Do We Still Believe The Lord Directs His Church?

[Calm]

One thing I don't know is what the Lord permits but would prefer otherwise and what is directed by him. I have this book by Elder Gerald Lund about divine signatures and it talks about how the Lord weaves his hand into various lives and things which is all fine and dandy. It leaves questions like what if God wants something but we are hard hearted or we don't think to ask and just do something without his approval. I have heard all kinds of stories about mission calls to places that are a perfect fit for people and yet other people they have had to have it changed. I know a guy that is from Pennsylvania and worked in Ogden, Utah for a year before his mission and then he went home to Penn. and guess where he got his mission call to, where most of his relatives live? Ogden, so he got it changed, I just wonder why does that happen when other things fit so well.

My inlaws requested to go to Australia (she was from there and he had gone on a mission there so they wanted to go home so to speak) and the mission president there requested it as well.  When they got their call it was to Guam.  Rather than just going, they decided to find out why.  Turns out it was because limitations were placed on missionaries that had medical conditions (my fil had a heart operation twice) and Guam was chosen because it was the closest to their request destination.  They simply made it clear they were medically covered and the calling got switched to Australia.

 

It is not a one size fits all process, imo, though there are usually procedures followed, inspiration and reality make for exceptions...perhaps to the point that the exceptions outweigh the ones that just result from the procedures that are result from input from mission presidents on how many missionaries they need.

[Palerider]

Possibly, or possibly that is just our culture talking to us, but what is clear it is not a law for all times and seasons.

 

Read the supposed Biblical support for this "principle" carefully. I can recall no instances where God is directing his people or individuals to take multiple wives. In some cases he is restricting them especially the kings as in Deuteronomy 17:17.

 

Only in Samuel when addressing David regarding his adultery, does he say, I anointed you king, I delivered you out of the hand of Saul, I gave you YOUR MASTER'S wives, etc. more as a rebuke and a reminder that He, God, permitted David to have these things which he (David) desired.

 

He didn't come to David through Nathan or some "angel" and say, " Look upon the women of Israel and take as many as you will, to build up your eternal kingdom, for this is my Holy Order.........

 

I'm tired of the Mormons beating this drum of all this great Biblical support for plural marriage that really doesn't exist. Did it happen? Yes. Was it permitted? Apparently.

 

Was it preferred and ordered by Heavenly Father? Absolutely no evidence of that.............

Edited December 22, 2013 by Palerider

[Robert F. Smith]

Palerider, on 20 Dec 2013 - 3:04 PM, said:

I think so, which also points out the ability God has for quickly correcting a situation of error, unlike waiting 100 some-odd years for someone to turn the light on over President Kimball's head, which is what the church would have us believe happened.

See 2 Samuel 7: 1-11 for a great example of the Lord quickly correcting a mis-step of not only King David but the prophet Nathan as well.

 

If that were true as a general rule (which it certainly is not), wouldn't we expect swift action in all instances, or at least in the very important ones?

How long did God wait before releasing the Children of Israel from bondage in Egypt?

How long did God exile his people from Judah at the time of the Babylonian Captivity?

How long did the exile of the Jews last, from the time when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple, until our own time?

How long is the Assyrian exile of the northern Ten Tribes supposed to last?

 

God can so easily be blamed for every failure of His people, the exile lasting sometimes centuries, sometimes thousands of years.  God presumably takes the long view.

 

And, by the way, I wouldn't call murder to cover up adultery a "misstep."  Just a suggestion on the sense of perspective we might want to bring to our discussions.

Sadly you are conflating the correction of a "prophet in error" with the correction of a people on a time line that is according to the Lord's choosing. I'm sorry you weren't able to read with more discernment.

 

And regarding the "murder" mistep, you have failed (rather miserably) to even know the content of the scripture I referenced in 2 Samuel 7. 

 

It has nothing to do with David's adultery but rather with his desire to build a temple to the Lord and Nathan's response.

 

Too bad.........

You are quite right.  I did conflate II Sam 7 with 11 & 12.  Sorry I missed your point so egregiously.

 

However, whether God quickly corrects prophetic presumption there with Nathan, or with Jonah, seems to me to be of small moment in the long view.  A survey of the behavior of the various prophets of Israel doesn't leave us with the view that God exercises tight control over them or their personalities.  He is, after all, dealing with fallible humans whose interpretations may differ from that of God.  Jonah is a very good example of disobedience and petulance.  Whether that and other stories are merely allegories is another matter.

