Prop 8 Thread

Steven Barringer Steven Barringer I was shocked to read recently on the blog of an LDS person that a Mormon can't oppose Proposition 8 (or other anti-same sex marriage laws) AND be in good standing. Funny, if it weren't so self righteous. And judgmental (and therefore a sin). And wrong. I am just as MO as you are, and I (and many others) disagree. It is wrong to seek to enact Mormon rules into state and federal law. November 3 at 12:44am · Comment · Like / Unlike 3 people like this.
Todd Lillywhite Steve, You and I are on opposite ends of several political issues. That bothers me a little because I expect at some point we will be more united in heart and mind. As I understand it the Prophet asked us to support the efforts in favor of Prop 8. I can allow for someone to privately and quietly struggle with that. But, open vocal disagreement/conflict with that request would put me in a very uncomfortable place. November 3 at 9:39am ·
Wanda Weddington Setzer If you can't oppose anti-same sex laws, then you must support anti-same sex laws, which means you oppose same sex laws? I'm having trouble with semantics and I've had all the coffee I need for today. I'm not worried about which way you think, I'm just trying to figure out which way that is. Do you still abstain from caffeine? Give me a few more years and I'll be with you. November 3 at 10:51am
Gail Keener Croom Tell em...........Steven......love you and miss you....... November 3 at 2:54pm
Steven Barringer Todd: why should it bother you that we disagree about politics? There is nothing fundamental about the doctrines of the Church that dictates our views on political issues. The Church takes great pains to be politically neutral, not only for the obvious reasons (tax-exemptions), but because there is nothing inherently liberal or conservative about Mormon doctrine. If anything, it is the real and enduring values of Christianity that should create a working atmostphere of fellowship and good will between us, and from there should facilitate our efforts to understand one another on the political issues about which we disagree. The Church leadership wrote California Mormons and asked them to support Proposition 8, and noted that the Church's doctrines on marriage are unequivocal. No Church leader has ever written to me, or to my ward or stake leaders, on this subject. No such leader has ever asked me to do anything about same-sex marriage generally or Proposition 8 specifically. I realize that might happen in the future.... Read more... Read More When and if it does, I have to face several important questions: (1) I have to explore whether I agree? I have always been taught that Church leaders have access to divine inspiration, and so I take seriously anything they say. However, it's another question whether ultimately I agree with it. Whether I agree depends on my exercise of my own free agency, the most precious legacy I have from God. Just doing it, or believing it, because one or more General Authorities said so, is an abdication of that free agency. (2) Am I required to agree? The answer to this question is pretty clear, in my opinion. I am clearly expected to keep the commandments. But this kind of direction from Church leaders is not a commandment. Nothing about Church doctrine or practice requires me to comply with it, or agree with it. I accept as an endowed Member of the Church that the Church has jurisdiction over my actions; it has however no jurisdiction whatsoever over my thoughts, and none over my expressed opinions unless they cross certain clear lines. (3) Is my disagreement with the Church's position about the doctrine of marriage, or about the Church's involvement in the governmental regulation of marriage arrangements in the United States? This is by far the hardest question for me to answer. This question torments me because of a dear close friend who suffered enormously while he sorted through this issue. I am no scientist, and my experiences with gay friends do not constitute a statistically significant sample upon which any conclusions can be based. But I know and have known many gay Mormons (and non-Mormons), some now deceased. Whatever is the basis of same-sex attraction (nature, nurture or both), I know in my heart and mind, from living with mission companions and other friends, that feeling same gender attraction is not a choice. Nobody asks to be presented with this kind of heart-wrenching life choice. Knowing that with absolute certainty, I then wonder if we know, and if Church leaders have received, all available truth on this matter? I doubt it. Clearly, the views of Church leaders have evolved dramatically since President Kimball disparaging described homosexuality (presumably not just the behavior but also the feelings) as an evil scourge. Church leaders no longer counsel men with same sex attraction to submit to "aversion therapy" or to get married as a solution, though these were common solutions as recently as 20 years ago. Equally clearly, church leaders are not entirely agreed in their public statements (or their private deliberations) on the nature of same sex attraction. Are some inspired, and others not? If Elder X says that same-gender attraction may be genetically influenced, but Elder Y says that gay DNA is a Satan-inspired fiction, which statement must I accept as inspired? The answer is neither, and fortunately I don't need an answer right now. I reserve my judgment on this matter, and