexuality as being a choice or not. I’m going to be honest. I don’t know. I’ve never had to deal with those feelings, so I just don’t know. Until that happens, (and brace yourself because your going to think i’m a total jerk) until that happens and I completely understand how a homosexual feels, the only thing i can equate it to is…yes…another sin. Say, something like my addiction to Mt. Dew? Or maybe something even more life altering- my addiction to World of Warcraft? I honestly don’t have anything to base my view on, as I have been told by homosexuals that 1- it is NOT a choice, and 2- it IS a choice. Maybe for some it is a choice. Probably for others it is a much much harder thing, like the difference between being addicted to mt. dew and being addicted to heroine. I don’t know. I’m not ashamed to admit that, but until that day when I fully and completely understand what it is to be gay, I only have other sins to equate it to.
Now i’m sure you are going to say: “What homosexual would say it IS a choice?” You tell me. There are some out there.
Now i’m going to continue down that road and say somethig you will find to be completely outrageous, so brace yourself. If every time I wanted to commit a sin I simply stated “sleeping with that guys wife was not something I could control, my hormones just took over, so its not a sin” or “I couldn’t control myself from killing that guy, the rage took over and I couldn’t help myself.” That would sure be a nice cop out, wouldn’t it?
Now, of course I am exaggerating to make a point here, and although i’m fairly certain the previous two paragraphs will be taken way out of context, the fact remains I DON’T KNOW IF IT IS A CHOICE, I have never been there, so for the time being I will just trust that God is right. I know I have a very addictive personality, and THAT is NOT my choice. I love to play videogames! I love it! But it can be a very bad thing. Warcraft had a very bad impact on my marriage for a while. I didn’t choose to have an addictive personality, I didn’t choose to be addicted to mt. dew or warcraft, but it doesn’t change the fact that those things became sins for me.
(Now you may flame me for being insensitive and going against the gay community. What I just said was so politically incorrect it could probably get me thrown in jail in a few years, at the rate we are going.)
As for your final point, why I don’t think gays should marry: There is no answer that will satisfy you, so I will just say this, The definition of marriage, at least to me, is a sacred union between a man and woman. If I think marriage is sacred, and that homosexuality is a sin, then how could I support same sex marriage. I wouldn’t allow an alcoholic to live in a bar. I hope you see my point.
Also, I hope you don’t take this whole thing out of context. This issue is so explosive and so divisive that this could easily escalate into a full scale lynch mobbing if we aren’t delicate about this. I tried to be delicate even as I rushed through all of that, but i’m sure it would be easy to take offense to something I said. Don’t take offense, this is a discussion, not a brawl.
July 10th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Allright, I shouldn’t have rushed through parts of that. I failed to put a smiley face in there a couple times when I was joking, so I just came across as mean. Please note I had only the best of intentions there.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Josh, starting out your post by ridiculing logic isn’t a good start.
The whole point of putting things into a logical structure is that it provides a framework for debating this issue. If you deny the logical structure, then the debate will range all over the place. By presenting a series of logical premises, you can either agree or disagree with them, but in the end the idea is to ultimately return to the premises and modify them to the point that they are AS LOGICAL AS POSSIBLE. So, calling them silly is an inauspicious start.
(I) Religions changing.
I’m going back to my logical premises here. Please indicate, using my numbering scheme, which of these is wrong based on Mormon thought:
1) Mormonism claims to be god’s church.
2) Mormon leaders claim to be guided by god in determining religious doctrine.
3) Mormons claim god is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
4) The Mormon religion changes. This is more than just structural change; there are also changes in doctrine and policy.
In regards to your latest response, if I’m reading it correctly, you are illustrating that you accept all four premises as I have outlined. As that is the case, then there is a logical contradiction, as outlined in my previous post when I formulated these premises. Yet, you don’t see the logical contradiction as a problem.
Maybe this is an issue of defining “doctrine.” As I see it, doctrine is the beliefs of the religion. Practices are either rituals of a religion or behavioral regulations (the code of sins). Changing practices in light of technological change makes sense. Here’s an example:
Doctrine: Keep the Sabbath Holy.
Interpretation for practices in 1800: Do not work for pay on this day; with few exceptions this was possible (e.g., ship captain couldn’t avoid doing so, nor could politicians or military personnel at times, but most others could).
Interpretation for practices in 2008: Do not work for pay on this day, unless you have a job that (1) requires it, and (2) the job is necessary for modern society to function (e.g., doctor, EMT, pilot, bus driver, electric plant technician, etc.). Today, there are lots and lots of exceptions!
The point here, Josh, is that the practices can change in light of changes in society, but doctrine should be eternal. Here’s what the Encyclopedia of Mormonism has to say about “doctrine”:
Note the distinction between “doctrine” and “practices.” Doctrine is unchanging; practices change. Here’s where this idea becomes particularly interesting. When Mormons stopped practicing polygamy, did they redact Section 132 of the D&C and change their doctrine? When Mormons allowed blacks the priesthood, did they change the Pearl of Great Price to remove the whole notion of blacks being cursed? In both cases, the answer is “NO”! Why? Because to do so would be to change “revealed doctrine,” which is a big no, no. You can change practices. You can change how you interpret doctrine. But you can’t change doctrine.
Now, returning to my premises. If, as I have stated, 1, 2, and 3 are all correct, which you agree they are, then 4 should never, ever happen. The LDS religion avoided it when stopping polygamy and discrimination against blacks. But if doctrine changes, then either 1 or 2 are invalid. 4 has happened (e.g., Brigham Young’s Adam-God doctrine is a great example; and he specifically stated it was a doctrine necessary for salvation, meaning it meets the criteria of doctrine). By that measure, either 2 or 3 is invalid.
I’m going to ignore your response to “knowing” Thomas Monson is inspired for now; too many other issues to address.
(II) Sin.
Again, your framing here is not only offensive, it’s riddled with logical fallacies. Calling me a “child” is an ad hominem attack you’re attacking the person making the argument and not the argument. I don’t recommend doing that in the future. It doesn’t endear you to those you are debating…
As for your “chew on that a little” phrase, you missed the point. I gave my criteria for a Mormon sin to illustrate 2 things: (1) Doing something harmful to one’s self is not necessarily a sin (e.g., running into a burning building to save someone else isn’t a sin). (2) Sin is subject to interpretation (assuming you believe in it at all). Yes, all of the things I mentioned could be sins, but they don’t have to be sins. That is both the beauty and drawback of the “sin” terminology: You can simultaneously call things “sins” and “not sins”, which is confusing as hell!
