Behind The Movement For Ssm - Is Acceptance Inevitable?

[cinepro]

This month marks the four-year anniversary of California's Prop 8, the infamous law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Its passage, with strong support from LDS Church members, led to protests in front of the LA Temple, and a backlash against many LDS who had supported it.

Now, here we are four years later. Four states voted on SSM yesterday, Main, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington. Three of those states voted to allow same sex marriages, the jury is still out in Washington.

For anyone interested in how the gay community was able to bring about this change in attitudes, this article is interesting:

How Gay Marriage Finally Won at the Polls

So my question is this: are yesterday's results a temporary set back in the fight to defend traditional marriage, or has the dam broken leading to national (and eventually worldwide) acceptance of such unions?

And if Prop 8 was only putting off the inevitable, was it really a wise use of the Church members' time, money and PR? In other words, if we had known that we were only buying a few years of time against acceptance for SSM, would we have done anything different in 2008?

[Duncan]

I think that SSM will be legal but I have my doubts that homosexuality will ever be accepted in society

[Calm]

I think that SSM will be legal but I have my doubts that homosexuality will ever be accepted in society

Assuming SSM will become legal....which I think it will at least become a majority of states allowing it, if the homosexual community encourages less of the sexual behaviours being publicly promoted, losing the more sexual side of gay parades for example and insteads promotes an appearance that is pretty conforming to the norm overall,I can see homosexuality being accepted as well.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

[W]ith strong support from LDS Church members,

... and many, many others. It's easy to scapegoat "the Mormons", but we didn't act alone, unfortunately.

So my question is this: are yesterday's results a temporary set back in the fight to defend traditional marriage, or has the dam broken leading to national (and eventually worldwide) acceptance of such unions?

Personally, I hope the dam is broken, but it's too early to say.

And if Prop 8 was only putting off the inevitable, was it really a wise use of the Church members' time, money and PR?

No.

[rongo]

And if Prop 8 was only putting off the inevitable, was it really a wise use of the Church members' time, money and PR? In other words, if we had known that we were only buying a few years of time against acceptance for SSM, would we have done anything different in 2008?

In a meeting with area bishops and stake presidencies a few years ago with Elder Perry and Elder Halstrom (presidency of the seventy), this very question was raised in the Q&A. Here was the answer (composite of both Perry's and Halstrom's responses), from memory:

The FP and Q12 deal with things of significant importance. *Significant* . When these 15 are united on something, that is something that needs to be taken very seriously by Church members. The question is raised as to why the Church poured such resources into California (including asking members to give of their time and means, even leaving their comfort levels), but not Iowa or Massachussetts. Why not Denmark? Etc. Only a small part of the answer is that you have to pick your battles, and California was winnable while others were not. The actual answer is that the Lord told us to move at that time in that place, and we obeyed. We expect that we will likely ultimately lose on this issue in the Supreme Court, so why do anything at all? Because the Lord told us to at that time in that place. The effects of obeying the Lord are not always immediately evident, but one immediate effect was winning significant hearts and minds by acting as we did in that time and in that place. These benefits are incalculable, even if the eventual outcome is a "loss."

[Duncan]

In a meeting with area bishops and stake presidencies a few years ago with Elder Perry and Elder Halstrom (presidency of the seventy), this very question was raised in the Q&A. Here was the answer (composite of both Perry's and Halstrom's responses), from memory:

The FP and Q12 deal with things of significant importance. *Significant* . When these 15 are united on something, that is something that needs to be taken very seriously by Church members. The question is raised as to why the Church poured such resources into California (including asking members to give of their time and means, even leaving their comfort levels), but not Iowa or Massachussetts. Why not Denmark? Etc. Only a small part of the answer is that you have to pick your battles, and California was winnable while others were not. The actual answer is that the Lord told us to move at that time in that place, and we obeyed. We expect that we will likely ultimately lose on this issue in the Supreme Court, so why do anything at all? Because the Lord told us to at that time in that place. The effects of obeying the Lord are not always immediately evident, but one immediate effect was winning significant hearts and minds by acting as we did in that time and in that place. These benefits are incalculable, even if the eventual outcome is a "loss."

interesting, so God can tell someone to do something even with him knowing it won't work out. What about members who were shaken are left the Church because of this business? are they negligible?

[rongo]

Anyone who would leave the Church over the Church's stance and directions on Prop 8 is responsible for that, in my view ---- it's not "God's fault." I personally know liberal-leaning Church members in California for whom it was an Abrahamic sacrifice, but who humbled themselves, felt the Spirit, and ended up holding signs and being spat on. They describe this experience as among the most spiritual and testimony-strengthening of their lives, even though they still retain their liberal leanings and disagree intellectually with the Church's stance on gay marriage.

