What Is The Damage That Gay Marriage Does To Children

Scott Lloyd · September 23, 2014

Brigham's "revelation," and "change in doctrine," huh, California.

I had a roommate back in the early 60s who bought a copy of a Modern Microfilm (Jerald & Sandra Tanner) expose on Brigham's "revelations" on Black people and the priesthood. He was an ardent racist, and he wanted to convince a girlfriend that his position was in line with "official" LDS doctrine. So he ripped out the part telling who published it, and gave the rest to her. I don't know how she reacted, but I always knew that it was racism plain and simple and that it was not official doctrine. How did I know that?

I think that the light of Christ I was born with, and the gift of the Holy Ghost I rec'd at baptism helped me see through the racist folklore. Plus, no one in my extended family had even a smidgin of racism. Indeed, my Smith ancestors had been Abolitionists who worked the Underground Railroad, and who fought in the Union Army during the Civil War. Near as I could tell, Joseph Smith was the opposite of a racist, and he and some of his colleagues ordained Black people to the priesthood. The doctrine was clear to me, even if not to every Mormon -- for obvious socio-cultural reasons. A great many Mormons discussed the matter intensively through the 60s and 70s, and the late Chase Peterson was not the only Mormon of high standing to suggest to Pres. Spencer Kimball that a change was needed (Pres. Kimball wrote a very nice reply to Peterson, and shortly thereafter the change came).

I thought it very "offensive and dishonest" of the many Mormons who shared in and believed in the old racist folklore. Sure they believed it to be doctrinal, and they could point to support from an unofficial book by a great LDS canon lawyer -- which had to be disavowed several times by higher ups. Yet nowhere in LDS history was there a formal revelation denying priesthood to Black people, and the Mormon people never gave common consent to such a notion (it is not in the D&C or elsewhere in Scripture).

Pres. George Albert Smith clearly had strong beliefs on this matter. Yet his first counselor, David O. McKay, searched carefully and could find no doctrinal support for the policy. That's right, President McKay knew it was a policy, and it vexed him. Yet the Lord did not speak to him on the matter. Perhaps the membership was not yet ready. 1978 came so slowly, but was so welcome!! That was a revelation. That is official doctrine.

In the 1960s, as today, some preferred to derive their understanding from ambient folklore rather than take the care and discipline to ascertain authoritative teaching. I rather suspect that's what some here might be recalling, including those who accuse me of "selective memory."

Scott Lloyd · September 23, 2014

I was 14 in 1964

And you still did not produce any statement by the first presidency changing the doctrine that was established by Brigham Young and confirmed in the first presidency letter of 1949 concerning "the Negro" being cursed decendants of Cain because of the lack of valor in the pre-existence. So one has to wonder why those in your area took it upon themselves to stop teaching this doctrine. Do you have any ideas why?

I have cited a First Presidency document from the 1960s that I said is consistent with what I remember the general understanding in the Church being at the time. That is sufficient to rebut your accusation of selective memory on my part.

But what actually has you upset is that the consistent and unanimous teaching of the prophets and apostles through the ages is that homosexual behavior is contrary to the laws of God and you cannot persuasively rationalize it.

california boy · September 23, 2014

I have cited a First Presidency document from the 1960s that I said is consistent with what I remember the general understanding in the Church being at the time. That is sufficient to rebut your accusation of selective memory on my part.

Let's put this 1969 letter in perspective. The civil rights movement is a done deal. 1963, thousands of blacks marched to Washington to hear Martin Luther King proclaim his dream. 1964 the civil rights legislation had become the law of the land. Black athletes held their fists up at the Olympic games in Mexico. Martin Luther King had just been assented in March the year before. Like it or not, blacks were going to be treated equally in this country whether the Mormons treated them equally or not.

It is clear from the document posted that the church was trying desperately to not appear racists, but to put the blame on God. All the sudden the First Presidency abandons the doctrine of Blacks being cursed because they weren't valiant, and instead, claim they don't know why God has cursed them. Was there any claim that a revelation occurred to abandon this doctrine? Nope. And remember your statement where you said 1949 is more than 50 years since that doctrine was taught? It appears from the document you posted that it was 45 years since that teaching was abandoned. So how can you claim that the official teaching of the church on the curse of Cain changed prior to 1969? What I said, was the change in doctrine didn't occur until 1970's. I missed it by a year. Not bad for an event that happened 45 years ago.

