Time For Same-Sex Lds Marriages--Sl Tribune

[Daniel2]

The following article was published in today's Salt Lake Tribune:

Time for same-sex LDS marriages

By Brad Carmack

First Published Apr 04 2012 01:01 am • Last Updated Apr 04 2012 01:01 am

"Hi, my name is Brad Carmack, calling on behalf of Protect Marriage Maine. Will you vote to maintain the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman?"

This was my phone pitch in October of 2009. Calling from Provo, I was a volunteer in the effort to persuade Maine voters to oppose same-sex marriage. The following month the Maine referendum prevailed by 53 percent to 47 percent. Victory!

Now it’s coming up on 2 1/2 years since my anti-same-sex marriage activism and I find myself on the opposite side of the fence. During my last year at Brigham Young University, I risked my diplomas (MPA and JD) by writing and openly distributing a book about same-sex marriage and homosexuality entitled Homosexuality: A Straight BYU Student’s Perspective.

As I wrote I discovered the science behind sexual orientation, the social arguments for and against same-sex marriage, and the heart-wrenching stories of gay Mormons. This experience, along with some soul-searching and prayer, eventually convinced me to support same-sex marriage.

Mormonism is unequivocally pro-family. So is same-sex marriage. This is the strongest reason Mormonism can abide gay marriage. To my surprise, I’ve learned that same-sex couples can and do make wonderful parents.

Homosexual orientation is about more than lust; it’s about companionship, emotional intimacy and romance. Just like heterosexual orientation. The gay couples I know experience the same troubles and joys as my opposite-sex friends. Same-sex couples (and their children) stand to gain from the mutual caretaking, community support, and stabilizing effects of marriage. Risky mixed-orientation marriages (such as a gay man and a straight woman) and lifelong celibacy threaten healthy marriage more than do monogamous same-sex partnerships.

I also discovered that there is room within LDS theology for embracing gay families. Yes, I know the church vigorously opposed same-sex marriage in Hawaii, Alaska and California. Yes, many cite the church’s "Family Proclamation" and the 2010 Church Handbook of Instructions as clear condemnation of all homosexual behavior. However, the church’s law of chastity has always been explicitly tied to legal marriage — in which case a monogamous, legally married LDS same-sex couple in Massachusetts is already abiding the law of chastity.

What about scripture? We have no record of Jesus condemning homosexuality during His ministry. The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are silent about same-sex relationships. As many scholars have persuasively argued, the five or so Bible verses frequently referenced do not condemn homosexual conduct per se.

The "Family Proclamation" is not doctrine (compare it to both Official Declarations, which were voted on by general church membership), and even if it were, it does not provide an applicable test for discerning one’s spiritual sex (witness intersex persons).

I believe this is the moral issue of my LDS generation. After all, it is my (mostly straight) generation that will become the parents of tomorrow’s gay and lesbian children. My peers and I are fiercely committed to building a world where a robust opportunity for a healthy marriage is not limited to our straight children.

I pray for the day when more Mormons come to see the value of same-sex relationships, and seek to match an institution to the reality of homosexual orientation that will yield the same personal and societal benefits that flow from matching heterosexual marriage to heterosexual orientation.

Jesus taught that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). Can we make a Sabbath marriage that is made for mankind — gay/lesbian mankind?

As Latter-day Saints, I for one believe that we can. And I hope that we will.

Brad Carmack is an attorney and lives in Phoenix, where he is an active member of the LDS Church.

I firmly believe that people from all religions should be free to dictate and advocate for their own beliefs, and support both Mormons' and non-Mormon's individual abilities to do so, whether attempting to persuade those of other Faiths or amongst their own memberships. While I do not agree with everything in his article, nor his religious convictions, I applaud Mr. Carmack's efforts to positively affect pro-gay attitudes in his own Faith.

Daniel2

Edited April 4, 2012 by Daniel2

[blueadept]

Fortunately, this is one issue that LDS and Catholic leadership agree upon. Neither will be performing a SSM within their churches regardless of what their members may wish or may not wish. LDS will further the desires of what a Temple marriage should be while the RCC will ensure the members try to live up to the desire of what a Sacramental marriage should be.

SSM cannot achieve either of those standards since it's not open to new life IMHO.

[Bob Crockett]

I'd say that arguing that the Bible does not condemn sex outside of marriage and specifically homosexual behavior is one of the most disingenuous arguments of the modern era but what do I know.