When Abrahamic tests come along, we find out who and what we really are, and what we are really made of.

[Duncan]

Anyone who would leave the Church over the Church's stance and directions on Prop 8 is responsible for that, in my view ---- it's not "God's fault." I personally know liberal-leaning Church members in California for whom it was an Abrahamic sacrifice, but who humbled themselves, felt the Spirit, and ended up holding signs and being spat on. They describe this experience as among the most spiritual and testimony-strengthening of their lives, even though they still retain their liberal leanings and disagree intellectually with the Church's stance on gay marriage.

When Abrahamic tests come along, we find out who and what we really are, and what we are really made of.

I agree with that!

[juliann]

And if Prop 8 was only putting off the inevitable, was it really a wise use of the Church members' time, money and PR? In other words, if we had known that we were only buying a few years of time against acceptance for SSM, would we have done anything different in 2008?

? Have you already forgotten that most never expected it to win in the first place? I do not know of anyone who was part of that that doesn't expect SSM to eventually become law.

Perhaps the ultimate benefit is to soften the harsh rhetoric I used to hear in church against those with SSA. The church has made remarkable progress in stifling that without backing down from their support of "traditional" marriage. Now if they can only do that with the really ugly political railing that too many church members of differing political persuasions engage in.

Edited November 7, 2012 by juliann

[CV75]

So my question is this: are yesterday's results a temporary set back in the fight to defend traditional marriage, or has the dam broken leading to national (and eventually worldwide) acceptance of such unions?

And if Prop 8 was only putting off the inevitable, was it really a wise use of the Church members' time, money and PR? In other words, if we had known that we were only buying a few years of time against acceptance for SSM, would we have done anything different in 2008?

Hard to say about the dam -- it may just be a slow trickle. I think economic conditions have a greater chance of getting out of control, and that breaking dam would lead to weakening attitudes against any previously held taboos. When I observe the "Millennials" I see a correllation between low wealth and higher reliance on technology and eroding morals to offset the failure to build wealth with immediate gratification in other areas.

If one of your dependents is dying of terminal cancer, is it a wise use of your income to continue paying insurance premiums and deductibles, if only for palliative care prior to his pending death? In the same way, delaying decay in society by spending money to assert moral agency against its ills will benefit a few more than just quitting.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The question is whether this was meant to be an Abrahamic sacrifice (which is a really disturbing unscriptural term, btw). Or what if it was meant to be an Abrahamic sacrifice for those who had long thought of marriage as only between man-and-woman, and we failed the test? We Mormons, who were literally run out of the United States in large part because of our unusual sexual practices, then turn around and do something like this. I am personally not interested in polygamy or homosexuality, but with non-gender-specific Sealing power, we could be marrying straights and gays and polyamorous folks left and right; D&C 132 is not really talking about the particular arrangement, it's talking about keeping covenants. If we're straight, we'll only be exalted if we keep our promises to our straight partners. Same could very well go for gay and polygamous folks. We could be one of the most progressive churches, but instead we try to cling to a conservative respectability we never had.

[Bikeemikey]

? Have you already forgotten that most never expected it to win in the first place? I do not know of anyone who was part of that that doesn't expect SSM to eventually become law.

Perhaps the ultimate benefit is to soften the harsh rhetoric I used to hear in church against those with SSA. The church has made remarkable progress in stifling that without backing down from their support of "traditional" marriage. Now if they can only do that with the really ugly political railing that too many church members of differing political persuasions engage in.

Everyone expected it to win... The polls showed that it would win for months. The shocking things was that is was as close as it was.

[rongo]

The question is whether this was meant to be an Abrahamic sacrifice (which is a really disturbing unscriptural term, btw).

But you know what was meant by it. Everybody knew immediately what was meant by it.

Or what if it was meant to be an Abrahamic sacrifice for those who had long thought of marriage as only between man-and-woman, and we failed the test?

That's where there is comfort in knowing we are "following the Brethren." That all 15 of them were completely united is a comfort to those who worry that we might have been the Pharisees . . .

but with non-gender-specific Sealing power, we could be marrying straights and gays and polyamorous folks left and right

We would have to drift f-a-r away from where we're at now as a Church (and Church leadership) for this to even qualify as a stretch. Proclamation on the Family? Etc.