What you are really claiming is that many members were very uncomfortable with the curse of Cain doctrine. So years before the church changed the official doctrine, they abandoned the doctrine on their own. We are seeing the same thing happen with gay marriage aren't we. Your assertion that this doctrine was abandoned in your area prior to official change coming from the First Presidency only proves that assertion and points to the exact same movement happening today against the policy of gay marriage. Let's see what happens after gay marriage is legalized in this country and the church finds itself again being accused of being prejudice.

Edited September 23, 2014 by california boy

Bob Crockett · September 23, 2014

So bear with me.... In Utah right now there is a huge confrontation going on regarding Marriage Equality. Those in favor of keeping marriage between one man and one woman are saying that gay marriage hurts children. I am curious..... how exactly is a child harmed by having two gay parents who are legally married? So what is the harm to a child who has parents that are married and gay?

Isn't the obvious answer that (1) the priesthood likely is not in the home, (2) the parents are not likely to have callings in the Church, (3) the kid is likely not going to Primary, and (4) the parents likely don't care too much about the teachings of the Church?

EllenMaksoud · September 23, 2014

So bear with me.... In Utah right now there is a huge confrontation going on regarding Marriage Equality. Those in favor of keeping marriage between one man and one woman are saying that gay marriage hurts children. I am curious..... how exactly is a child harmed by having two gay parents who are legally married? So what is the harm to a child who has parents that are married and gay?

It makes me feel oh, so much more secure that those who are sin free can dictate how us sinners live. I don't advocate for gay rights ... marriage, child rearing and so on, and I know that much harm is done by abusive, molesting, drunken parents than anything else. What I have seen so far is that children raised by same sex parents seem to figure out their own relational sexuality in their own time, independent of their parents.

There are things that religious people do that are considerably more harmful.

Daniel2 · September 23, 2014

Isn't the obvious answer that (1) the priesthood likely is not in the home, (2) the parents are not likely to have callings in the Church, (3) the kid is likely not going to Primary, and (4) the parents likely don't care too much about the teachings of the Church?

I think religion-based concerns like this aren't only the obvious ones--they're the only ones.

EllenMaksoud · September 23, 2014

Isn't the obvious answer that (1) the priesthood likely is not in the home, (2) the parents are not likely to have callings in the Church, (3) the kid is likely not going to Primary, and (4) the parents likely don't care too much about the teachings of the Church?

I think you are blowing hot air there Bob. Not being of the diversity set, how would you know what goes on in the homes of those folk? What would you do if a celibate lesbian woman was found to be one of the more active members of a Ward? Yes, the church needs many more members that run around making ridiculous assumptions about those they do not understand.

JLHPROF · September 23, 2014

I think religion-based concerns like this aren't only the obvious ones--they're the only ones.

Well, this is a Mormon Religion board. You want a sociological answer go to a sociological board.

What you'll get here is a healthy dose of Mormon Doctrine, and that doctrine says homosexual relationships are spiritually harmful to children.

wenglund · September 23, 2014

So bear with me.... In Utah right now there is a huge confrontation going on regarding Marriage Equality. Those in favor of keeping marriage between one man and one woman are saying that gay marriage hurts children. I am curious..... how exactly is a child harmed by having two gay parents who are legally married? So what is the harm to a child who has parents that are married and gay?

Are you talking about the children now "parented" by gay couples, the vast majority of which came from prior heterosexual relationships and who were the victims of breakups of heterosexual relationships?

In other words, are you wondering how children are hurt by one parent destroying a traditional family in favor of an alternative "famnily?"

The answer isn't obvious to you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

thesometimesaint · September 23, 2014

I have no problem with LDS Doctrine, but big problems with Mormon Doctrine(the book)

Scott Lloyd · September 23, 2014

Let's put this 1969 letter in perspective. The civil rights movement is a done deal. 1963, thousands of blacks marched to Washington to hear Martin Luther King proclaim his dream. 1964 the civil rights legislation had become the law of the land. Black athletes held their fists up at the Olympic games in Mexico. Martin Luther King had just been assented in March the year before. Like it or not, blacks were going to be treated equally in this country whether the Mormons treated them equally or not.

It is clear from the document posted that the church was trying desperately to not appear racists, but to put the blame on God. All the sudden the First Presidency abandons the doctrine of Blacks being cursed because they weren't valiant, and instead, claim they don't know why God has cursed them. Was there any claim that a revelation occurred to abandon this doctrine? Nope. And remember your statement where you said 1949 is more than 50 years since that doctrine was taught? It appears from the document you posted that it was 45 years since that teaching was abandoned. So how can you claim that the official teaching of the church on the curse of Cain changed prior to 1969? What I said, was the change in doctrine didn't occur until 1970's. I missed it by a year. Not bad for an event that happened 45 years ago.

