Are Our Values Under Attack?

[rodheadlee]

Well, you name a country, time and place that is better in ANY of the areas you listed above and you win a prize! And, by the way, the 1950s America is NOT a right answer.

American Samoa.

[california boy]

Because there's much more at stake than simply whether two people of the same sex can marry.  If that were the only thing at stake, I don't think the Brethren would be nearly as concerned as they apparently are.  The preeminent place originally granted to religious freedom in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution has been eroding for at least twenty years now (probably longer than that, but I'm thinking of a specific United States Supreme Court case that I personally think was the beginning of such erosion in earnest).  Same-sex marriage isn't simply a single, isolated issue: I think it is the pivot-point upon which a whole host of sociopolitical and sociolegal issues will turn.  I think the Brethren have hinted at that; they've left it there for the time being because perhaps they don't know yet what other issues will turn on that pivot-point: the "big picture" might not look so bad in some respects, currently; but in this case, if you'll forgive what you might be tempted to dismiss as hyperbole, very literally speaking, the Devil is in the Details.

Really?  What more is at stake than simply whether two people of the same sex can marry?  Why is it important to the church that they stay in uncommitted relationships?  Has Massachusetts citizens suffered or the church in that state suffered because of gay marriage?  Has any churches rights been taken away because of gay marriage?  Tell us the disasters that have happened and what rights have been eroded because of gay marriage.

 

 

Fear is a powerful tool often used by others to get their own way.  Most of the time it is unfounded, but whether there is actual threat is often irrelevant in the use of fear to control the masses.

Edited April 8, 2014 by california boy

[bluebell]

I've noticed many of those same things but I still see a distinction between not accepting our values and ATTACKING them. For instance, many celebrities have babies out of wedlock, but I can't think of a single one who DISCOURAGES others to get married. And certainly, NO ONE is trying to ban in-wedlock child birth.

As I see it, THAT would be a threat to our values that requires defending. Or, if as some fear, if there was pressure for us to marry gay couples in our temples, then our values would be under attack.

However, at present it seems that we are being asked to go out of our way to attempt to impose our values on others.

 

I disagree.

 

But more than that, i really don't understand why your internal filter is so focused on SSM that it's all you ever see or hear whenever a church leader speaks.  I understand you feel very strongly about this, but from my perspective, it is causing you to have extreme tunnel vision.

[Calm]

 Why is it important to the church that they stay in uncommitted relationships? .

Is it impossible to commit to someone without legal or religious recognition?

[Walden]

Increasingly, the counsel from church leaders is that the saints must have the courage to defend our values. My question is: "How are our values under attack?"

The desire of gays to legally marry doesn't seem to present any more of a "threat" to our law of chastity than does the fact that alcohol and cigarettes are legal everywhere is a threat to the Word of Wisdom.

I don't see how our inability to impose our standards on others constitutes a threat to our religion. Somebody please show me the error of my ways.

 

I don't know that LDS values are under attack at this time more than they have been in the past, it's just that the internet has made the broadcasting of these "attacks" more widespread and available. 

 

I can only imagine the internet debates that might have surrounded the issue of blacks and the priesthood, or if the internet had been available at the time, the issue of polygamy. 

 

Why do the LDS get so prickly when their peculiar teachings, both throughout history and in the present, bring about peculiar reactions?

 

The continuing litany of warnings from SLC leadership regarding the need for members to defend their LDS values is not necessarily a direct response to increased attacks on the faith, but rather, a tool used by church leadership to galvanize loyalty to the LDS church. The persecution complex that is fomented by church leaders is a great method for fortifying loyalty and allegiance to the church by pitting members against the "outside world," by communicating and instilling a sense of superiority among it's membership (our values are better than theirs!), by creating an atmosphere of "us against them" and by drawing a line in the sand, that if crossed, identifies one as being "wordly." This persecution complex is multi-faceted and beneficial to the LDS faith on any number of fronts, and something that has been used effectively throughout history by all kinds of groups (religious, political, social....the gay rights movement uses this tool very effectively) to strengthen loyalties and define boundaries.

[california boy]

 While I agree that making homosexuality legal will not destroy our personal values, it is one more layer of erosion of our social and community values.  

 

The only way for this idea to work is to say that it is better for society that gays live together rather than get married.  Just tell me how is that a better moral example to teach.  