As for why you see homosexuality as a sin, that is not a trap. That is asking you to defend your position. If you refuse to defend your position, you are taking an irrational stand. As Daniel Dennett so poignantly argues in his recent book, it is impossible to make headway with someone who is irrational. Here’s an example: If I were to say, “My house has a one-car garage.” And you respond, “My younger sister says it does not have a one-car garage and I believe everything she says, so your house does not have a one-car garage.” your position is irrational. If you won’t budge even when I send you a picture and then finally have you fly here to see it yourself because, “you trust everything your younger sister says,” your position is irrational (this goes beyond illogical; irrational denies reality). This is what you are doing with homosexuality when you refuse to argue why it is, in your opinion, a sin. I rebuffed your use of the Bible, which is the fallback position for many religious people. Your welcome to use it, but doing so makes your use of the Bible inconsistent. So, I ask you to give me another justification. I’ll make it easy for you, returning to my premises for sin:
1)God’s will can be known: God said homosexuality was a sin in the Bible, but since Mormons no longer accept most of those “doctrines” as doctrines (kind of weird, that), Mormons need additional revelation
2)Mormons know god’s will through the inspired teachings of the leaders of the religion: Modern-day prophets have said that homosexuality is a sin, though they are actually changing their tune now and saying, “homosexual acts are sins, not being a homosexual.”
3)Anyone who knowingly acts against god’s will sins: Anyone who engages in homosexual actions and “knows” that the Mormon god thinks it is a sin is sinning.
4)Not every action is a sin (else why call it a sin, just call it an action): homosexual acts are sins, as per above.
5)Anyone who unknowingly acts against god’s will is not sinning: people who do not know that homosexual acts are against the will of the Mormon god are not sinning.
6)What is a sin can change over time (see the religious change premises outlined above): this is relative to god’s doctrine, which is unchanging.
There, that’s your defense. It’s pretty crappy, but I’d like to know if you accept it.
(III) Hateful speech.
“If you were born in the 1980s, you are an abomination. God will send you to hell.” Or how about, “If you have black skin, you are an abomination. God will send you to hell.” What do you think? Hateful? Or is that okay if I happen to believe that? How is what you are saying about homosexuals any different? In all three cases, these are characteristics people cannot change. Condemning them for it, as per my earlier premises, is hateful.
As for whether or not you have dealt with homosexual feelings, you’re trying to weasel your way out of answering this. The answer, of course, is “absolutely you have.” Josh, when did you decide you were heterosexual? Can you give me the date? The time? The location? Chances are you never “made” a decision. You just kind of always “knew.” Now, you are welcome to deny the stated experience of the 9 million homosexuals in the US and the 120 million homosexuals around the world who all say the same thing you say, “I just knew.” But denying that is, in my opinion, akin to sticking your head in the sand and pretending like the world doesn’t exist. Saying “I don’t know because I haven’t experienced it” is a complete and total cop out. You are denying overwhelming evidence that indicates that it is no more a choice than is heterosexuality. That is simply dishonest and disingenuous.
Equating video game addiction to homosexuality is, well, a bit demeaning to homosexuals, don’t you think? You’re basically saying they are probably heterosexuals, but they are addicted to homosexual sex. (Note coming sarcasm): Maybe, just maybe, you are a homosexual but addicted to heterosexual sex?!? Josh, that is absurd.
Don’t get me wrong, I can appreciate the addictiveness of games. But you can stop playing games (remember, this is something YOU CAN CHANGE, which is the criteria for hateful speech). Yes, homosexuals can stop having sex and intimate relationships with other homosexuals, but that’s the equivalent of asking a heterosexual to give up having sex and intimate relationships with other heterosexuals. Unless you want to hold both sexual identities (there are actually more, but that’s outside this debate) to the same standard, you are asking homosexuals to give up what makes us human: our social relationships. That is, in my opinion, cruel and unusual punishment. Any religion suggesting such a thing is a horrible, horrible religion.
(IV) Denying marriage.
So, change your definition of marriage or, at the very least, allow homosexuals to have civil unions that allow them equivalent rights. They may not have your “sacred” marriage, but they should have equivalent rights. Problem solved. This solution would meet the criteria of my premises:
1)Josh thinks all people should have the same rights (except, perhaps, prison inmates).
2)Homosexuals belong to the category of “all peopleâ€
3)Marriage is a right, but civil unions that grant all the same rights as marriage can also exist.
If you support civil unions for everyone and marriage as a strictly religious ceremony with no secular benefits, then you can actually say that you believe all people should have the same rights. Problem solved, and now you don’t have to try to defend the hateful, discriminatory position of your religion.
July 14th, 2008 at 2:35 am
Josh great job! I look at this in a different light… Sex is the tool for procreation, the government is in the procreation business without it business goes down. Meaning less tax base replaced with less population. Why would the government want to encourage less population? As we all know we are reproducing less than ever which will have many ill effects later on. We should be encouraging heterosexual marriage and having children more than ever.I would even support more of a reward tax wise for each child born to married couples. I understand homosexuals wanting the rights to be able to make important decisions for a partner on a death bed or situations like that but I don’t agree that we should let the current definition of marriage be overturned by such a small percentage of americans if gays want to have the definition changed then I think they should have to change the majority of minds.
July 14th, 2008 at 6:50 am
Hi Andrew. I’m glad to find Josh has some support on here. I’m sure he’s feeling a bit lonely.
Just so you know, Mormons are in the minority on this issue. 58% of Americans support either marriage or civil unions.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/MAYB-GAYMARRIAGE.pdf
Only 36% of Americans are against same-sex marriage.
This isn’t an issue of just homosexuals supporting a position: almost 200 million Americans support same-sex marriage rights. Mormons are definitely in the minority!