have the luxury of thinking, praying, and continuing to listen while leaders seek inspiration for the purposes of ministering to people who struggle with these issues. In contrast, I am very clear on the government issue. This was a decision of strategy by Church leaders. I claim no particular insight into how the Church made the decision to rally California Mormons, but I do know that it was long debated, and that there is still not complete consensus among general authorities on doing this, or doing it in the future. I feel that it's a mistake for the Church to use its power to attempt to influence the outcome of state and federal legislative efforts to address this issue. I understand that the Church has every right to do so, but I disagree with the Church doing it. I think it's a terrible idea. There are many people who will never accept and listen to Mormon missionaries, no matter what the Church does or doesn't do. But there are also a huge number of people -- middle of the road people, some of whom probably oppose same sex marriage -- who close their minds to what the Church has to offer because of the role the Church has taken (one great family of investigators in my ward right now; this is their biggest hangup about the Church). Organized church power in politics makes Americans very nervous, and with good reason. I don't want to be told that I have to pray like a Baptist, or that I have to accept the application of Sharia law in areas of the country where Muslims are becoming significant minorities, and may someday achieve majority. Similarly, I don't think most people want to be told that the laws of California, of any other state, or of the nation, have to be consistent with Mormon religious precepts because Mormons mobilized and voted that way. That's why so many of the "allies" in California on Proposition 8 will never vote for Mitt Romney, or any other Mormon, for President. It's one thing if a majority of Californians votes for Proposition 8; it's another thing if that effort is perceived to have been (or was in fact) financed and orchestrated by the Mormon Church. We have nothing to gain, and much to lose. We can maintain our doctrines and the strongly held beliefs of our members without attempting in organized fashion to impose these as the law of the land. I've gone further than necessary to provide a civil and thoughtful response to your post. But I feel strongly about this, as I know you do. I don't expect or desire that you change your mind to agree with me. However, I do enjoy saying (and say so again), that I can and do disagree with you, and yet I claim access to and blessings from the same religious entitlements and institutions you do. Some day, we may indeed learn about this issue that you are right, and I am wrong. It may be proved that I've reached the wrong conclusions (about the government issue/I've reached none about the more basic issues). But I don't think a just God will punish me for agonizing about it, as I have, or for my principled disagreement with other Mormons on this subject. That's democracy, and I do believe democracy is inspired, and that we can engage in it within the Church too. It's OK if we disagree, and OK to be a dissenter; in fact, we should fear the day that no Mormon feels free to do so. That, in my opinion, is how we can both be active practitioners in the same religious tradition while having little in common as politics goes. November 3 at 4:16pm
Todd Lillywhite Wow, give me a minute (day maybe) to digest this. :) November 3 at 4:24pm ·
Robbi Stamey Grayson Steve I am an Episcopalian, and we stand on a three legged stool. The faith of reason, that first being the love of God and Christ and the holy spirit and reason as it relates to the Bible, love of our fellow man, and faith in God and Christ. I honor love and I practice forgiveness. Is your faith any differnet? If not why should we be left or right... Read More politically? We have got to come together. I do love you, my Mormon friend. I never saw you as Mormon or my other friends as Christian or Jewish.. Isn't it about love and what God wants for us as a world, not a nation? November 3 at 5:39pm
Carolyn Malquist As someone who lived in California duirng the Prop. 8 election, most people I know had to do some real soul searching before making the choice to support Prop. 8 or not. For some it came down to a belief in supporting the prophet, but for other, they felt that they could not agree with the church on this issue. Whatever the choice, my ... Read Moreunderstanding is that the letter sent from the church specifically stated that this issue was NOT to have anything to do with a person's standing in the church. In my ward there were a number of people that were major supporters of both sides and all of them are still coming to church. As to what will happen in the future... November 3 at 7:59pm
Steven Barringer One of my favorite things about Facebook: provoking a discussion about important things, and enjoying the ensuing back and forth among friends that is powered by intellect and kept within bounds by good will. Robbi: I love the Episcopal Church, and if I didn't have a grounding in my own religious tradition, I would be drawn to your Church. It ... Read Moreseems the rarest of things to me: an old institution that manages in many ways to embrace change rather than to resist it. Most organizations are by their nature conservative and resistant to change, especially as they get older. I think American governments, state and federal, have to be vigilant about remaining independent from the influence of any religion: mine, yours, or anybody else's. Strangely, my experience with my fellow Mormons, especially those that grew up in Utah or elsewhere in the West where they are a majority, is that they don't appreciate the importance of this separation of Church from State. As you know, I grew up in North Carolina, where I was always the only Mormon in my grade. Even after the Supreme Court ruled that prayer in schools violated the Constitution, I was required to attend Bible classes and say or participate in prayers presided over by (mostly) Baptist, Lutheran or Presbyterian Bible teachers. They were nice people, but some of them think that Mormons are devil worshipers, or that we aren't Christians, or any number of other canards. Why should I be forced to sit in a public school and be taught about somebody else's religion by people who disparage my own? That's why I oppose my own Church's occasional forays into politics. It should stay away from endorsing candidates, choosing sides in political disputes, etc. Usually it does, focusing instead on encouraging members to be active in politics, to vote, and to seek to elect good leaders. November 4 at 2:20pm
Steven Barringer Carolyn: Nice to see you pop up in my pot-stirring on Facebook. I note (with approval) that you didn't say how you came out on Proposition 8. Good for you. I don't really care; I'm more interested in your report about how good people in your ward ended up on both sides. That's the Church I recognize; not one that dictates to its members how to participate in the political system. November 4 at 2:22pm
Steven Barringer Wanda: you've confused me with some other Mormon you met, or maybe with a fictional Mormon. I always drank caffeine, just not coffee or tea. Coca-Cola ran from the faucets in my house growing up. It's a myth that Mormons can't drink Coke (although many Mormons themselves believe the myth). November 4 at 2:25pm
Todd Lillywhite ... day or two or three later: Thank you for your thoughtful treatment of this issue. It is clear that you have approached this with deliberation and respect. I think it is possible that we differ more not on our views of the Church's role in politics but on the role of politics in the world. Since you are much more involved in the political world than I am, you may have a more pragmatic view of its scope and purpose. I am somewhat of a true believer. I see politics as needing to work within a framework of absolute rights and wrongs, not just expediency. This view, while it allows me to accept the occasional foray by the Church into the political arena, may really be not very practical. My being distant from WA DC and things political may make it harder for me to see the greyness of issues.... Read More I can understand your torment over the issue of whether or not the Church should insinuate itself into this debate. This is your most conciliatory point. I don't think a just God will punish you for agonizing about this. You may well be right that the Church should not interfere in this issue in such an official manner. Especially, if one only considers temporal consequences, it is pretty easy to accept that the Church's present track may be the wrong one to follow. As far as the Establishment clause is concerned, I don't see that as a problem. But, I'm not a Supreme Court Justice. Our path as a nation over the years has taken us from a fairly religious society to a quasi-aggressive secularism. I don't like the direction that arrow is pointing. There is nothing wrong with, in fact I would expect a person's religion to inform, inspire, empassion their political views and debate. It is possible that at some point in the future the Church leadership will decide to abandon fighting this battle outside the Church membership and retrench within the Church, a sort of isolationist approach to the world. If such occurs I don't imagine I will have much difficulty accepting that decision. But, since one of our mandates is to spread the Gospel, the Church may never take that step. I don't really see our stand on this issue as damaging to our missionary efforts. It just makes our message cut with a finer edge. I also don't know what the answer is to the cause of homosexuality. There are many answers, among them nature, nurture, abuse, early sexualization, environment (biological and physical/social), promiscuity, pornography, choice and just plain old imperfect nature to name a few. A lot of those factors help me to be less than who I should be as well. I do think it is wrong for people to take one of their many identifying traits and make it their only or most prominent identifying trait. For now I see this struggle as pitting homosexuality against the family. On the one hand we have an absolute and moral sin and on the other a God-given eternal and society benefiting institution. In the quest for societal relevance the gay movement seeks to marginalize religion and family. That is wrong. Lastly, on the topic of Agency, allow me to share with you something I have observed. I have thought a lot about this topic, especially as it relates to establishing or upholding laws that have huge moral implications. I may be mildly guilty of adapting my model to fit a desired conclusion. Nonetheless, I think there is something valuable to learn from the observation. Whenever, we discuss