 

At the rate things are going, I can guarantee you the day will come that those who maintain and teach their children that homosexuality is immoral will be viewed in the same light as those who maintain and teach their children that blacks are inferior.  We will be no better than racits in the public eye.  Make no mistake, our values are being atacked line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little.

 

 

Since the beginning of the church, values of the church that are different than society has been "attacked".  Why is this particular issue one that you are so fearful of?  Is it because underneath the church policy, members also see the unfairness of denying others the right to marry?  I am beginning to think that this is the reason why countless threads are started by members on this board about SSM.  There seems to be a need by some to try and reinforce in their own minds why gay marriage must be a threat to the church and to them.

 

 

If you found out that your children were being taught that cigarettes are not a vice in school, would you be upset?  I would be outraged.  Would you view that as an attack on truth and value?  I would.  I wouldn't be so concerned with making homosexuality legal if they played anti-homosexuality campaigns in the media and taught that it is damaging in school like they do anti-smoking campaigns.  Can you imagine?  While smoking is legal, it is still considered a social vice.  Interestingly, the opposite seems to be true for homosexuality, but that is changing rapidly...on the side of legality.

Being taught that smoking cigarettes is bad in school is solely because they are scientifically proven to be harmful to one's health.  It has nothing to do with Mormon belief.  There has been no scientific proof that it is worse for society for gay couples to marry rather than shacking up together.  Quite honestly, the position makes no sense.  That is why gay marriage is gaining acceptance with our culture.  It is also why gay marriage is winning again and again and again in the courts.  No one has been able to show harm to society or individuals by allowing gay marriage.

[california boy]

Is it impossible to commit to someone without legal or religious recognition?

Marriage is not the same as shacking up.

[Shadrak]

We have a lot more values than just those related to SSM.

Values of honesty, integrity, virtue, modesty, chastity, charity, etc. These are not typically the values that the popular culture celebrates or fosters, and anytime society, or culture, attempts to teach that any of these values are not important, old fashioned, nerdy, harmful to the individual, etc, it can reasonably said that such values are 'under attack.'

[california boy]

I don't know that LDS values are under attack at this time more than they have been in the past, it's just that the internet has made the broadcasting of these "attacks" more widespread and available. 

 

I can only imagine the internet debates that might have surrounded the issue of blacks and the priesthood, or if the internet had been available at the time, the issue of polygamy. 

 

Why do the LDS get so prickly when their peculiar teachings, both throughout history and in the present, bring about peculiar reactions?

 

The continuing litany of warnings from SLC leadership regarding the need for members to defend their LDS values is not necessarily a direct response to increased attacks on the faith, but rather, a tool used by church leadership to galvanize loyalty to the LDS church. The persecution complex that is fomented by church leaders is a great method for fortifying loyalty and allegiance to the church by pitting members against the "outside world," by communicating and instilling a sense of superiority among it's membership (our values are better than theirs!), by creating an atmosphere of "us against them" and by drawing a line in the sand, that if crossed, identifies one as being "wordly." This persecution complex is multi-faceted and beneficial to the LDS faith on any number of fronts, and something that has been used effectively throughout history by all kinds of groups (religious, political, social....the gay rights movement uses this tool very effectively) to strengthen loyalties and define boundaries.

I agree.  Fear is a powerful tool to galvanize people together to do things that they would not necessarily do on their own.  It has been the most effective weapon of religion since the beginning of time.  The most horrible crimes committed by religion have been based on fear.  The Mormon church has effectively used the fear of gay marriage to once again rally the troops.  Just take a look at some of the things said in these threads.  "if gay marriage gets passed, then the church will loose it's tax exemption"  "If gay marriage get's passed, then members will be persecuted for their beliefs"  "If gay marriage gets passed then our children will be taught about homosexuality in the schools"   On and on.  Fear is a powerful tool.  It get's results.  It raised 40 million dollars to pass Prop 8.  Name one other tool that could have accomplished that.

[Kenngo1969]

... Fear is a powerful tool.  It get's [sic] results.  It raised 40 million dollars to pass Prop 8.  Name one other tool that could have accomplished that.

Truth?

[Shadrak]

We have a lot more values than just those related to SSM.