Also, I can understand that shrinking populations are hard on economic productivity, but so, too, is over-population and declining environmental resources. You can’t look just at one side of the equation. If our population continues to grow, major catastrophic incidences will increase (e.g., famines, floods, etc.; note, the frequency of natural disasters like floods and hurricanes won’t increase, but there will be more people living in affected areas, which means the impact on humans will be greater). So, yes, shrinking populations means governments and businesses can’t rely on growth as a factor in increasing profit. But that is a flawed approach anyway - growth is slowing and will continue to slow as people realize they don’t need to have dozens of kids, just one or two. And people are realizing kids are super expensive. Hopefully the world population will top out at 9 billion around 2050 then reverse and drop to a realistic carrying capacity around 2 to 4 billion by 2100.
Oh, and, really, do you think allowing gays to marry is going to impact fertility rates at all? My guess is it will actually increase them as married homosexuals are more likely to try to have kids than are single homosexuals. In short, if your argument against gay marriage is that it will decrease birth rates, the data doesn’t support your position.
July 14th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Thank you for your response.So whether it’s right or wrong don’t you agree that the government would look at the potential for what couple will create a renewable tax base? I know that arguement is weak but I’m simply tired of the minorty telling the majority what it has to do. If the polls are correct(I highly doubt they are)then gay marriage will be allowed but lets use our rights to let the people of our great country decide not the courts or the government but us. And by the way I don’t think we have to worry about overpopulation 2012 is just around the corner and I bet we will all be worrying about bigger things then anyway LOL!
July 14th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Andrew, you’re right that the government “will” look at the couples that create a renewable tax break. But what “is” is not, in my opinion, what “should” be. Those are two different issues. If governments were forward thinking, they would stop relying solely on population growth to pay down debts and simply balance their budgets and project budgets year to year based on population size. If governments were responsible with their spending, population growth or decline would be a non-issue.
As for the “minority” telling the “majority” what they have to do, I’m not sure I know what you mean. As I pointed out, the majority of Americans favor some sort of rights for homosexuals. In this case, it is the majority telling the minority what to do. If you have reason to doubt the poll, please share it.
Our courts are actually quite influenced by public opinion. That explains why they ruled that schools that were “separate but equal” was okay in the 19th Century (Plessy v Ferguson) but overturned themselves in the 20th Century (Brown v Board of Education). In the 20th Century reversal of that decision, the Supreme Court still went against majority opinion, but if you disagree with their decision to do so, you know what’s coming: you will be accused of being a racist. In fact, it can be argued from a sociological standpoint that school integration actually reduced racism in the US, at least outward racism (color-blind racism is a different story). So, sometimes courts leading the way is a good thing. I think this is one of those times.
Finally, I think 2012 in your comment is a typo.
July 14th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
I agree that government should look elsewhere but we both know that is probably not going to happen. Come on Ryan 2012 is no typo I was trying to bait you into a new topic I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on the 2012 proficies check out the book Arc of millions of years by Brooks Agnew. That would be a great conversation
July 15th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Andrew, the book looks strange. What’s it about and who are the authors?
July 15th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Ryan, I loved the series of comments. I loved your response. I know Josh, and I know he is not a hateful guy. In fact, I think he is a stud. But I have to side with you on the position being hateful.
I had this discussion with a friend of mine while we were in Mexico. I finally told him if he could come to me with an actual reason gays shouldn’t marry or adopt, we would discuss it. But until then, we would have to agree to disagree. Our discussion was fruitless. He had nothing to even discuss.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:48 am
That sounds about right. There is no good reason…
July 17th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Yo, sorry for the long absence. It was a busy week involving pesticides, headaches, and spaceships. So…
Looks like I have alot of catching up to do:
First and foremost, Ryan said: “Calling me a “child†is an ad hominem attack you’re attacking the person making the argument and not the argument. I don’t recommend doing that in the future. It doesn’t endear you to those you are debating…”
You are correct! In the prior post I had already explained that I had failed to proof read my post and there were parts that came across as mean, which was never my intention. If you want me to apologize again, I will, but I had hoped you would know I wouldn’t bring emotion into a discussion like that.
(That is one of the problems I find with this medium of communication, at least for me. It can be easy to take things out of context.) I just wanted to clear that up first and foremost. I never wanted to see this blog resolve into a hate-fest where we all attack each other, rather I would prefer it was a place to share beliefs and points of view, as I think most of you would agree.
Ok, now onto the points you brought up (again)
1- You have given a series of logical premises that you claim proof church leaders are not inspired of God. I claim that your premises are too simple. In my opinion, anyone can come up with a bunch of premises to prove whatever point they want, just like staticians can make statistics point any way they want. On this subject, we may have to agree to disagree because I don’t see it going anywhere.
2- Sin. Again, I fail to see any point in arguing this. Maybe you are trying to deny it, but you were a Mormon for 20+ years. You know what the Christian definition of sin is. Yes, I know you don’t believe in sin NOW, but you did, so why argue with me over the definition.
3-Hateful Speech. I actually liked a few points in your argument, (didn’t like a few others, you can probably pick them out) and to some extent, I agree with you. However, I don’t feel you tried to understand the point I was making earlier, what with the whole video game analogies and such. It was an ANALOGY, something similiar, but of course not on par with the issue of homosexuality. It was never my intention to intimate that I have to fight the same kind of pressure as a homosexual. I shall attempt to make the point again, as bluntly as possible, and please note that I’m MAKING A POINT, not preaching a doctrine, and NOT saying that I necesarily believe what i’m about to say, I’m making a point and throwing it out there for discussion:
IF homosexuality is viewed as a sin, then it COULD be compared to other sins. Say drinking alcohol. If i’m an alcoholic, I may say “it’s just my personality and I cannot help it. I HAVE to drink alcohol, there is nothing I can do about it.” HOWEVER, if I prescribe to a Christian way of life, which says I should abstain from alcohol, I may be in trouble. Whether I give up alcohol or not, I will ALWAYS be addicted to alcohol, no matter what I do. If i’m sober for 50 years, i will still be addicted.
We all have our problems and the things we will struggle with for the entirety of our lives. So again, IF one were to view homosexuality as a sin, then the same rule applies. It may be something you CANNOT change, just like being addicted to alcohol, but that doesn’t mean it is no longer a sin. It simply means if you prescribe to a Christian way of life, it is a tendency you will fight for your entire life.