 

Your interpretation that God waited 100 years before turning the light on over Spencer Kimball makes the assumption that the Mormon masses were not in cahoots with their leaders.  Indeed, Pres McKay tried and did not succeed in obtaining a revelation on that very question, which he had already determined was mere policy and not doctrine.  I and others have speculated that the Mormon masses were themselves not ready for such a revelation, just as the Children of Israel who left Egypt were not ready to enter the Promised Land, and so a 40-year generation had to die off before the Lord would permit them to enter.

 

Take the long view, Palerider.

[CV75]

The testimony is that the Lord guides and directs His Church, but there seems to be this growing notion that apparently that is only periodically and that He is either asleep or gone for long periods of time, like from Joseph Smith until Spencer W. Kimball, etc.  Either He was guiding it the whole time, or He isn't guiding it at all.  I go with the first, what say you?

For those who see it as an either/or proposition, I can testify to them that He was guiding the Church the whole time, and I cannot testify that He was not guiding it at all.

 

For those who conclude that areas of disgreement mean His not guiding it at all (either by design or through the inability of His servants to perceive and execute His direction) --and isn't that a bit extreme?-- I can testify that He was guiding it, and allow for discussion purposes that in His wisdom He allows the agency of His servants and followers to operate at the levels they were able to.This is consistent with the testimony above.

 

For those who wonder if the ban or polygamy specifically were instances where He allowed His servants' agency to run counter to His direction or will, or His servants were simply unprepared to receive it, or were guided and directed by Him to establish these practices, I can testify that He was still guiding the Church in any of these three scenarios, consistent with the two testimonies above.

 

Arguing the merits of the ban or polygamy on a scriptural basis in my mind has little to do with bearing testimony about them, and has nothing to do with the testimony of His guiding the Church (with regards to either of these two past practices or generally). I see testimony as a more spiritual exchange than a rational one, and arguing as a more rational exchange than a spiritual one. So testifying would only be mutually beneficial if those bearing and those hearing it enjoy the influence of the Spirit,

[pmccombs1]

If one expects them to nail it every single time, then it is almost impossible the expectations will be met.  While we cannot expect any leader to get it right on every little day to day thing, we can expect and should expect them to at least get the big things right. ...

 

So, what are the signs of a "true" church that is being directed by God?

 

Recently some information from a 2008 pew research study was compiled into a "Religious Health-o-Meter."  It was made to reveal three groups of people: The religiously apathetic wealthy; the religiously devoted poor; and the religiously devoted wealthy (a.k.a Mormons). 

 

Religious Health, you see, means that you can serve both God an Mammon.That is how you know the hand of the Lord--at least that was the impression I got from the infographic created by Curtis Newbold on religious "health."

 

What do you think? What are the signs that God is in charge?

[Stone holm]

So, what are the signs of a "true" church that is being directed by God?

 

Recently some information from a 2008 pew research study was compiled into a "Religious Health-o-Meter."  It was made to reveal three groups of people: The religiously apathetic wealthy; the religiously devoted poor; and the religiously devoted wealthy (a.k.a Mormons). 

 

Religious Health, you see, means that you can serve both God an Mammon.That is how you know the hand of the Lord--at least that was the impression I got from the infographic created by Curtis Newbold on religious "health."

 

What do you think? What are the signs that God is in charge?

 

Not familiar with this study.  Yes.  There has been some criticism of Mormons because there is a fair amount of overt materialism -- I would suggest that perhaps that is more obvious in certain geographical regions, but Scott Lloyd would immediately descend to rebuke me -- but yes we do get criticized for that.  On the other hand, it is not universal, but varies somewhat from Ward to Ward.  I know my eldest son recently accepted a call to a Spanish speaking Ward -- he is firmly rooted in the upper middle-class and he was in a very affluent Ward which does sometimes result in a certain "bubble" mentality (I can already hear the abuse I am going to get for having typed that), so he and his wife thought it would be best to switch to the Spanish speaking Ward because, "We are doing a good enough job screwing up our kids, we do not need the assistance of the Ward environment to do so."  However, if you attend Wards that are not associated with graduate school/research/ medical type areas , you are not as likely to encounter what you are talking about.  Yes, we have in the past tended to call "old" Mormon families to the Apostleship or people who are leaders of some celebrity as Apostles, and there is kind of a general authority track in the Church -- but I don't think that we quite deserve the worshipping Mammon label even if sometimes our political aura might suggest that.  Hugh Nibley, for example, although never a general authority, was also never silenced -- so the Church still listens to old voice in the wilderness type people.