 

Values of honesty, integrity, virtue, modesty, chastity, charity, etc.  These are not typically the values that the popular culture celebrates or fosters, and anytime society, or culture, attempts to teach that any of these values are not important, old fashioned, nerdy, harmful to the individual, etc, it can reasonably said that such values are 'under attack.'

Of these values, only our idea of chastity is under "attack", and only because we want all to follow our narrow rules. There are very few instances when integrity, honesty, virtue, kindness or charity etc. are denigrated and not celebrated. 

[Kenngo1969]

Really?  What more is at stake than simply whether two people of the same sex can marry?  Why is it important to the church that they stay in uncommitted relationships?  Has Massachusetts citizens suffered or the church in that state suffered because of gay marriage?  Has any churches rights been taken away because of gay marriage?  Tell us the disasters that have happened and what rights have been eroded because of gay marriage.

 

Fear is a powerful tool often used by others to get their own way.  Most of the time it is unfounded, but whether there is actual threat is often irrelevant in the use of fear to control the masses.

Ah, yes!  The old, "Nothing to see here, folks!  Move along," approach.  I can understand why someone in your position would favor that approach.  Legally, politically, sociologically, and so on, just because the chickens haven't all come home to roost yet doesn't mean they won't.  The other day, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively upheld a gay couple's "right" to force a photographer to photograph the couple's commitment ceremony by declining to hear the photographer's appeal of the case. Similar things are happening in numerous other jurisdictions.  I don't have a lot of time now.  Perhaps I'll expand later.  (Or perhaps not; no one is more blind than someone who will not see.  In the long run, this sort of activism doesn't help your cause.)

[california boy]

Truth?

Not even close.  If the church would have used truth then the campaign would have stated things like "We don't really know how SSM will impact society. Or study after study has shown that clidren of gay couples do just as well as children of gay couples.  Or that a photographer in New Mexico sued for not taking photos of a gay couple had nothing to do with gay marriages since marriage in New Mexico was not legal at the time.  The truth was, the case was based on nondiscrimination laws businesses much comply with in New Mexico in order to qualify for a business license. 

[Shadrak]

I agree.  Fear is a powerful tool to galvanize people together to do things that they would not necessarily do on their own.  It has been the most effective weapon of religion since the beginning of time.  The most horrible crimes committed by religion have been based on fear.  The Mormon church has effectively used the fear of gay marriage to once again rally the troops.  Just take a look at some of the things said in these threads.  "if gay marriage gets passed, then the church will loose it's tax exemption"  "If gay marriage get's passed, then members will be persecuted for their beliefs"  "If gay marriage gets passed then our children will be taught about homosexuality in the schools"   On and on.  Fear is a powerful tool.  It get's results.  It raised 40 million dollars to pass Prop 8.  Name one other tool that could have accomplished that.

Great points.  The gay marriage debate is past, we lost.  It is accepted by the majority of society and will continue to gain acceptance.  It will be legal throughout the country in a few years.  To perpetuate the fight against it is a losing battle and completely counterproductive, much like discrimination against blacks was.  We held on to that position, at first it seemed right, the majority held the same position and it was legal to discriminate.  As overt racism became illegal and less accepted by society, we still held on and withstood persecution because it was "doctrine" and "the will of the Lord". Once this position became untenable in the world, a "revelation" came and most everyone was relieved it did.  Now, we can't distance ourselves far enough from the discriminatory "policy" and "theories" (not doctrine anymore) of the past.  Does anyone see similarities between the two?  

 

So why fight SSM?  To perpetuate the persecution complex we need as a people.  We aren't persecuted for what should be our most important values-kindness, charity, honesty, virtue. We aren't even persecuted as teetotalers or non-smokers, this isn't the 50's or 60's anymore.  So the GAs preach on a current wedge issue that we endorse traditional marriage, reject SSM, and enjoy the persecution that follows.  

[Calm]

Marriage is not the same as shacking up.

I agree. But it isn't all or nothing, is it? Is it really accurate to protray a legal marriage as the only possible commitment process?

If two people have their own private ceremony where they say vows to be as one for eternity, but tell no one else but have every intent to live that way, is this a committed relationship or not?

If someone legally marries with the understanding that in a few years they will be most likely divorcing because they see themselves as naturally falling out of love and moving on to someone else, is that marriage someho more committed than the above relationship just because it has public approval?