[Sky]

I worry that Brother Carmack and others who share his viewpoint will be waiting and waiting and waiting in vain for this to happen. If it ever does happen, suddenly the Church would have a new problem on its hands. The question that would arise is that if homosexual acts were considered sinful before, why would God suddenly change His mind in 2028 (hypothetical)?

[guitarist]

I would find it pretty difficult to explain away Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, & Romans 1:26-27...

[Daniel2]

Fortunately, this is one issue that LDS and Catholic leadership agree upon. Neither will be performing a SSM within their churches regardless of what their members may wish or may not wish.

I firmly believe that no government body should coerce any religion or clergy member to perform marriage ceremonies against their principles.

Thankfully, even in states where same-sex marriage is legal, safeguards exist to protect religions and clergy from doing so.

Daniel2

Edited April 4, 2012 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

I would find it pretty difficult to explain away Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, & Romans 1:26-27...

There is LDS precident that could allow a means/explanation to overcome such passages. According to Joseph Smith:

"That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.”

“God said, “Thou shalt not kill;” at another time He said “Thou shalt utterly destroy.” This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation.”...

“This principle will justly apply to all of God’s dealings with His children. Everything that God gives us is lawful and right; and it is proper that we should enjoy His gifts and blessings whenever and wherever He is disposed to bestow; but if we should seize upon those same blessings and enjoyments without law, without revelation, without commandment, those blessings and enjoyments would prove cursings and vexations in the end, and we should have to lie down in sorrow and wailings of everlasting regret. But in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed; and as God has designed our happiness—and the happiness of all His creatures, he never has—He never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances. Blessings offered, but rejected, are no longer blessings, but become like the talent hid in the earth by the wicked and slothful servant; the proffered good returns to the giver; the blessing is bestowed on those who will receive and occupy; for unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly, but unto him that hath not or will not receive, shall be taken away that which he hath, or might have had.”

Some see Elder Bruce R. McConkie's words as providing an example of such a potential reversal:

I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.

It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year, 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles.

Obviously, the Brethren have had a great anxiety and concern about this problem for a long period of time, and President Spencer W. Kimball has been exercised and has sought the Lord in faith. When we seek the Lord on a matter, with sufficient faith and devotion, he gives us an answer. You will recall that the Book of Mormon teaches that if the Apostles in Jerusalem had asked the Lord, he would have told them about the Nephites. But they didn’t ask, and they didn’t manifest that faith; and they didn’t get an answer. One underlying reason for what happened to us is that the Brethren asked in faith; they petitioned and desired and wanted an answer—President Kimball in particular. And the other underlying principle is that in the eternal providences of the Lord, the time had come for extending the gospel to a race and a culture to whom it had previously been denied, at least as far as all of its blessings are concerned. So it was a matter of faith and righteousness and seeking on the one hand, and it was a matter of the divine timetable on the other hand. The time had arrived when the gospel, with all its blessings and obligations, should go to the Negro.

Daniel2

Edited April 4, 2012 by Daniel2

[Pahoran]

The following article was published in today's Salt Lake Tribune:

I firmly believe that people from all religions should be free to dictate and advocate for their own beliefs,

So do I.

The question then becomes: at what point does an advocate's beliefs become irreconcilable with those of the faith community in which he claims membership? When (if ever, for some) does or should allegiance trump personal opinion?

And where is the line between advocacy and apostasy?

These are questions Mr Carmack might want to consider.

and support both Mormons' and non-Mormon's individual abilities to do so, whether attempting to persuade those of other Faiths or amongst their own memberships. While I do not agree with everything in his article, nor his religious convictions, I applaud Mr. Carmack's efforts to positively affect pro-gay attitudes in his own Faith.

On the other hand, many if not most believing Latter-day Saints do not applaud Mr Carmack's efforts to advocate for immoral attitudes in the Church.

He commits a rather classic lawyer's error. The Church has found that a legally recognised marriage is a useful and easily recognised line of demarcation between acceptable and unacceptable sexual behaviour. He assumes that if a secular government chooses to shift the line, then the moral principle follows suit. This is astonishingly poor thinking. What was immoral before the "same sex marriage" jihad started up will remain immoral even after its "inevitable" triumph. The important negative consequence that will then ensue is that the clear, publicly recognised demarcation line will no longer be of use to those wanting to conform their actions to correct moral principles.