 

Prophets now do sometimes resemble business executives rather than wild haired men crying in the wilderness and denouncing the establishment like we have as a mental picture from the OT through to John the Baptist -- but I still believe they are being guided and directed by the Lord.  Times change.

[pmccombs1]

...  Times change.

 

Tell me more about "times changing."  There was a time when God used the weak things of the world to do his work. Apparently a poor farm boy could raise up a people who could speak to power. These days, the Lord uses the powerful to speak to the weak things of the world.

 

I understand, from an inside source*, that the Church's "Materials Management Department had a total purchasing volume in excess of two billion dollars every year this decade. What do they buy? Where does the money go? Who can say? We don't know... Two billion dollars a year, all to worship a homeless, unemployed god. Are we really getting our money's worth?"

 

Times have changed.

 

* Daymon Smith, The Book of Mammon

[Kevin Christensen]

My personal view is that prophets must be infalliable. If they are not they are not prophets. To say someone talks with God and then makes critical mistakes that effect the lives of millions then what is the point? They then are just men like the rest of us. They make some good choices and some bad ones. They may be great captains of industry and leaders in their own right, but are not communicating with God any better than the next person.

 

The word prophet comes from prophesy, which is to declare that a specific thing will happen in the future. If they make one error they are no longer a prophet. They are expressing an opinion based on experience and current knowledge.

Rather than take a personal view, I decided to research the Biblical view of prophets.  I found 28 Biblical tests for true prophets, all neatly matched with contrary tests for false prophets. 

 

See http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets

for extensive references, all nicely organized and hypertexted.

 

I notice that best known test, regarding prophetic fulfillment, is the one most qualified by precept and example in the Bible, and the one most abused in practice.

 

Infallibility is not specified among these Biblical tests.  One for reason for that is the necessity for someone with sufficient infallibility to come along and apply the infallibility test infallibly.  Such remarkable persons are few and far between.  I can think of one, and despite his qualifications, he seems to have been rejected and crucified.  One conspicuous argument made against him during his trial had to do with infallibility. See Matthew 26:61 and compare John 2:19-21.

 

I've also recently quoted here D&C 1 on "mine authority and the authority of my servants," paying special attention to verses 24-28, where again, I see a rather blunt declaration that cannot be described as infallibility.

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Stone holm]

Tell me more about "times changing."  There was a time when God used the weak things of the world to do his work. Apparently a poor farm boy could raise up a people who could speak to power. These days, the Lord uses the powerful to speak to the weak things of the world.

 

I understand, from an inside source*, that the Church's "Materials Management Department had a total purchasing volume in excess of two billion dollars every year this decade. What do they buy? Where does the money go? Who can say? We don't know... Two billion dollars a year, all to worship a homeless, unemployed god. Are we really getting our money's worth?"

 

Times have changed.

 

* Daymon Smith, The Book of Mammon

 

I don't have enough information to say I agree with you.  I can say, however, that there is certainly a certain amount of truth in what you are saying. I think that we can pretty much turn to the Book of Mormon and see that success can be disasterous for religious organizations.  And, it is quite clear that since the Church started devoting itself to what the media sometimes refers to as the "cult of normalcy" it has had tremendous financial success, and to the extent that membership statistics can be trusted incredible missionary success.  On the other hand, I can remember a comment being made by a brother who had moved to Indiana from Colorado saying that the Church seemed to be elevating some very good, intelligent business and professional men to GAs, but he wasn't overly convinced as to their prophetic and apostolic capacities.  I am not exactly sure how that can be avoided, however, as a religious organization matures.  But yes -- I see your point.  Short of looking for a star in the sky hovering over a possible candidate, not sure how else they could go about it.

[Robert F. Smith]

On the contrary, the correction had already been revealed by the Lord to His servants. It was THEIR prejudices and failure to understand that took the 14 years to correct. And the church paid a price for their negligence. 

Makes sense to me, Kemosahbi, and I have a number of colleagues who see that as the reason why it took so long for the priesthood ban problem to be resolved as well.

 

[Palerider]

Makes sense to me, Kemosahbi, and I have a number of colleagues who see that as the reason why it took so long for the priesthood ban problem to be resolved as well.

 

I wish I could join them however I don't see the two situations as being analogous. I don't see the prejudice as being the only problem. I see the problem as a lack of revelation in general , not just specifically this issue.

 

Peter wasn't even seeking the revelation. It came to him because the Lord wanted the correction made.

 

I believe if we truly had prophets (as they have promoted themselves to be) the directive would have come in clear and certain terms that they were doing something incorrect.

 

Contrary to your former statement, that I intimated that it was the Lord who turned on the light over president Kimball's head, I believe it was his conscience and pressure from both inside and outside the church that made the difference. Pressure from inside the church had been there at least from the 1940's and maybe earlier for all I know. I'm not saying the body of the LDS was homogenous on the issue but, doesn't this sound a little like leading from behind?

 

I find no support for this ban in the primitive church writings. Anyone familiar with the New Testament would have read this:

 

Galatians 3: 27-29

 

"For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Edited December 23, 2013 by Palerider

[Stone holm]

I wish I could join them however I don't see the two situations as being analogous. I don't see the prejudice as being the only problem. I see the problem as a lack of revelation in general , not just specifically this issue.

 

Peter wasn't even seeking the revelation. It came to him because the Lord wanted the correction made.

 

I believe if we truly had prophets (as they have promoted themselves to be) the directive would have come in clear and certain terms that they were doing something incorrect.

 

Contrary to your former statement, that I intimated that it was the Lord who turned on the light over president Kimball's head, I believe it was his conscience and pressure from both inside and outside the church that made the difference. Pressure from inside the church had been there at least from the 1940's and maybe earlier for all I know. I'm not saying the body of the LDS was homogenous on the issue but, doesn't this sound a little like leading from behind?

 

I find no support for this ban in the primitive church writings. Anyone familiar with the New Testament would have read this:

 

Galatians 3: 27-29

 

"For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

This assumes that The Lord did not have a hand in the ban, I agree if the ban had been disavowed, then we would have a problem. However, if the ban was implemented because the Lord's people were not yet ready to abide the higher law and was left in place for that reason, then The Lord has been guiding the Church. Doesn't matter if the Prophets got their wires crossed in explaining it.

[Palerider]

This assumes that The Lord did not have a hand in the ban, I agree if the ban had been disavowed, then we would have a problem. However, if the ban was implemented because the Lord's people were not yet ready to abide the higher law and was left in place for that reason, then The Lord has been guiding the Church. Doesn't matter if the Prophets got their wires crossed in explaining it.

 

Still one must hold open the possibility that the Lord's hand wasn't in this at all. Using Occam's razor, it seems the more practicle answer to me, rather than jumping through all the intellectual hoops in order to keep the church "true".

[Stone holm]

Still one must hold open the possibility that the Lord's hand wasn't in this at all. Using Occam's razor, it seems the more practicle answer to me, rather than jumping through all the intellectual hoops in order to keep the church "true".

Not actually, we have many, many examples of The Lord withholding things because His people were not prepared.

[Palerider]

Not actually, we have many, many examples of The Lord withholding things because His people were not prepared.

 

Yes, some examples, mostly Biblical, but that doesn't make this particular scenario with the LDS faith and it's leadership, one of those examples.  It could be just as easily what is found in Matthew 7:22-23 

[Robert F. Smith]

I wish I could join them however I don't see the two situations as being analogous. I don't see the prejudice as being the only problem. I see the problem as a lack of revelation in general , not just specifically this issue.

 

Peter wasn't even seeking the revelation. It came to him because the Lord wanted the correction made.

 

I believe if we truly had prophets (as they have promoted themselves to be) the directive would have come in clear and certain terms that they were doing something incorrect.

 

Contrary to your former statement, that I intimated that it was the Lord who turned on the light over president Kimball's head, I believe it was his conscience and pressure from both inside and outside the church that made the difference. Pressure from inside the church had been there at least from the 1940's and maybe earlier for all I know. I'm not saying the body of the LDS was homogenous on the issue but, doesn't this sound a little like leading from behind?

 

I find no support for this ban in the primitive church writings. Anyone familiar with the New Testament would have read this:

 

Galatians 3: 27-29

 

"For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

And in the Book of Mormon as well.  I agree that the priesthood ban was not part of the primitive Christian Church.  It was wrong and did not come via revelation.  Social policy can come from folklore and good intentions, and an entire people may find that to be O.K., until the day of reckoning.  A closer look at our forebears might tell you that they often left a lot to be desired in their ethical and moral behavior -- from a fully modern perspective.  As I said previously, we might not want to too ferociously condemn George Washington et alia merely because they were slaveholders in a slaveholding world.

 

Most scholars looking at the reception of revelation in Mormonism see that it has usually come in answer to a question or to a problem.  It isn't for me to suss out the precise reasons why the Lord does not always intervene with revelation.  We can both think of plenty of times in history (biblical and otherwise) when a revelation seemed needed, but did not come -- unless you want to opt out of that notion.  I may have my individual opinions as to why it didn't come in particular cases, but that doesn't make my (or your) suppositions correct.

 

You seem to me to ignore human fallibility or even the notion that God can let errant humans stew in their own juices for a time (maybe even a long time).  You also cast aspersions on the belief by Mormons that prophets are often called despite their desire not to be so burdened.  Instead you suggest that they arrogate the role to themselves.  I think that ungenerous to say the least.  Are we to be fouind condemning men so easily -- when they may actually be quite sincere (aside from whether they are actually led by God).

 

So too for your ungenerous statement:  " . . . unlike waiting 100 some-odd years for someone to turn the light on over President Kimball's head, which is what the church would have us believe happened."  We can always make unkind statements about groups with which we do not share a common view, but is that proper?

Edited December 24, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Stone holm]

And in the Book of Mormon as well.  I agree that the priesthood ban was not part of the primitive Christian Church.  It was wrong and did not come via revelation.  Social policy can come from folklore and good intentions, and an entire people may find that to be O.K., until the day of reckoning.  A closer look at our forebears might tell you that they often left a lot to be desired in their ethical and moral behavior -- from a fully modern perspective.  As I said previously, we might not want to too ferociously condemn George Washington et alia merely because they were slaveholders in a slaveholding world.

 

Most scholars looking at the reception of revelation in Mormonism see that it has usually come in answer to a question or to a problem.  It isn't for me to suss out the precise reasons why the Lord does not always intervene with revelation.  We can both think of plenty of times in history (biblical and otherwise) when a revelation seemed needed, but did not come -- unless you want to opt out of that notion.  I may have my individual opinions as to why it didn't come in particular cases, but that doesn't make my (or your) suppositions correct.

 

You seem to me to ignore human fallibility or even the notion that God can let errant humans stew in their own juices for a time (maybe even a long time).  You also cast aspersions on the belief by Mormons that prophets are often called despite their desire not to be so burdened.  Instead you suggest that they arrogate the role to themselves.  I think that ungenerous to say the least.  Are we to be fouind condemning men so easily -- when they may actually be quite sincere (aside from whether they are actually led by God).

 

So too for your ungenerous statement:  " . . . unlike waiting 100 some-odd years for someone to turn the light on over President Kimball's head, which is what the church would have us believe happened."  We can always make unkind statements about groups with which we do not share a common view, but is that proper?

I agree the Virginia Dynasty, had a peculiar credibility problem. But the evidence I think tends to show they were all mentally wrestling with the problem. Washington's situation was complicated by the fact that he did not have clear title to all the slaves because he held them under fiduciary obligations to his wife, plus many were old. Jefferson and Madison were convinced that the two races could not live peacefully together post emancipation because of the way the slaves had been treated, so both became proponents of colonization till their dying day. At this distance in time, we simply do not fully comprehend what was going through their minds and hearts. I was raised in an all white racist Midwestern community, but even what I experienced and understood from and about my parents is far far removed from earlier generations who were trying to ponder what the future held.

[Storm Rider]

And yet the priesthood was restricted to certain people by the first Apostles. How do you explain that? In fact, why was the Savior's earthly mission restricted to the House of Israel? Is God a racist or is there something else afoot?

[Bikeemikey]

And yet the priesthood was restricted to certain people by the first Apostles. How do you explain that? In fact, why was the Savior's earthly mission restricted to the House of Israel? Is God a racist or is there something else afoot?

Gods a racist. There is nothing else afoot.

Edited December 24, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Stone holm]

And yet the priesthood was restricted to certain people by the first Apostles. How do you explain that? In fact, why was the Savior's earthly mission restricted to the House of Israel? Is God a racist or is there something else afoot?

There is little question that the House of Israel played a special role in God's plan, and will yet play a special role. But actually, more correctly you are referring to the Jews are you not?

[Stone holm]

Gods a racist. There is nothing else afoot.

Hey Mike, you been on Sabbatical or something?

[thesometimesaint]

Yes, some examples, mostly Biblical, but that doesn't make this particular scenario with the LDS faith and it's leadership, one of those examples.  It could be just as easily what is found in Matthew 7:22-23 

 

How many examples does it take to establish a principle? Jesus declined to go the Non Jews during his mortal ministry, and wasn't until well after his Resurrection that Peter, under revelation from God, started preaching to them. See Judaizers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaizers

 

Prooftexting isn't of much help to you here. Christ established his Church with leaders that were/are fallible.

[why me]

 

What do you think? What are the signs that God is in charge?

I think that the signs are subtle and often go unnoticed. For example: Leaders have constantly warned not to overspend and get out of debt as quickly as possible. They gave various warning signs about it. When economic crises come and come they do, church members are perhaps the best prepared to survive. Also, the teaching of the law of chasity has saved many people from death and pain. I remember the 70s very well and others remember the late 60s when sex was plentiful and morals were loosened. But if one lived the laws of chasity whether straight or gay, the chances of getting HIV at that time was minimal. The GAs constantly warned about not being influenced by the world by having sexual relations outside of marriage. Not to mention the less lethal STDs such as herpes.

 

So, in terms of finances and morals the GAs have been spot on. And then we have the word of wisdom. We can see the horrors of drug addiction and alcohol addiction, And the violence that comes from both addictions. The GAs were spot on here too. Many lds members have been saved from possible violent marriages because of the word of wisdom.

 

And the idea that the body is a temple has been a great blessing too and all that this entails. It has been another spot on for the GAs. And so,  have the members been led astray in terms of who they are as spiritual beings? No. As physical beings? No. The message has been steady for years and years.

 

And all that says something about the truthfulness of the lds church.

[thesometimesaint]

I think it is long past time we stopped conflating people with disease(s) with their being immoral.

[why me]

I think it is long past time we stopped conflating people with disease(s) with their being immoral.

I think that you misunderstood and misjudged. I was in NYC during the 70sand one could have had sex quite often. No problem. But the law of chasity kept me from going all the way. If i was sleeping around here and there, the chances of me catching something even though I am hetero would have improved greatly.

 

And my gay friends spent many hours in gay bathhouses having multiple partners. Trying to tell them about the law of chasity and monogamy did not go very far. And no one thought that sex can kill. And being hetero did not give one immunity. I am thankful for the law of chasity and the guidance that we young people received in the 70s.

 

http://backinthegays.com/gay-sex-in-new-york-city-during-the-1970s/

 

There is a wonderful trailer in that link above.

 

And then we have this from the new republic:

 

Quite how this has happened (and why) are questions that historians will fight over someday, but certain influences seem clear even now—chief among them the HIV epidemic. Before aids hit, a fragile but nascent gay world had formed in a handful of major U.S. cities. The gay culture that exploded from it in the 1970s had the force of something long suppressed, and it coincided with a more general relaxation of social norms. This was the era of the post-Stonewall New Left, of the Castro and the West Village, an era where sexuality forged a new meaning for gayness: of sexual adventure, political radicalism, and cultural revolution.

The fact that openly gay communities were still relatively small and geographically concentrated in a handful of urban areas created a distinctive gay culture. The central institutions for gay men were baths and bars, places where men met each other in highly sexualized contexts and where sex provided the commonality. Gay resorts had their heyday—from Provincetown to Key West. The gay press grew quickly and was centered around classified personal ads or bar and bath advertising. Popular culture was suffused with stunning displays of homosexual burlesque: the music of Queen, the costumes of the Village People, the flamboyance of Elton John's debut; the advertising of Calvin Klein; and the intoxication of disco itself, a gay creation that became emblematic of an entire heterosexual era. When this cultural explosion was acknowledged, when it explicitly penetrated the mainstream, the results, however, were highly unstable: Harvey Milk was assassinated in San Francisco and Anita Bryant led an anti-gay crusade. But the emergence of an openly gay culture, however vulnerable, was still real.

 

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/the-end-gay-culture

Edited December 24, 2013 by why me