[Bikeemikey]

If one of your dependents is dying of terminal cancer, is it a wise use of your income to continue paying insurance premiums and deductibles, if only for palliative care prior to his pending death? In the same way, delaying decay in society by spending money to assert moral agency against its ills will benefit a few more than just quitting.

The economics of this don't add up.

Also, if one of your kids is dying of cancer you are better off having paid higher taxes in a country with a better health care system and knowing that you won't have to worry about needing to work to pay insurance and deductibles and can instead spend the last important months with your dying child.

[Buckeye]

^{The dam has already broken. The elections will only get worse for those opposed to gay marriage and that is why the church has largely stopped playing offense. It had no part in the 4 ballot measures this election other than to have bishops remind members of the church's stance. The church is now playing defense. See, e.g, the recent conference addresses regarding the need to protect religious freedom. That is the fight now. And I don't really see that fight being lost (politically) during our lifetimes. One of the reasons yesterday's ballot initiatives did so well is that they expressly include a provision to protect the right of religious conscience.}

^{Was Prop 8 wise? As always, its a mixed bag. The upside is that we gained friendship with other christian groups. We also gained a good factual basis to assert that our religious doctrine is opposed to gay marriage - something that may be necessary to establish if the courts apply current law that allows for religious exceptions only where the claimed beliefs are sincere. On the downside are retention and the youth. The same demographic trends affecting the polls are affecting our youth and young adults. Prop 8 is one of the major reasons we are failing to retain the majority of our youth. What we teach simply does not match with their personal experience.}

Edited November 7, 2012 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

Anyone who would leave the Church over the Church's stance and directions on Prop 8 is responsible for that, in my view ---- it's not "God's fault." I personally know liberal-leaning Church members in California for whom it was an Abrahamic sacrifice, but who humbled themselves, felt the Spirit, and ended up holding signs and being spat on. They describe this experience as among the most spiritual and testimony-strengthening of their lives, even though they still retain their liberal leanings and disagree intellectually with the Church's stance on gay marriage.

When Abrahamic tests come along, we find out who and what we really are, and what we are really made of.

Interesting. I wonder how most members will survive the "abrahamic test" should the church find a doctrinal way to include homosexuality in the plan of salvation.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Knowing what was meant by an "Abrahamic Sacrifice" does not change my opinion of how awful a phrase it is. And just because 15 of the brethren are united doesn't mean the justification for Prop8 actions was capital-R Revelation and we can comfortably declare that All Is Well In Zion. Neither they nor the Proclamation on the Family were declared Revelation to be upheld by the Common Consent of the church.

"Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop, an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone;" (George Q. Cannon, Millennial Star 53:658-59, quoted in Gospel Truth, 1:319)

"I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied ... Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, 'If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,' this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord." (Brigham Young, JD 3:45)

"President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel [see, for example, verses 9-10: 'If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing ... the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him.'] ... said the Lord had declared by the Prophet [Ezekiel] that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption ... that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls -- applied it to the present state [1842] of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall -- that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves ..." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pp. 237-38)

[rpn]

Sometimes the reasons we think apply are not the reasons at all. Pres. Lincoln went to war to preserve the union. It was only years later that he wrote that both that the reasons both the north and the confederacy thought they were going to war wasn't really what God had in mind for the war. He felt God was telling him to end slavery, which he had never planned to do. He passed in a lame duck Congress (telling Congress that God wanted them to do it) without any slave state membership the 14th, which would never have happened after the war.

We don't really know what God had in mind. I do know there are people who were involved in Prop 8 who now understand in a way they never did what it means to submit their will to His. Members got some experience dealing with strong opposition ---- which either binds people together better, or picks them off (both results leading to strengthened congregations, and more members really thinking through the struggles of those who deal with ssa, and also their own prejudices). Mormons may have taken the most retaliation, but they also got a taste of the sanctification that comes through sacrifice.

So I'm not sure we can categorically state that IT wasn't worth it. Maybe our view of it, isn't God's view, and clearly the refiner's fire has purified the saints in some ways.

[Bikeemikey]

Interesting. I wonder how most members will survive the "abrahamic test" should the church find a doctrinal way to include homosexuality in the plan of salvation.

Enjoyed your post!!

[Calm]

interesting, so God can tell someone to do something even with him knowing it won't work out. What about members who were shaken are left the Church because of this business? are they negligible?

Many would look on the Crucifixion of Christ as his mission 'not working out', especially in the years immediately following his death. It is hard to understand all the consequences of actions, but especially difficult if what is being acted upon is as much attitude as behaviour. Think of all the debates about school integration and what the results of that are.

I have heard of many who became interested in our faith due to this action, though don't know if it eventually led to baptism, but definitely it opened doors for some to investigate the Church. And it increased from what I've seen the respect of many others.

While we are instructed not to create stumbling blocks for our neighbours and fellow saints, if the Church made their decisions purely on whether or not it would alienate some members, the leadership would become paralysed as there are always those who see the Church as doing too much or too little in almost every area. I've even seen complaints ( from very, very few thankfully) that the Church Welfare system was doing too much to help the poor as such actions only encouraged the poor to continue in poverty, insisting that all welfare should be tied to only those areas that promoted independence.

Edited November 7, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

The question is whether this was meant to be an Abrahamic sacrifice (which is a really disturbing unscriptural term, btw). Or what if it was meant to be an Abrahamic sacrifice for those who had long thought of marriage as only between man-and-woman, and we failed the test?

How would you reconcile rongo's comment that the 15 were in agreement that the Lord was the motivator behind the Church's actions, this action was not only what the Lord wanted, but apparently commanded (at least that is how I understood rongo's description)?

Add-on: this is rongo's paraphrase of the Elders' comments.

"The actual answer is that the Lord told us to move at that time in that place, and we obeyed.".

This may not be a revelation meant for the Church, but it does appear that the 15 believed they had received a revelation on what they were commanded to do.

Edited November 7, 2012 by calmoriah

[RobertAC]

In a meeting with area bishops and stake presidencies a few years ago with Elder Perry and Elder Halstrom (presidency of the seventy), this very question was raised in the Q&A. Here was the answer (composite of both Perry's and Halstrom's responses), from memory:

The FP and Q12 deal with things of significant importance. *Significant* . When these 15 are united on something, that is something that needs to be taken very seriously by Church members. The question is raised as to why the Church poured such resources into California (including asking members to give of their time and means, even leaving their comfort levels), but not Iowa or Massachussetts. Why not Denmark? Etc. Only a small part of the answer is that you have to pick your battles, and California was winnable while others were not. The actual answer is that the Lord told us to move at that time in that place, and we obeyed. We expect that we will likely ultimately lose on this issue in the Supreme Court, so why do anything at all? Because the Lord told us to at that time in that place. The effects of obeying the Lord are not always immediately evident, but one immediate effect was winning significant hearts and minds by acting as we did in that time and in that place. These benefits are incalculable, even if the eventual outcome is a "loss."

Very interesting outlook. I suppose this would be an example of "God working in mysterious ways."

I tend to agree with the other posters. It's only a matter of time when SSM is legally available throughout the country.

[CV75]

The economics of this don't add up.

...because it isn't really, fully, an economic decision.

Also, if one of your kids is dying of cancer you are better off having paid higher taxes in a country with a better health care system and knowing that you won't have to worry about needing to work to pay insurance and deductibles and can instead spend the last important months with your dying child.

a) You don't know that. I think the OP had to to with life in the US anyway. And not about letting a child die early because others are worrying and working to pay his medical bills for the parent.

b) The point is that we spend lots of time, money and reputation for moral purposes (because doing so isn't really, fully, an economic decision) -- is it better to spend these for immoral ends?

c) For example, Mormon kept leading the Nephite army though he knew how it would end. Nephi (and his successors) kept his record even though he saw the destruction of his posterity. These kinds of things benefit more people in the long run. For the same reason, spending money on a dying child makes sense.

Edited November 7, 2012 by CV75

[Buckeye]

How would you reconcile rongo's comment that the Lord was the motivator behind the Church's actions?

One way to reconcile this is to conclude that the Lord is not behind every church political position. Was the Lord behind the church's opposition to the repeal of prohibition? Evidently most members did not think so because they voted for repeal. Was the Lord behind the church's opposition to the ERA? Evidently the Public Affairs department does not think so because they said on June 20, 2012 that the ERA was "not based on a revelation".

Getting It Wrong

In addition to these stories that get it right, the following articles include inaccurate reporting about Church leaders weighing in on moral issues and how the Church balances faith and reason.

New York Times: Church leaders and moral issues

Neil J. Young, a Princeton professor, says the Church’s weighing in on the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1980s was “based on a revelation.” This is incorrect.

http://www.mormonnew...t-right-june-20

My me, this newsroom statement raises the question as to whether any church political view is based on revelation, though I do not doubt that church leaders are sincere in their attempts to do what is best.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Buckeye

[Calm]

One way to reconcile this is to conclude that the Lord is not behind every church political position.

This ignores rongo's paraphrase:

The actual answer is that the Lord told us to move at that time in that place, and we obeyed