What you are really claiming is that many members were very uncomfortable with the curse of Cain doctrine. So years before the church changed the official doctrine, they abandoned the doctrine on their own. We are seeing the same thing happen with gay marriage aren't we. Your assertion that this doctrine was abandoned in your area prior to official change coming from the First Presidency only proves that assertion and points to the exact same movement happening today against the policy of gay marriage. Let's see what happens after gay marriage is legalized in this country and the church finds itself again being accused of being prejudice.

Can you show anything from past history or past statement of Church leaders that show the Church is wavering in any degree at all on homosexual behavior being sinful, or is likely to waver in the future other than this tenuous, conjectural and apples-to-oranges comparison to the blacks-and-the-priesthood issue?

stemelbow · September 23, 2014

My recollection of what was generally believed and taught 50 years ago is reflected in this First Presidency statement, given in 1969 (emphasis mine):

December 15, 1969
To General Authorities, Regional Representatives of the Twelve, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, and Bishops.
Dear Brethren:
In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church.
First, may we say that we know something of the sufferings of those who are discriminated against in a denial of their civil rights and Constitutional privileges. Our early history as a church is a tragic story of persecution and oppression. Our people repeatedly were denied the protection of the law. They were driven and plundered, robbed and murdered by mobs, who in many instances were aided and abetted by those sworn to uphold the law. We as a people have experienced the bitter fruits of civil discrimination and mob violence.
We believe that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired, that it was produced by “wise men” whom God raised up for this “very purpose,” and that the principles embodied in the Constitution are so fundamental and important that, if possible, they should be extended “for the rights and protection” of all mankind.
In revelations received by the first prophet of the Church in this dispensation, Joseph Smith (1805-1844), the Lord made it clear that it is “not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.” These words were spoken prior to the Civil War. From these and other revelations have sprung the Church’s deep and historic concern with man’s free agency and our commitment to the sacred principles of the Constitution.
It follows, therefore, that we believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have his full Constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we hope that members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to see that these rights are held inviolate. Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights.
However, matters of faith, conscience, and theology are not within the purview of the civil law. The first amendment to the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affecting those of the Negro race who choose to join the Church falls wholly within the category of religion. It has no bearing upon matters of civil rights. In no case or degree does it deny to the Negro his full privileges as a citizen of the nation.
This position has no relevancy whatever to those who do not wish to [p.223] join the Church. Those individuals, we suppose, do not believe in the divine origin and nature of the church, nor that we have the priesthood of God. Therefore, if they feel we have no priesthood, they should have no concern with any aspect of our theology on priesthood so long as that theology does not deny any man his Constitutional privileges.
A word of explanation concerning the position of the Church.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owes its origin, its existence, and its hope for the future to the principle of continuous revelation. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”
From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.
Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God….
“Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.”
President McKay has also said, “Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.”
Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.
We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters. We are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the Gospel. We have no racially-segregated congregations.
Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established.
We recognize that those who do not accept the principle of modern revelation may oppose our point of view. We repeat that such would not wish for membership in the Church, and therefore the question of priesthood should hold no interest for them. Without prejudice they should grant us the privilege afforded under the Constitution to exercise our [p.224] chosen form of religion just as we must grant all others a similar privilege. They must recognize that the question of bestowing or withholding priesthood in the Church is a matter of religion and not a matter of Constitutional right.
We extend the hand of friendship to men everywhere and the hand of fellowship to all who wish to join the Church and partake of the many rewarding opportunities to be found therein.
We join with those throughout the world who pray that all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ may in due time of the Lord become available to men of faith everywhere. Until that time comes we must trust in God, in His wisdom and in His tender mercy.
Meanwhile we must strive harder to emulate His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whose new commandment it was that we should love one another. In developing that love and concern for one another, while awaiting revelations yet to come, let us hope that with respect to these religious differences, we may gain reinforcement for understanding and appreciation for such differences. They challenge our common similarities, as children of one Father, to enlarge the out-reachings of our divine souls.
Faithfully your brethren,
The First Presidency
By Hugh B. Brown
N. Eldon Tanner

Awesome, so now we see how outside influences helped the Church to create a better narrative regarding race.

Whether 50 years ago or 65, my point remains. I missed by 15 years. My mistake. It was clearly thought that the Church had a good revelatory explanation that blacks were "less valiant", as they say, in the pre-mortal world. This explanation sticks around today. Not too many years ago (3 or 4) a not quite professor at BYU was let go because he repeated that which he was taught regarding the black race.