It seems to me commitment has much more to do with how two people feel about each other than a legal process. The legal process has no inherent meaning of commitment save that brought to it by those participating.

Edited April 8, 2014 by calmoriah

[california boy]

Ah, yes!  The old, "Nothing to see here, folks!  Move along," approach.  I can understand why someone in your position would favor that approach.  Legally, politically, sociologically, and so on, just because the chickens haven't all come home to roost yet doesn't mean they won't.  The other day, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively upheld a gay couple's "right" to force a photographer to photograph the couple's commitment ceremony by declining to hear the photographer's appeal of the case. Similar things are happening in numerous other jurisdictions.  I don't have a lot of time now.  Perhaps I'll expand later.  (Or perhaps not; no one is more blind than someone who will not see.  In the long run, this sort of activism doesn't help your cause.)

 

Not sure what your point is.  You immediately resort to fear, which was my point.  The Supreme Court is a CONSERVATIVE court.  I think it only takes TWO justices to accept a case.  What does that tell you about the validity of the photographer's case?  Similar things are happening in courts throughout this country because these cases HAVE NO LEGAL BASIS and never have.  You act as if this is some recent event.  Jews have been ringing up pork at the grocery stores for generations.  Mormons have been serving coffee in restaurants for a century, Catholic pharmacists have been issuing birth control pills for decades.  Why has all of these actions suddenly become sins?  

 

I hope you will take the time to open your eyes and see truth.  

[Calm]

Of these values, only our idea of chastity is under "attack", and only because we want all to follow our narrow rules. There are very few instances when integrity, honesty, virtue, kindness or charity etc. are denigrated and not celebrated.

Adultery and other sexual sins are not just about chastity, they involve often integrity and honesty and virtue and kindness and charity as well.

The promotion of a selfish material culture that puts one's own needs above others also involve all of the above and IMO is quite prominent in our society at this time.

[california boy]

Great points.  The gay marriage debate is past, we lost.  It is accepted by the majority of society and will continue to gain acceptance.  It will be legal throughout the country in a few years.  To perpetuate the fight against it is a losing battle and completely counterproductive, much like discrimination against blacks was.  We held on to that position, at first it seemed right, the majority held the same position and it was legal to discriminate.  As overt racism became illegal and less accepted by society, we still held on and withstood persecution because it was "doctrine" and "the will of the Lord". Once this position became untenable in the world, a "revelation" came and most everyone was relieved it did.  Now, we can't distance ourselves far enough from the discriminatory "policy" and "theories" (not doctrine anymore) of the past.  Does anyone see similarities between the two?  

 

So why fight SSM?  To perpetuate the persecution complex we need as a people.  We aren't persecuted for what should be our most important values-kindness, charity, honesty, virtue. We aren't even persecuted as teetotalers or non-smokers, this isn't the 50's or 60's anymore.  So the GAs preach on a current wedge issue that we endorse traditional marriage, reject SSM, and enjoy the persecution that follows.  

 

So well said.  I hope to see the day when the church is known for it's kindness, charity love for all sinners and are bringing people to Christ.  Maybe at some point the focus of the church will be known for embracing the teachings of Christ.  Right now, if you ask most Americans what they know about Mormons is that they believed in polygamy, discriminated against blacks and are on a huge campaign against gays.  That is the reality of these "policies".  Many in the church revel in being known for these things by society.  They like the feel of being persecuted.  Too bad the church is not being persecuted for being more Christlike, himble, charitable, caring, loving, embraching, forgiving, etc.  Now that is a persecution one could be proud of.

[mormonnewb]

Great points. The gay marriage debate is past, we lost. It is accepted by the majority of society and will continue to gain acceptance. It will be legal throughout the country in a few years. To perpetuate the fight against it is a losing battle and completely counterproductive, much like discrimination against blacks was. We held on to that position, at first it seemed right, the majority held the same position and it was legal to discriminate. As overt racism became illegal and less accepted by society, we still held on and withstood persecution because it was "doctrine" and "the will of the Lord". Once this position became untenable in the world, a "revelation" came and most everyone was relieved it did. Now, we can't distance ourselves far enough from the discriminatory "policy" and "theories" (not doctrine anymore) of the past. Does anyone see similarities between the two?