Now I hope I made that clear, because I don’t want to explain my point a third time
4-Denying marriage. Absolutly no problem with your solution. As I stated, homosexuals should have all the same rights as you and I, but they shouldn’t have more rights (ie changing the defintion of marriage). If they want a civil union that allows them a tax break, go for it.
Andrew! Thanks for the back up buddy. Sometimes taking on Ryan and his whole cohort of Liberal Goons can be a tiresome task by myself
As for the whole population control thing, I’m a firm believer that we need less government, period! We can pretty much sort out our own problems, it’s the government getting in the way.
However, Ryan said : “As for the “minority†telling the “majority†what they have to do, I’m not sure I know what you mean.”
C’mon, that has been happening for a while now, and is growing more and more prevalent. I haven’t looked at the statistics on the gay marriage issue, (but the polls were probably all taken in San Francisco
As i stated earlier, statistics can be made to point any way you want, generally speaking)
However, the minority has been dictating alot of things for the last several years. A good example, the environmentalist telling us we can’t drill for oil and need to drive less. They are definetely the minority, yet they are dictating policy. That’s just one example, i’m sure you can come up with more. The point being, I agree with Andrew there. Don’t feign innocence on that issue!
As for B-Rad…who the heck are you?
You mentioned you know me, email me and let me know who you are. I do have a good guess though 
If you are who I think you are, I was just talking about you yesterday. jjcragun@hotmail.com
As for your comments of calling my position hateful… I hate to beat a dead horse, but I still maintain that it is not hateful! My position, summed up, is: “I love you, therefore I want to help you!” then you turn around and say, “Well since you think you need to help me, you must hate me!” You can call my position foolish, but I still don’t think it’s hateful.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Josh,
(1) I don’t think you understand the purpose of logical premises. The point isn’t just to pretend to prove something, it is to actually prove something:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
Take 20 minutes to familiarize yourself with logic. I’m not making anything up, just pointing out the logical contradictions. If you’d rather agree to disagree on this, that’s fine. We can leave it here.
(2) On sin. I know what the definition of sin is (not the Christian one; you don’t speak for all Christians; the Mormon one). My point is, you don’t know what it is. I wasn’t trying to debate that point, I was trying to make it possible to discuss sins by setting up a foundation for agreeing on a definition for the sake of argument. I think you missed the point here.
(3) Okay, I’ll agree with you (trumpets sound)! If we agree homosexuality is a sin (which I don’t), then we could say that, from your perspective, you aren’t being hateful, but trying to help. I’ll agree with you. From YOUR perspective, you are not hateful.
Now, can you agree with my perspective? If you decide homosexuality is not a sin (any more than heterosexuality is), then calling it one is hateful. Like I said before, this is a matter of perspective.
(4) So, you’re okay with civil unions (hallelujah!). But you’ve raised a new issue: Somehow homosexuals would have more rights if they can change the definition of marriage? You are making an argument that makes no sense to me. Basically what you just said, in logical premise form again, is:
(a) Homosexuals and heterosexuals should have equal rights.
(b) Defining “marriage” is a right.
(c) Only heterosexuals get to define “marriage.”
If you accept Premise A, then you cannot accept Premise C, or vice versa. Logically, your argument is inconsistent. If you really believe A, then Premise C should read, “Homosexuals and heterosexuals should work together to define marriage.” I think your logical contradiction is based on the assumption that “marriage” is not a social construction and that it has always been what it is now. That, my dear brudder, is simply not true. Go back just 130 years and Mormons defined it differently. Just 100 years ago marriage meant other things, including “owning your wife and kids.” Ergo, the definition of “marriage” is negotiable. If you really believe homosexuals and heterosexuals should be equal, then both should have a say in defining marriage.
Finally, you say, “If they want a civil union that allows them a tax break, go for it.” My response: No, Josh, you “go for it” with them. Put your vote where your mouth is. If you really believe in equality, you need to vote for it, not say, “Oh, yeah, you gays, work for equal rights.” They won’t just be “given” equal rights. Those in power have to, unfortunately, concede them. So long as people sit back and do nothing to guarantee equal rights, they will not exist.
(5) Statistics. I’m not sure what you and Andrew have against statistics. Sure, they can be misleading. But just dismissing any poll or survey because some statistics can be misleading is absurd. That’s like me saying all Mormons are sex offenders because some are (http://www.stuff.co.nz/4584766a11.html). If you want to criticize some statistic, criticize that specific statistic. You can’t just dismiss them all.
As for the statistics I was quoting:
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
As for views on the environment, again you are wrong. There is a pretty close split on the environment in the US:
http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm
This isn’t just one poll, Josh. It’s hundreds of independent polls from dozens of different survey groups. And, surprise surprise, they all basically say the same thing. Maybe you should turn off Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and actually look at the data some time?!?
July 18th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
I love how you keep accusing me of listening to fox news…
And as for statistics, honestly i’m going to call foul play here because my life is literally in danger. Have you ever had a statistics class? If we have to spend the whole weekend arguing about statistics, I might actually die of boredom. that is why I don’t want to argue statistics.
I’m going to jump around a bit here and jump straight to your new set of logical premises:
(a) Homosexuals and heterosexuals should have equal rights. Correct!
(b) Defining “marriage†is a right. What? It’s already been defined.
(c) Only heterosexuals get to define “marriage. What? It’s already been defined.
This goes back to the minority making decisions for the majority thing. Marriage has already been defined as a binding union between a man and a woman. It has been thus accepted for thousands of years. Again, this is why I don’t agree with most of your logical premises, you’re simplifying things, or leaving out things that are fairly important to the conclusion. So, since I don’t want to play your logical premise game, enough already!
On to 3- You are concerned that I don’t see it from your perspective, and that I have no idea why you liberals are calling me a hater. I was actually thinking about this today and thought it might be fun for you and I to swap roles on one of these topics and argue the opposing side, just see how much we really understand each others perspectives. Let me know what you think.
anywho, I do very much understand the viewpoint. I will attempt to argue it from your stance so we can see how well I do understand it:
Homosexuality is a natural trait, something you are born with. It is not a conscience decision. That being the case, how could it possibly be called a sin? How could you justifiably tell that person that they need to fight against their nature. it would be exactly akin to telling a heterosexual to fight against the urge of simply being attracted to women! To tell that person to quit being who they are, to change the very essence of what is in their DNA, would be ludicrous and…you guessed it…hateful! To judge that person as a lesser human being, to deny them the same rights you and I enjoy would be the worst kind of discrimination. You can no more tell a black person to become white, or a female to become male, than you could tell a homosexual that they are less deserving of the same rights everyone else enjoys simply because they are born with an innate attraction to the same sex.