As moral relativism increases, "same sex marriage" will become legal (i.e. recognised by human laws established by vote-hunting politicians) in more places. I do not believe that it will ever, anywhere, become lawful, i.e. in conformity with the laws of God.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Analytics]

In about 80 years, the LDS Prophet will be somebody who is now a teenager. Most of the apostles will be younger than him. For the vast majority of the people in Western Civilization, this will be an issue that was settled decades earlier: the ideals of marriage will be about intangibles like love and committment--it will be considered illogocial and vulgar to think that the plumbing of the spouses has anything to do with it.

Certainly the Church can and will do whatever it wants, but the meaning of traditional family values will continue to evolve. If the church can change its stance on polygamy and blacks, it can certainly change its position on this.

[guitarist]

Daniel, the precedents you mention aren't really apples to apples. The first was God justifying exceptions to the rule, not changing the rule itself. The second in reference to blacks holding the priesthood, there are several quotes from BY (also floating around on this board) showing that he specifically knew that to be a temporary law that would be undone at some point in the future. There has been no indication of such in the matter of homosexual relationships, and since they DO go against nature (number of children conceived by homosexual couples in the history of the world to date has been zero), I don't see this changing.

Edited April 4, 2012 by guitarist

[Pahoran]

In about 80 years, the LDS Prophet will be somebody who is now a teenager. Most of the apostles will be younger than him.

But he wouldn't be much of an adult if his attitudes were nothing but those he had formed in his high school years though, would he?

For the vast majority of the people in Western Civilization, this will be an issue that was settled decades earlier: the ideals of marriage will be about intangibles like love and committment--it will be considered illogocial and vulgar to think that the plumbing of the spouses has anything to do with it.

While to the Latter-day Saints it will be "illogocial [or perhaps illogical] and vulgar" to reduce the sacred physical relationships within marriage to a mere matter of "plumbing."

Certainly the Church can and will do whatever it wants, but the meaning of traditional family values will continue to evolve.

If by "evolve" you simply mean "change," you are probably right. If, however, you load that word with meliorist assumptions, then you are probably wrong. The "evolution" of "traditional family values" under the influence of Hollywierd will be a continued subsidence into a morass.

If the church can change its stance on polygamy and blacks, it can certainly change its position on this.

You are, of course, comparing apples and turnips.

Regards,

Pahoran

[blackstrap]

I'm curious, just how specific would the 5 or so Biblical verses have to be before they would be interpretted to mean that homosexual conduct was condemned?

[Analytics]

But he wouldn't be much of an adult if his attitudes were nothing but those he had formed in his high school years though, would he?

I don't know--I consider you adult even though you are clinging to the biases you formed in your high school years.

You are, of course, comparing apples and turnips.

It would be fascinating to go back into time and pose a survey to the membership and leadership of the church in the 1870's and 1880's:

Which is less likely, the church making plural marriage an excommunicatable offense, or the church consecrating same-sex marriages in the temple?

A: It is less likely that they’d make plural marriage an excommunicatable offense

B: They are equally unlikely

C: It is less likely that they’d consecrate same-sex marriage.

I'd guess that the vast majority of Latter-day Saints of the 1880's would have answered either A or B. If that's the case, the analogy is apples to apples.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Analytics

[Mark Beesley]

From the author's letter:

. . . a monogamous, legally married LDS same-sex couple in Massachusetts is already abiding the law of chastity.

There is no such thing as a married LDS same-sex couple.

The covenant to refrain from sexual activity unless one is legally and lawfully married speaks not only to man's law but also to God's law. God is not going to change HIs Law with regards to marriage. To do so would entirely frustrate the Plan of Happiness.

Sorry folks. Some things are unchangeable, even by God.

[Kenngo1969]

From the author's letter:

There is no such thing as a married LDS same-sex couple.

The covenant to refrain from sexual activity unless one is legally and lawfully married speaks not only to man's law but also to God's law. God is not going to change HIs Law with regards to marriage. To do so would entirely frustrate the Plan of Happiness.

Sorry folks. Some things are unchangeable, even by God.

1. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God;

2. Sex outside of marriage is wrong.

I find it interesting how same-sex marriage proponents in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints focus entirely on the second of those two propositions while completely ignoring the first.

P.S.: Small correction: Carmack's piece is an op-ed, not a letter to the editor.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Pahoran]

I don't know--I consider you adult even though you are clinging to the biases you formed in your high school years.

You assume. It's what you're best at, after all.

The reality is that I had no opinions about "same sex marriage" in my high school years.

It would be fascinating to go back into time and pose a survey to the membership and leadership of the church in the 1870's and 1880's:

Which is less likely, the church making plural marriage an excommunicatable offense, or the church consecrating same-sex marriages in the temple?

A: It is less likely that they’d make plural marriage an excommunicatable offense

B: They are equally unlikely

C: It is less likely that they’d consecrate same-sex marriage.

I'd guess that the vast majority of Latter-day Saints of the 1880's would have answered either A or B. If that's the case, the analogy is apples to apples.

Unfortunately for you, the answer to your hypothetical is beyond the competence of your pocket calculator. You'd need to know some actual history.

For example, did you know that people were excommunicated for entering into Plural Marriage in both Joseph's and Brigham's day?

Because they were.

Factor that knowledge into the equation. What answer to your hypothetical survey question becomes more likely?

Regards,

Pahoran

[TAO]

Analytics, not to be political or anything, but I think your prediction will be incorrect - people will still care about plumbing, especially in the church. I'm sure you have noticed that as the world drifts rapidly to what people call 'left', we slowly drift more 'right'. I guess you could say that many LDS are 'reactionary'... that is... the more people move away from us, the farther we must distance ourselves. If the world truly drifts towards not caring what the plumbing is, as you put it, I am pretty sure there will be even more emphasis in the church on what the plumbing is, rather than less.

Even with issues like the Priesthood Ban in the 1980s, you will notice things didn't change as people were activists. Things changed after the issue cooled down alot. So, to be honest, I think things will happen in the opposite way compared to how you predict: things will get stricter, as the world gets less strict. The more the world puts an emphasis on changing, the less malleable and fluid we will be.

Also... mods, I hope I didn't get too political with this post =p. If I did, I apologize greatly. Thanks =).

Edited April 4, 2012 by TAO

[Bob Crockett]

He commits a rather classic lawyer's error.

Way to dispose of an argument by reference to the guy's profession. Logic is logic, whether made by a lawyer or a college professor.

I could just as easily say: "This guy says crazy things, but he's anonymous, so what do you expect? Oh wait, I do say those things."

The Church has found that a legally recognised marriage is a useful and easily recognised line of demarcation between acceptable and unacceptable sexual behaviour.

I have never heard any such thing from the Church. Instead, the Church's position is that marriage is sanctified by God, whether in or out of the temple.

He assumes that if a secular government chooses to shift the line, then the moral principle follows suit.

And to this I completely agree, even though it states the obvious. Abortion is completely legal, but I've often heard people who participate in abortions admit that it is a highly immoral act.

In the case of same-sex marriage, I am of the personal view that government should get out of the marriage business and leave that to the churches. But, if government is in the marriage business, then same-sex marriage ought to be offered and people ought to have their choice to be immoral. But, because the priesthood has directed us in California to oppose same-sex marriage, I line up with the priesthood and say that my personal view is not the preferable one. Just like my personal view might have been to persecute Hispanic immigrants along with the rest of the Republlcan party (that is not really my view), I support the Church's particuar view.

But, if the Church does not direct its members to oppose same-sex marriage at the next iteration in California, then I say live and let live.

But, you are completely right in one regard. It is highly disingenuous to say that once same-sex marrage is legalized in a particular state, the Church must honor those marriages as moral. Same argument can be made for abortion.

To Daniel's point about ministers of the Gospel not being compelled to perform same-sex marriages, I can agree that such would be the case in the U.S., where the First Amendment protects religious practices. But the argument does not necessarily follow in countries that lack such protection. Case in point, although somewhat different, before the First Amendment was applied to the states, Mormon Elders were denied the right to perform marriages in Ohio, on account of the non-Christian nature of their religion.

[Scott Lloyd]

The thread title conveys a false impression. It makes it seem like the Salt Lake Tribune has put its editorial voice behind the notion of same-sex LDS marriages.

An op-ed column is merely an expression of one writer's opinion. It does not convey the editorial position of the newspaper.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Bob Crockett]

The thread title conveys a false impression. It makes it seem like the Salt Lake Tribune has put its editorial voice behind the notion of same-sex LDS marriages.

An op-ed column is merely an expression of one writer's opinion. It does not convey the editorial position of the newspaper.

It is a rare thing when a major op ed piece is offered in contravention of the paper's political philosphies. I take the LA Times. It is rare, but it happens, when some right winger's op-ed piece is published.