So why fight SSM? To perpetuate the persecution complex we need as a people. We aren't persecuted for what should be our most important values-kindness, charity, honesty, virtue. We aren't even persecuted as teetotalers or non-smokers, this isn't the 50's or 60's anymore. So the GAs preach on a current wedge issue that we endorse traditional marriage, reject SSM, and enjoy the persecution that follows.

Where the heck have you been, Friend? (My apologies to Kenngo1969 for not properly using this term)

Whenever I bring up the obvious/ comparisons between the priesthood ban and our TEMPORARY stance on SSM, people say that I'm obsessed with race or have a victim mentality. But perhaps coming from you, some might be able to connect the dots.

As for the Church's continuation down this path, I have a SLIGHTLY more charitable view. We got started down this road trying to earn our "Christian cred" with the EVs. Back in 2008, most people supported the ban on gay marriage (even my beloved President Obama). WHO could have known that public opinion would change so quickly? And, once it did, we were up the Great Salt Lake without a paddle. The leaders can't say, "Oops, our bad. As our doctrine teaches, we are MEN and like all men (with agency) will err from time to time." As members, we would freak out! "They got one thing wrong! How can we believe ANYTHING they say? Let's all become Scientologists!"

Fortunately, they do have a trump card -- OD3. But, understandably, no one wants to use until absolutely necessary (I.e. the Feds are confiscated Church property, Utah wants an NBA franchise, the Church's tax-exempt status is threatened). Fortunately for us, we aren't the only church on the wrong side of history, so perhaps, this time, we won't be the last ones to "bend to social pressure."

Edited April 8, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Calm]

"We got started down this road trying to earn our "Christian cred" with the EVs"

Not really.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I read articles from time to time on why it's beneficial to not always tell the truth-ways to make money that, while legal, aren't really dishonest, or ways to get what you want from people by manipulating them.  

 

I see non fiction books that teach that being financially successful is what is most important, or that rules hold you back from reaching your full potential, or that making bad choices is good, and regret is bad.  

 

I see t.v. shows that teach that lying is o.k. if it benefits you, that it's better to get even than to forgive, that bad behavior (selfishness, for example) is praiseworthy, and that winning at all costs is most important.

 

 

For kids in high school and junior high, they are constantly taught by peers that their values are 'lame'.

I see numerous examples that the ends justify the means esp in politics.

[wenglund]

A lot of business people by example, politicians, etc. Movies that glorify adultery, etc.

People share ideas by what they do as well as what they preach.

'

This seems so blatantly obvious that it almost insults the intelligence for you to have to mention it--that is, expect that the question was posed and pressed and thus warranted a response.  Clearly, someone was oblivious.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

enjoy the persecution that follows.

 

we won't be the last ones to "bend to social pressure."

So you are indeed saying that our values are under attack, and that we seek or deserve it to boot!

[Shadrak]

I read articles from time to time on why it's beneficial to not always tell the truth-ways to make money that, while legal, aren't really dishonest, or ways to get what you want from people by manipulating them.  

 

I see non fiction books that teach that being financially successful is what is most important, or that rules hold you back from reaching your full potential, or that making bad choices is good, and regret is bad.  

 

I see t.v. shows that teach that lying is o.k. if it benefits you, that it's better to get even than to forgive, that bad behavior (selfishness, for example) is praiseworthy, and that winning at all costs is most important.

 

For kids in high school and junior high, they are constantly taught by peers that their values are 'lame'.

Lying is rarely taught as a virtue. I don't read many business books, but never have I heard that lying and being unethical are good business practices. Lying happens, did Joseph Smith teach it was ok when he denied polygamy while teaching and practicing it?

High school students will make fun of anything, this is not restricted to Mormon values.

[Shadrak]

So you are indeed saying that our values are under attack, and that we seek or deserve it to boot!

Yes, our SSM values are under attack and we deserve ridicule for it because we choose to legislate and impose our values on others. If we just said homosexuality is wrong, don't do it, we'd get a small amount of persecution for it. But we don't just preach it, we mobilized an entire political campaign to stop it and deny choice to others while the whole time saying we got nothing against you folks. So yes, to keep backing a losing horse (politically and socially stopping SSM), I conclude that we seek this persecution.