Allright, how was my argument. Please feel free to critique. The point being, that was a very brief summation, but I feel I understand where you guys are coming from. You know, as a Mormon, I think we have a pretty good history of being hated, baselessly, if you will. Granted you can argue that we brought that Missouri extermination order upon ourselves by trying to control the politics or shunning the neighbors. You could argue all sorts of anti-Mormon, bitter and trivial stuff, but I would hope that any informed person would at least admit that Mormons have been baselessly hated from the very beginning.
Dave gave a great example, stating that his friend thinks Mormons are BatSh$% Fu@#$# Morons, or something. Now has Dave’s colorful friend ever met me? I’ve seen in many of these cases where the accuser has only ever met one or two Mormons, if any at all. Now maybe Dave’s buddy is quite familiar with Mormons, maybe a Mormon killed his wife, I don’t know. The point is, for him to make that statement is obviously quite hateful. He is generalizing and proclaiming his hatred for millions of people he has never met. Now here is the kicker, did Dave jump to my defense? Did he call his friend a baseless hater, as he did me? Did anyone try to defend the Mormons from this raw, ugly, hatred, or is it only acceptable to defend homosexuals? (I’m not saying don’t defend homosexuals, I hope you all continue to do so) I’m just saying I think I understand what it feels like to be hated. When I lived in Spain, I was hated for 1-Being a Mormon. Granted, that is something I can control. However, I was also hated for 2-Being an American. Not something I can control. Did it change the fact that many people hated me for it? Not at all.
Hate is an ugly thing. It is an ugly, powerful word. When this threaded started, I was called a hater. When I explained myself a little, it changed to my views being hateful. I tried to explain a little more, and then it became my words were hateful. Well which is it?
Dave stated above: “There are few things I have less tolerance for than hate disguised in religious clothing”
Now I actually agree with that statement, wholeheartedly. However, I can’t help but think “There are few things I have less tolerance for than hate disguised in A-religious clothing.”
And I bring that up because I kind of want to take this in a new direction. If B-Rad is who I think he is, then he, like Ryan, is an ex-Mormon. I was actually just reading yesterday about Richard Dutcher, the director of the horrible movie, God’s Army. As it turns out, he left the church last year. What I found interesting were some of the comments on blogs about his leaving the church. Many were positive, wishing him the best on wherever he ended up. However, many more were negative. People expressed how they felt let down, betrayed, and generally felt angry about his decision. A few of the comments were even derogatory.
Now I wish I could say I was completely shocked by some of the comments, but I wasn’t. I well know there are plenty of Christians, and plenty of Mormons, who “say as I say, but not as I do!” Christ teaches us we should seek out our lost sheep, and many of these Christians instead tried to feed their sheep to the wolves.
I know some of Ryan’s experience with leaving the church, but next to nothing about B-Rads. Now I don’t want this to turn into a Mormon bashing fest, so restrain yourselves ;). What I am getting at is many Mormons that fall away from the church seem very, very bitter. I want to know why. And I was wondering if this kind of treatment Richard Dutcher recieved has anything to do with it. Please feel free to comment, or not, as it may be personal.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Just to add to the conservative goon crowd, I’ll chime in.
“5)Anyone who unknowingly acts against god’s will is not sinning: people who do not know that homosexual acts are against the will of the Mormon god are not sinning.”
But that’s why us Mormons are trying to define what Marriage is, so we can help them understand what kinds of things are sins, so they can have glory in the afterlife. I do understand that trying to argue that point with an atheist is a moot point perhaps, but I thought I’d make it anyway. Now, I undertand the term ‘help them’ is subjective because when we say we want to help them, they might see that as discrimination i.e. ‘you think i’m less of a person because I’m a homosexual, and you want to “help” me. As Josh said, marriage has been defined by God already, so why all of a sudden are people trying to change the definition of marriage? To me homosexuality is akin to the kinds of things josh mentioned, namely alcoholism. Now, I don’t know much about genetics, but if I were genetically inclined to alcoholism then I wouldn’t push for alcoholism to be accepted by society, or at least I hope I wouldn’t. To do such, would be absurd! I’d want people to attempt to help me get over such an awful temptation. That’s what I think Josh was going for when he related homosexuality to alcoholism. Now I can accept that i can be seen as hateful for saying such, but does that mean I change my core beliefs and values to appease what I feel is sinful behavior in order to avoid being called hateful? Is it wrong to stand up for my beliefs? It shouldn’t be. In short, my view is that God put us on this earth, therefore he gets to decide what marriage is. It’s similar to the unalienable rights mentioned by our founding fathers in that it’s a God-given right to be married as a heterosexual, but homosexual marriage isn’t acceptable by God. Homosexual sex is misusing the procreative powers we have within us simply for pleasure, isn’t it? Now, don’t get me wrong, I believe that sex outside of marriage by anyone is sin, be it homosexual or heterosexual, but God set up the rules, and I follow them and attempt to help others know, understand, and follow his will in all things. If this is considered hatred, and discrimination, so be it. Well…I hope my “logic” is making sense, cuz I’ve had to read over it again and again. I guess I’ve been out of college too long.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:47 am
(1) “Hateful”
Josh, “When this threaded started, I was called a hater. When I explained myself a little, it changed to my views being hateful. I tried to explain a little more, and then it became my words were hateful. Well which is it?”
Dave, “Fantastic refutation of baseless, hateful arguments, Ryan.”
The beauty of blogs, Josh, is that the record is there for everyone to see. Dave, smartly, called your “arguments” hateful, not you. No one, at any point in this discussion, has called you hateful. Just your arguments. Don’t play the victim here.
(2) Defining marriage.
Josh, did you read my last post?
Ryan, “I think your logical contradiction is based on the assumption that “marriage†is not a social construction and that it has always been what it is now. That, my dear brudder, is simply not true. Go back just 130 years and Mormons defined it differently. Just 100 years ago marriage meant other things, including “owning your wife and kids.†Ergo, the definition of “marriage†is negotiable. If you really believe homosexuals and heterosexuals should be equal, then both should have a say in defining marriage.”
I appreciate that you attempted to refute my logical premises, but I don’t think you succeeded. You “assumed” marriage is not definable; that it is some how static. That is an absurd position to take for a Mormon; as I said, Mormons have changed their definition of marriage multiple times over the years. Go ahead and read D&C 132 again (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132). It was “revealed” in 1843. At that time, Joseph Smith, through revelation, changed the definition of marriage to include multiple wives. In 1890, the LDS Church changed it back (to a single wife). And now, D&C 132, which clearly justifies plural marriage, is interpreted almost exclusively to refer to “covenant marriage” or “temple marriage,” which was not the original intent.
There’s a great book on the changing definition of marriage by Stephanie Coontz called “The Way We Never Were.” She illustrates the changing definition of marriage over the last couple hundred years just in the US.
Today, in some countries in Africa, women are seen as men’s property, just like in the US about 100 years ago (http://www.povertymonitoring.go.tz/documents/rosemery_okelo_womens_rights_mens_property.pdf). We redefined marriage to change that, Josh. Claiming marriage has been the same for thousands of years is denying reality.
Go ahead and read the history of marriage on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History
Or read about women as men’s property in the Old Testament:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm
Or consider that, for thousands of years, there were no official marriage ceremonies, just pairing up by ancestors. Last time I checked, our nearest primate relatives don’t engage in rituals that lead to marriage. In fact, if the alpha male of a group of mountain gorillas is dethroned, the new alpha male usually kills all of his kids by his former harem and then takes over the wives. This is closer to the practices of the FLDS in Texas (re-assignment of wives, not killing the kids) than it is to the practice of monogamous marriage.
Prior to the 1970s in both the US and UK, marriage also implicitly included the assumption that men could beat their wives:
http://www.ryananddebi.com/2008/06/09/new-review-violence-against-wives/
Finally, if all of the above is insufficient evidence to illustrate that the definition of marriage is malleable, what, pray tell, is the point of “defining it in a state constitution”? Isn’t that “defining” marriage? Isn’t “defining” marriage precisely what the LDS religion is proposing to do? If it is already defined, why are religious groups now trying to define it? Seems like an excuse to discriminate to me…
Claiming marriage is “defined by god” or that it’s definition is unchanging is denying history (including Mormon history), biology, evolution, sociology, psychology, science, and reality. Until you can illustrate that definitions of marriage HAVE NEVER CHANGED, my premises stand.
(3) Thank you for seeing discrimination against homosexuals from my perspective. Yes, you did a fine job. (Now if I could only get you to believe it…)
July 19th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Jeremy, I always welcome comments on the blog, regardless of perspective. Josh can, assuredly, use the help.
Let’s break down your comment a little, as you have a number of points in there.
First, I like how you phrased the opening part of your comment, “But that’s why us Mormons are trying to define what Marriage is…” While inadvertent, I think you have made my case for me. What Mormons are trying to do is define what marriage is. It’s not already defined. The definition of marriage is open. Mormons think they have a definition (even though it has changed over the years, as noted in my last response). They also think everyone should use their definition, just like the leadership of the LDS religion thinks everyone should use their definition of “Mormon”: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD
You then say, “so why all of a sudden are people trying to change the definition of marriage?” Good question. Why, ‘all of a sudden’, have religions tried to change the definition of marriage to “one man and one woman”? That’s not how it was defined in most states prior to the 2004 election season. A number of states changed it at that point. Why are religions suddenly trying to change it?
Jeremy, note the irony here. You implied that it was homosexuals trying to change the definition. In reality, it is religious groups that have done so in order to prevent the courts from giving homosexuals the right to marry under old legislation. If anyone is redefining marriage, it’s religious groups.
You said, “homosexuality is akin to the kinds of things josh mentioned, namely alcoholism”. From my perspective, what you just said is, “heterosexuality is akin to alcoholism.” Jeremy, I’m going to assume you are attracted to women. Does it make any sense at all to compare your attraction to women to alcoholism? From the perspective of the 9 million homosexuals and about 35% of the US population (which equates to about 100 million people), homosexuality is, like heterosexuality, not a choice. Equating it with alcoholism is more than just absurd, it’s offensive.
Certainly getting help for alcoholism is a good idea - it can negatively affect your life and even kill you. It’s also something YOU CAN CHANGE! Getting “help” for homosexuality is not the same thing. That’s like me suggesting you get help for your heterosexuality. You are trying to change something that cannot be changed.
You also said, “but does that mean I change my core beliefs and values to appease what I feel is sinful behavior in order to avoid being called hateful?” Jeremy, no one is asking you to change your beliefs. Literally, no one is. What the 100 million of us asking for equal rights for homosexuals are asking is this, “Do you think everyone in the US should have equal rights? If so, let homosexuals have the same marriage rights. Whether done by civil unions or not, just let them have the same rights.” How does that require you to change your beliefs? Honestly. All that is required of you is that you, well, DO NOTHING. Just get out of the way. Honestly, that’s it. You can still continue to believe whatever you want about homosexuals. Just don’t deny them rights. And how does that affect you? Honestly? How does that affect you Jeremy?
You said, “Is it wrong to stand up for my beliefs?” Well, it’s only wrong to do so when your beliefs are immoral. Based on this logic, if you were a Mormon in 1975, you would have supported discrimination against blacks. Is that wrong, Jeremy? Is it wrong to discriminate against black people? Your religion said that it was okay in 1975. It changed its policy in 1978. Now your religion is saying it’s okay to discriminate against homosexuals. You are welcome to stand up for your beliefs. But I also have the right to call your beliefs and “hateful” and to believe that you are standing up for something that is not only offensive, but absolutely immoral.
You asked is marriage, “a God-given right to be married as a heterosexual”? Do you know what marriage is? Do you know who sanctions it? Here’s the kicker, Jeremy: You can’t get married just by the LDS religion. The secular state sanctions marriage. You can’t just show up to a Mormon temple and say, “I want to get married.” You have to first get a marriage license from the state. That same state issues marriage licenses to we atheists, too. Marriage is not a “god-given right.” Marriage is a state-given right. Religious groups are trying to turn it into a god-given right to discriminate against homosexuals. No one is saying Mormons will have to marry homosexuals in their temples. We’re simply saying, stop discriminating against them. We’re not making you do anything. Nothing. Mormons would literally have to change zero practices.
You said, “Homosexual sex is misusing the procreative powers we have within us simply for pleasure, isn’t it?” Jeremy, have you ever had sex just for fun? Or do you try to get your partner pregnant every time? By your own logic, if you ever have had sex for pleasure, you sinned a sin as grievous as homosexual sex. Are you a sinner, Jeremy?
You said, “God set up the rules”. Really? Which god? Apollo? Zeus? Allah? Elohim? Jehovah? Shiva? The nature gods of Shinto? The deceased ancestors of Buddhism? I’d like to know how you can prove that it was YOUR god that set up YOUR rules, because there are 1 billion Muslims on this planet who would say it was their god who set up the rules. There are also nearly 1 billion Hindus who would say it was there god who set up the rules. Jeremy, please, prove them wrong.
July 19th, 2008 at 8:25 am
The very reason we want to define marriage as between a man and a woman is BECAUSE it’s trying to be changed by society. Society tries to change God’s law in regards to marriage. Polygamy was never meant to be practiced by all Mormons, nor was it simply for sexual gratification. The church practiced it, in a limited way because they were commanded to. Many of them didn’t enjoy it either. Now, until God re-defines what marriage is by revelation to his current prophet,(like he did with polygamy) Mormons must hold firm to our belief that homosexual marriage is not how God intended it to be. This, though is why it’s hard for people who don’t believe in God to argue with people who do and vise-versa. If I don’t believe Idaho is a state and you do, then you can tell me all about Idaho and how great it is and want me to visit, etc but your comments really mean nothing to me because I don’t believe Idaho exists and will never visit. Now I understand that analogy sucked, but hey, it’s not even 7:30 am on a Saturday, so give a break… Mormons are saying that homosexuality is a temptation that is clearly hard to overcome, but if this law as defined by God is not followed, one will not be unhappy in this life and afterwards. But homosexuals who do not believe in God or an afterlife can simply dismiss these comments as being hateful, and discriminatory, and have no use other than proving to them that the Mormon religion is as Ryan puts it a “horrible, horrible religion.”
July 19th, 2008 at 9:29 am
That last anonymous post was from me. First I believe that God has always set up his laws governing marriage. If God’s rules include polygamy is that not ok? Now I don’t really understand why african american’s were not given the priesthood for such a long time, but I know that in some way it wasn’t his will for african americans to hold the priesthood until 1978. Call that hatred and discrimination all you want, but how do you prove to me that that wasn’t God’s will, and for some higher purpose that we are unaware of as God’s children. Just like I can’t exactly prove to you, other than by the holy ghost, that it WASN’T God’s will for african-americans to hold the priesthood until 1978 you can’t prove to me that it WAS God’s will, can you? How can you prove there wasn’t a higher purpose? Now until God says it’s ok according to HIS rules to practice homosexuality, then I cannot change my belief. As to your claim about me proving your point, I honestly had typed re-define first but when I read that it didn’t sound right. Guess I should have left my original word and rolled with that. First off, I do believe God has set up his laws concerning marriage, and I do belive that God has the right to change his views for the betterment of his people. Society tries to redifine marriage all the time, but have never changed God’s stance on it. The point is the only way to know what is good for our society is to have someone with divine authority or all knowledge on earth help us understand. Wouldn’t we all want to know if someone could help us be happy in life. If we were positive that God was there and that he knew what was best for us, then we’d follow God, even if he changed how we do things a million times, wouldn’t we? Just like if I was positive, like you are, that atheism would lead me to as much happiness as possible, I would want that happiness. We as Mormons honestly feel, according to Mormonism and our knowledge of assured blessings for living in accordance to Gospel princibles that it’s our duty to help others acheive happiness and eternal life with God. Why wouldn’t we want to help re-define God’s laws in order to help everyone acheive true hapiness. Going back to a different point about sexual attraction for a second. How do we know when a person identifies themselves sexualy. Are you saying that everyone is born either gay or straight? I personally believe that there is some sort of turning point in adolesance where we don’t necessarily DECIDE to be homosexual or heterosexual, but that sexual identity happens. And I also believe that our environment has a lot to do with how we define ourselves sexually. If anyone knows more on when our sexual attractions begin, I’d love to hear it. Because as it stands now, I don’t think we honestly know. And one more comment on your last post. I don’t feel like heterosexual intercourse is only for procreation. I never said that at all. It’s for pleasure too, but it CAN be used for procreation, and that’s the point. Homosexual sex can ONLY be used for pleasure, isn’t that right. As far as I know, it’s not possible for two people of the same gender to have their OWN kid unless it’s through either a surrogate mother or a male donor. So, God set up laws for sex saying first, Heterosexual sex is for procreation AND an expression of love. It’s pleasurable so we will procreate. If it wasn’t pleasurable do you think the earth’s population would continue? and God’s second law is that homosexual sex should not be practiced at all because it CANNOT be used for procreation. That’s the rules, and we, as a church are simply trying to reiterate what has already been defined. Society does have the right to sanction marriages, but that’s only because God ALLOWS this to happen. He is a God of order, and will allow civil authorites the right to marry under the rules/laws of the land. God, and we as a people can’t allow homosexual marriage because Gender is so important to procreation, and God he not change his laws unless he feels it will help the people as a whole.
July 19th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Unhappy=happy. Sorry.
July 19th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Let’s take these points one at a time…
(1) “Polygamy was never meant to be practiced by all Mormons.”
Where is your evidence? Read D&C 132. It says explicitly that anyone who doesn’t enter into that form of marriage will not achieve the highest level in the Celestial Kingdom. Just because less than 20% practiced it doesn’t mean it wasn’t mean for everyone.
I’d like to see the revelation that says it was supposed to be practiced “in a limited way.”
I’d also like to see your evidence for men not enjoying the practice of polygamy. Lots of women didn’t. Some men didn’t. But, “many of them.” I don’t believe you and you don’t offer evidence other than your belief. Evidence, Jeremy, evidence!