I also take the Wall Street Journal. I don't think I've ever seen a leftist op-ed piece, unless it is counterbalanced by a right-wing op-ed piece published at the same time.

Op-ed pieces are often employed by papers as stalking horses, to say what the paper's editors lack the courage to say.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

In about 80 years, the LDS Prophet will be somebody who is now a teenager. Most of the apostles will be younger than him. For the vast majority of the people in Western Civilization, this will be an issue that was settled decades earlier: the ideals of marriage will be about intangibles like love and committment--it will be considered illogocial and vulgar to think that the plumbing of the spouses has anything to do with it.

Certainly the Church can and will do whatever it wants, but the meaning of traditional family values will continue to evolve. If the church can change its stance on polygamy and blacks, it can certainly change its position on this.

This sort of prediction is not something that can't be worked out with a statistical formula. I sort of wish Roger and I would be around then so we could discuss how far off the mark his notion is in this case, but alas, we won't.

[Scott Lloyd]

It is a rare thing when a major op ed piece is offered in contravention of the paper's political philosphies. I take the LA Times. It is rare, but it happens, when some right winger's op-ed piece is published.

I also take the Wall Street Journal. I don't think I've ever seen a leftist op-ed piece, unless it is counterbalanced by a right-wing op-ed piece published at the same time.

Op-ed pieces are often employed by papers as stalking horses, to say what the paper's editors lack the courage to say.

How do you know what the Trib's philosophy is on this matter? They may very well be neutral, in which case this would not be such a huge contravention. I stand by my statement that the thread title is misleading.

And it is quite common for a metro daily to carry a variety of contrasting opinions without taking a position on any of them.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Pahoran]

Way to dispose of an argument by reference to the guy's profession. Logic is logic, whether made by a lawyer or a college professor.

I could just as easily say: "This guy says crazy things, but he's anonymous, so what do you expect? Oh wait, I do say those things."

Okay, to explain my remark: I'm not trying to dispose of his argument by referencing his profession. If I were, I might have said something like, "He's a lawyer so he's a shyster whose arguments are all tricky and whose opinions are for sale."

I was referring to a statement he made, thus:

However, the church’s law of chastity has always been explicitly tied to legal marriage — in which case a monogamous, legally married LDS same-sex couple in Massachusetts is already abiding the law of chastity.

I'm sure you agree that this argument is in error; two homosexuals living under colour of a corrupt law in a particular place are not thereby living the Law of Chastity. It would be utterly absurd to argue that what is wicked in Maine becomes righteous by crossing a state line. This kind of error requires a particular mindset in which whatever is legal must therefore be right.

And in my experience, that makes it a lawyer's error.

I'm glad to know that not all lawyers are subject to it.

And to this I completely agree, even though it states the obvious. Abortion is completely legal, but I've often heard people who participate in abortions admit that it is a highly immoral act.

Well it's obvious to you, and it's obvious to me, but it doesn't seem to be obvious to Mr Carmack.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Way to dispose of an argument by reference to the guy's profession. Logic is logic, whether made by a lawyer or a college professor.

A bit thin-skinned, aren't we? Pointing out a "classic lawyer's error" does not disparage an entire profession as a whole, any more than saying (quite correctly) that some journalists are guilty of slanted writing.

Let's try to stay on point in this discussion.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

The following article was published in today's Salt Lake Tribune:

I have as simplistic a response as the opinion posted:

same-sex couples can and do make wonderful parents. By what definition of parenting?

Homosexual orientation is about more than lust Orientation is not the problem. The human capacity for positive experience by anyone of any sexual orientation is not the problem.

Same-sex couples (and their children) stand to gain from the mutual caretaking, community support, and stabilizing effects of marriage. Besides the "by what definition of marriage" remark, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is far better; Zion’s values serve the needs of the married and the unmarried, the fatherless and the widows, etc.

a monogamous, legally married LDS same-sex couple in Massachusetts is already abiding the law of chastity. By what definition of chastity? Not by temple recommend standards.

Bible verses frequently referenced do not condemn homosexual conduct per se. Living prophets do.

The "Family Proclamation" is not doctrine / discerning one’s spiritual sex (witness intersex persons). Even without it, we have living prophets and temple recommend standards. One's spiritual sex/gender is not the problem.

After all, it is my (mostly straight) generation that will become the parents of tomorrow’s gay and lesbian children. This is typically how ALL children come into the world in ANY generation.

It seems that more than just “marriage” is being redefined here and that prophets and temples are not understood or accepted for what they are.