This helps us understand some things regarding all of the topic of SSM and gay rights and "behavior". Does the Church express truth in all of it's sayings? Surely not. People express their ideas often, who just so happen to represent the Church. The ideas of men are fallible and thus subject to error. Men in charge could, as we've seen, pass off teaching as sanctioned by God when it may not be. People in charge are often left to make statements when working under less light and knowledge and in so doing, as Elder McConkie once explained, might preach untruth as truth. It happens. It's a shame. it's too bad, but it happens. We need to accept that and work our way through it.

Scott Lloyd · September 23, 2014

Awesome, so now we see how outside influences helped the Church to create a better narrative regarding race.
Whether 50 years ago or 65, my point remains. I missed by 15 years. My mistake. It was clearly thought that the Church had a good revelatory explanation that blacks were "less valiant", as they say, in the pre-mortal world. This explanation sticks around today. Not too many years ago (3 or 4) a not quite professor at BYU was let go because he repeated that which he was taught regarding the black race.
This helps us understand some things regarding all of the topic of SSM and gay rights and "behavior". Does the Church express truth in all of it's sayings? Surely not. People express their ideas often, who just so happen to represent the Church. The ideas of men are fallible and thus subject to error. Men in charge could, as we've seen, pass off teaching as sanctioned by God when it may not be. People in charge are often left to make statements when working under less light and knowledge and in so doing, as Elder McConkie once explained, might preach untruth as truth. It happens. It's a shame. it's too bad, but it happens. We need to accept that and work our way through it.

I see nothing in that statement to indicate that they were "less valiant," only an admission that we don't know the reason. Please don't invent things that aren't there.

But you seem anxious to deflect the discussion away from the topic of the thread. So to get things back on track, I'll put to you the same question that I just not put to someone else:

Can you show anything from past history or past statement of Church leaders that show the Church is wavering in any degree at all on homosexual behavior being sinful, or is likely to waver in the future other than this tenuous, conjectural and apples-to-oranges comparison to the blacks-and-the-priesthood issue?

Edited September 23, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

stemelbow · September 23, 2014

Can you show anything from past history or past statement of Church leaders that show the Church is wavering in any degree at all on homosexual behavior being sinful, or is likely to waver in the future other than this tenuous, conjectural and apples-to-oranges comparison to the blacks-and-the-priesthood issue?

Whether there was wavering is not the issue. The issue is is it possible that Church leaders have been wrong? if so what does that say about the issues we face today? Could the Church be wrong about SSM? Is it possible that God's grand desire is that the Church not involve itself in this issue at all?

thesometimesaint · September 23, 2014

Whether there was wavering is not the issue. The issue is is it possible that Church leaders have been wrong? if so what does that say about the issues we face today? Could the Church be wrong about SSM? Is it possible that God's grand desire is that the Church not involve itself in this issue at all?

We are ALL fallible mortals. But I don't believe our position on SSM within the Church is likely to change anytime soon.

stemelbow · September 23, 2014

We are ALL fallible mortals. But I don't believe our position on SSM within the Church is likely to change anytime soon.

Same here. That's why I used the convenient number of fifty years, which in Scott's aged perspective doesn't put us back far enough. But the point remains. maybe no 50, maybe 65. Or even more intriguing perhaps with the way the world is today, 30.

JLHPROF · September 23, 2014

Awesome, so now we see how outside influences helped the Church to create a better narrative regarding race.

Well, this is true. It was also true concerning polygamy. It was also true concerning modifying the temple.

And it may prove true concerning Women and the Priesthood. And it may prove true concerning Homosexual Marriage.

Anyone who doesn't think outside influences have led to changes in Church position hasn't been paying attention.

The question is always "how far is too far" before we put Isaiah 24:5 and D&C 112:24-26 into practical application.

Further light or apostasy? The early Christian Church probably thought it had further light as it changed according to outside influences.

IMO (and it is just my opinion so don't bother with CFR) if women are ordained to the priesthood and homosexual marriages are allowed in the temple we will surely be in full apostasy and will be lucky if we are still able to be set in order instead of destroyed.

Edited September 23, 2014 by JLHPROF

stemelbow · September 23, 2014

Well, this is true. It was also true concerning polygamy. It was also true concerning modifying the temple.
And it may prove true concerning Women and the Priesthood. And it may prove true concerning Homosexual Marriage.

Anyone who doesn't think outside influences have led to changes in Church position hasn't been paying attention.
The question is always "how far is too far" before we put Isaiah 24:5 and D&C 112:24-26 into practical application.

Further light or apostasy? The early Christian Church probably thought it had further light as it changed according to outside influences.

True. We gots to have some lines in the sand. I personally question whether us fighting, taking a stand against Gay marriage is a requirement. I tend to think we can differ on this view and not be crossing lines that put us at opposition to God.