Agency we focus on choice and coercion. While these may be valid points to consider, I think just as equally valid are the principles of absolute right and wrong and affixing a fitting punishment to laws and allowing the natural consequences to follow the violation of laws. This last one is possibly the most overlooked aspect of the concept of Agency. Choice: each of us is born into a different situation or environment. I have many more opportunities than someone born in Upper Volta. None of us is/was guaranteed the full smorgasbord of choices. Coercion doesn't matter to the coerced, only to the coercer. The coerced won't be hurt or benefited for being coerced. Establishing laws around God's moral absolutes, enforcing those laws, applying punishment for their infraction, is exactly how God works in shaping our behavior. Lately, Satan has worked studiously in the camp of denying or removing accountability and consequences. His big lie is that we will not be punished (ye shall not surely die). What he really means is that it will appear to you that you will get away with sin for the time being. This was Cain's great secret and discovery (I am master Mahan). Not only does he teach that we can avoid or delay the consequences of our actions. But, he teaches that we can actually get ahead and prosper by sinning. However, there will always be the eternal consequences. He thwarts the plan of Agency better when we don't get punished because not only have we made one bad choice but we will think it doesn't matter if we make another. If we do anything right in this conflict it is that we don't allow people to believe there are no consequences to their sins. November 6 at 9:28am ·
Steven Barringer Todd: I really appreciate this response. I found it inspiring, and need to read it over several more times before I respond in detail. But I want you to know how much I enjoyed it. I do see politics somewhat differently; I am not sure why. In a democracy, politics is by its nature the business of compromise, and therefore it leaves a lot of ... Read Morepeople unsatisfied with the results. It recalls that old cliche that politics is like sausage: you don't want to know what went into it. Based on my limited experience, I think this is really more true than not. But I think we have to see and appreciate our political tradition in the context from which it emerged. Not too far in the past, the colossal conflicts we work through in our political system were resolved through murder and civil war. The genius of our system (in my opinion) is the division of power into three, and then the further division and delegation of that power to elected and appointed representatives. Abuse of power is inevitable, in my opinion, but our system places some limit on the damage that can be done. Though this may sound like pragmatism, for me it represents a new kind of idealism that I have about our government and its strengths. Thanks for checking in and adding your comments; I really appreciate it. To do them justice, I'm going to read and think, and get back to you (possibly in chapters), as you did with me. Sat at 1:01am
Steven Barringer Ron: Sat at 1:05am
Todd Lillywhite Yes, back when I studied it, I learned that Political Science is really the moderation between the real and the ideal. We all mostly want the same things. We don't all agree on how to get there. Sat at 9:18am ·
Ron Payne Sorry for the misunderstanding Steve. I typed above; "Can you remain in good standing and oppose prop 8? I say yes but define good standing". what I was trying to say that I think you can oppose prop 8 and be a "member in good standing". Also wanted to understand what that definition is "of good standing is. If "member in good standing" ... Read Morepertains to the Temple worthiness questions, obviously Prop 8 is not a question pertaining. I was not trying to imply you prefer anything, just state what I prefer. I've known you a long time and respect you too much. Sat at 4:10pm
Nathan Kendig Todd--I appreciate much of what you posted, but I have a disagreement with your statement on coercion. I agree with you that those who have been coerced to behave neither benefit nor are hurt by their being coerced. But then you immediately follow by saying that this is how God works, he establishes laws, applies punishment, and shapes behavior... Read More. I think we are taught otherwise, and I think specifically in 2nd Nephi we learn that we are left to act for ourselves and not to be acted upon. To me, this means that our disobedience isn't always met with immediate punishment to prod us back onto the right track. Just as making correct decisions isn't immediately met with blessings poured down on us and the "all clear" to our problems. I wouldn't support laws that force people to act in accordance with Mormon rules. One must excercise agency in the decision to be obedient. In the case of Gay Marriage and Prop 8, I disagree that the law is an enactment of Mormon rules--I think it's entirely valid that a free people can define the norms in their society. Sun at 5:21pm
Todd Lillywhite Nathan, I think I could have been clearer. My point is that we don't understand "coercion." Establishing laws and enforcing them and carrying out punishment must not qualify as "coercion" or "force" because thats what God does to shape our behavior. The power to act for ourselves is influenced by just laws. But it isn't forced or removed because of laws. Yesterday at 12:09pm