(2) “until God re-defines what marriage is by revelation to his current prophet, (like he did with polygamy) Mormons must hold firm to our belief that homosexual marriage is not how God intended it to be”
First, thank you for admitting that marriage was redefined. We are making headway. Second, again, allowing homosexuals to marry isn’t going to affect Mormons. Why don’t you understand that? How is a gay couple in San Francisco getting married going to affect Jeremy, in Utah? Please, before you answer anything else, answer that!!!!!
(3) “Mormons are saying that homosexuality is a temptation that is clearly hard to overcome, but if this law as defined by God is not followed, one will not be [happy] in this life and afterwards.”
Josh and I debated this above. Mormons are welcome to their opinion on this. But why do you have to legislate it? Why do you have to discriminate against homosexuals outside the religion? Mormons are welcome to kick homosexuals out of their religion, bar them from marrying in temples, and to say whatever they want about them - in their religion. But why, Jeremy, why do you have to make them second class citizens? What does that have to do with: (1) their salvation, and (2) Mormonism? You are not answering my questions. Please answer them.
(4) “First I believe that God has always set up his laws governing marriage”
You missed my earlier point. Which god? Zeus? Apollo? Bachus? I prefer Bachus’s laws governing marriage over Elohim’s or Jehovah’s! And how do you know your god’s will?
(5) “Now I don’t really understand why african american’s were not given the priesthood for such a long time, but I know that in some way it wasn’t his will for african americans to hold the priesthood until 1978. Call that hatred and discrimination all you want, but how do you prove to me that that wasn’t God’s will, and for some higher purpose that we are unaware of as God’s children.”
I can’t prove that it wasn’t god’s will. But you CANNOT prove that it was god’s will. That is precisely my point. You claim to KNOW god’s will, but you have no evidence for it. NONE. ZIP. ZERO. All you have is the word of a bunch of old guys in SLC.
Let me lay this out for you. I will accept as evidence of god’s will the following:
(1) A personal visitation from this god of yours to me, witnessed by 50 independent observers (not Mormons). During this visitation, this god must tell me what his/her/its will is so all can hear/see it.
(2) Similar proof of such a visitation to you, attested to by 50 non-Mormon, independent observers and fully documented by numerous recording devices.
I will not accept as evidence of god’s will the following:
(1) You claiming to know god’s will through personal prayer. That is not verifiable by anyone but you.
(2) You claiming to know god’s will by listening to someone else who received said will through personal prayer (e.g., a Mormon general authority).
Why won’t I accept that as god’s will? Because there are about 4,987,000,000 people who believe god has told them that Mormonism is not his church (and another 1 billion who have rejected all religions). You see, Jeremy, lots of people claim to know god’s will. I have a good friend who told me when we first met that he had prayed and asked god if Mormonism was evil. God said yes. I was a Mormon at the time. How could I convince him he was wrong? How could he convince me he was right? He can’t and I couldn’t. Unless you can provide evidence for god’s will as outlined above, your assertion that you know “god’s will” is about as valid to me as you claiming to travel through time. Proof, Jeremy. Without it, you are blowing hot air! YOU DO NOT KNOW GOD’S WILL ANYMORE THAN I DO! I will give you $1,000 if you can prove me wrong.
(6) “I do belive that God has the right to change his views for the betterment of his people”
Jeremy, this belief is not shared by your religion. See the discussion above about changing doctrine. Doctrine cannot change. You do not understand what your religion teaches!
(7) “Society tries to redifine marriage all the time, but have never changed God’s stance on it.”
You are not being consistent. In point 2 above you said god did change his stance on it.
(8) “The point is the only way to know what is good for our society is to have someone with divine authority or all knowledge on earth help us understand.”
Jeremy, where is your evidence? You are making a fact assertion, but you have no evidence to support that assertion. I don’t believe we need god to tell us how to run our societies here on earth. Science and philosophy are more than sufficient.
(9) “If we were positive that God was there and that he knew what was best for us, then we’d follow God, even if he changed how we do things a million times, wouldn’t we?”
No. I would not follow a “god” that changed his opinion all the time. Such a god would be capricious and annoying. I’d tell that “god” that I don’t think he/she/it is a god and would tell it where to go. What’s the point of adhering to the teachings of a being that changes its teachings all the time? A capricious god is no god at all!
(10) “Why wouldn’t we want to help re-define God’s laws in order to help everyone acheive true hapiness.”
This sentence is completely incoherent to me. It seems to be saying that Mormons should redefine god’s laws, which is completely contradictory to everything you’ve said up to this point.
(11) “If anyone knows more on when our sexual attractions begin, I’d love to hear it. Because as it stands now, I don’t think we honestly know.”
I worked through this with Josh. Millions of homosexuals say they always knew. Are you going to disagree with them? When did you “know” you were heterosexual? Did you “decide” one day? Why do you think it’s any different for homosexuals? Go find a homosexual and ask them, Jeremy. Ask them. Talk to them. Get to know them.
(12) “Homosexual sex can ONLY be used for pleasure, isn’t that right.”
So, a heterosexual couple that cannot have children through no fault of their own that continues to have sex for pleasure is ‘just as bad’ as a homosexual couple? Wow! Now that is hateful. What about a heterosexual couple that can have kids but chooses not to? Are they equally as bad? Your logic is inconsistent, Jeremy.
(13) “It’s pleasurable so we will procreate.”
a.k.a. evolution (’nough said)
(14) “God’s second law is that homosexual sex should not be practiced at all because it CANNOT be used for procreation.”
Where is that written down as god’s law? How do you know this? Are you drawing on the Bible, like Josh tried? ‘Cause I already showed doing so would be selectively drawing on the Bible, which Josh considered being a bad Christian.
(15) “God, and we as a people can’t allow homosexual marriage because Gender is so important to procreation,”
Okay, we finally get to your argument for why homosexual marriage can’t be allowed. And, as it turns out, it is exactly in line with my original theory of why Mormons are so afraid of this: Mormon men like their power. If you start intimating that Mormon women can do as much as men can (that is, gender is not important for running the church), Mormon men lose their power. Homosexual marriage messes up gender traditionalism, and that is a threat to male patriarchy. Thank you, Jeremy, for providing support for my theory.
July 19th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Ryan,
I’d rather not join the body of this discussion for personal reasons. (I’d much rather continue our discussion of semantics on Facebook!) But I do have one concern with your last comment. I would hope you meant &