But I am more liberal in my thinking. I am more of a proponent of big tent Mormonism. I like the idea of having opposition freely shared among us.

Senator · September 23, 2014

Further light or apostasy? The early Christian Church probably thought it had further light as it changed according to outside influences.
IMO (and it is just my opinion so don't bother with CFR) if women are ordained to the priesthood and homosexual marriages are allowed in the temple we will surely be in full apostasy and will be lucky if we are still able to be set in order instead of destroyed.

Actually, if said changes in the church where done by revelation through those that hold the keys, then it is you who would be in apostasy.

Scott Lloyd · September 23, 2014

Whether there was wavering is not the issue. The issue is is it possible that Church leaders have been wrong? if so what does that say about the issues we face today? Could the Church be wrong about SSM? Is it possible that God's grand desire is that the Church not involve itself in this issue at all?

I didn't say possible. I said likely.

And it would be sad indeed if, in your arbitrarily chosen period of 50 years from now, you found yourself railing against or dismissing the inspired teaching of the apostles and prophets, or worse, on the outside of the Church because you were not able to abide sound and true instruction.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

stemelbow · September 23, 2014

I see nothing in that statement to indicate that they were "less valiant," only an admission that we don't know the reason. Please don't invent things that aren't there.

But you seem anxious to deflect the discussion away from the topic of the thread. So to get things back on track, I'll put to you the same question that I just not put to someone else:

In the very post you quoted I took us back to the topic. That can't be considered anxious to deflect the discussion away the from the topic.

Can you show anything from past history or past statement of Church leaders that show the Church is wavering in any degree at all on homosexual behavior being sinful, or is likely to waver in the future other than this tenuous, conjectural and apples-to-oranges comparison to the blacks-and-the-priesthood issue?

That to me is obfuscation. it doesn't matter to me whether the Church wavers on topics or not. The question I have is can the Church hold a position that is not God's will? I say yes. All signs, from this conversation, seem to point to you say no. I merely used the black issue as an example to explain leaders of the Church have been wrong about something, and grossly so.

JLHPROF · September 23, 2014

Actually, if said changes in the church where done by revelation through those that hold the keys, then it is you who would be in apostasy.

No. I think in these cases the revelations would be false, just as the ones claimed that led to the Great Apostasy were false.

And it would cause me to become inactive until the setting in order started.

If the Church leader was incapable of putting false revelation into place we would all be Catholic. And the scriptures are clear that we will change the ordinances and have to be set in order before Christ's coming.

(But fortunately also that we will never go so far astray that another restoration would be needed).

Some people must really want to jump start the process.

Edited September 23, 2014 by JLHPROF

wenglund · September 23, 2014

The question ought not be whether the outside should influence or has influenced the Church, but rather what is best for the outside and the Church. To me, in regards to children, I don't think it best to encourage breaking up traditional families for alternative families (see my post above).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 23, 2014 by wenglund

Senator · September 23, 2014

No. I think in these cases the revelations would be false...

Doesn't matter what you think. You would still be in apostasy to the church.

And it would cause me to become inactive until the setting in order started.

You mean it would cause you to become apostate until such time that you decided to repent and reconcile with the church.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Senator

JLHPROF · September 23, 2014

Doesn't matter what you think. You would still be in apostasy to the church.

You mean it would cause you to become apostate until such time that you decided to repent and reconcile with the church.

I would be in apostasy to the Church but faithful to the truth. True apostasy requires moving away from the truth. That is why it was the Church itself that apostatized after Christ and the Apostles. This would be the same situation (IMO).

No repentance is necessary when one stands for truth against apostasy. The Church is not infallible, it's a mortal organization. It may never apostatize so much it needs to be destroyed, but it will apostatize in some areas according to scripture (again, Isaiah 24 & D&C 112). I don't intend to apostatize along with it.

If the Church allowed SSM and began ordaining women it would be as surely in a state of apostasy as the early Christian Church was by the time of the Nicene Council.

Edited September 23, 2014 by JLHPROF

Sign In

What Is The Damage That Gay Marriage Does To Children

Recommended Posts

Scott Lloyd

Scott Lloyd

california boy

Bob Crockett

EllenMaksoud

Daniel2

EllenMaksoud

JLHPROF

wenglund

thesometimesaint

Scott Lloyd

stemelbow

Scott Lloyd

stemelbow

thesometimesaint

stemelbow

JLHPROF

stemelbow

Senator

Scott Lloyd

stemelbow

JLHPROF

wenglund

Senator

JLHPROF

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse