Npr: The Latest From John Dehlin

[rockpond]

You are being disingenuous and it doesn't become you. You very well know you said that the Church should apologize for participating in efforts to keep marriage strictly between men and women. My post was in answer to your calls for that apology. If in 2012 the Church leaders knew that, among other forms of rebellion, acceptance of gay marriage would bring the judgements of God upon the world if they didn't move to take a stand against it and try earnestly succeed in that stand, then it could be argued that by their inaction the leaders of the Church actually wanted the people of the world to be judged, destroyed and made miserable because they didn't care enough to raise the voice of warning.

As to your question: I would imagine that at least some heterosexually married LDS gays chose heterosexual marriage (in spite of their natural predilections) out of obedience to the words of the living prophets.

I wasn't being disingenuous. I responded to both parts... The non-discrimination piece (which is critical though you did not address it in your response to me -- probably because the Church's position is so indefensible) and the gay marriage piece.

My response regarding marriage was meant as an introspective question. Let me try a different way: how do you reconcile the family proclamation, last week's press conference, and the counsel that heterosexual marriage is not to be used as a cure for homosexuality?

In other words, how were we guarding the rights of others that we want protected for ourselves by denying marriage equality? What of the religious freedoms of those who DO believe that God affirms marriages of gay couples? Why should legal protections only apply to the marriages that fit with our belief system?

[rodheadlee]

 Why should legal protections only apply to the marriages that fit with our belief system?

Because we the people of California voted that way, not just Mormons. Why do they let something on the ballot that will be struck down by the court? Why doesn't the court vet these things before people spend a lot of money?

Edited February 3, 2015 by rodheadlee

[Avatar4321]

Why would anyone think marriage would cure homosexual tendencies?

The atonement is the only cure for our fallen nature.

[Avatar4321]

I do listen to them and their inspiration. I'm also not complaining but looking for a way we can solve problems rather than just heaping them onto Dehlin who will soon be out while we continue to confront the same challenges.

The problem is people are ignoring the warnings from those with the keys.

[rockpond]

Because we the people of California voted that way, not just Mormons. Why do they let something on the ballot that will be struck down by the court? Why doesn't the court vet these things before people spend a lot of money?

Those two questions have to do with the CA legal system. My answer: that's the process.

But the question I was asking is why, in a church where we believe in religious freedom, did we feel that it was okay to force our beliefs about marriage on everyone else when we consider the opposite to be a first amendment violation?

[rockpond]

The problem is people are ignoring the warnings from those with the keys.

Now you're just speaking in vague generalities. Who here is suggesting that we ignore the warnings from those with the keys?

[cinepro]

Why would anyone think marriage would cure homosexual tendencies?

The atonement is the only cure for our fallen nature.

 

I don't know about anyone else, but marriage has done wonders for helping me to manage the desires I once had to fornicate.

[Storm Rider]

The polygamy angle is interesting. In 2003, Jeffrey O' Driscoll wrote a biography of hyrum smith and in it, there is much about joseph's polygamy and hyrum's reaction to it. It was published in 2003. So, all those who read that book in 2003 would have read about joseph's and hyrum's polygamy. But who reads such books? Many members would prefer to read compton or palmer than such books by O' Driscoll. Has John read the biography of Hyrum back in 2003? And if so, did he recommend the book on his podcast? Maybe. I hope so. 

 

People need to read books and not only the critic books on church history. We also need more independent scholars to write lds history. But they do not seem interested. I am not sure that it is up to a church to teach indepth history. Most catholics learn their history from books written by scholars or historians. Very little comes from the vatican or from the local church. Likewise for other faiths.

 

http://deseretbook.com/Hyrum-Smith-Life-Integrity-Jeffrey-S-ODriscoll/i/5053130

 

I disagree; you seem to think that Catholics know the history of the Catholic Church, whereas they don't begin to know or understanding the works of the papacy.  For them it has been a long line of wonderful, saint-like individuals who have lived inspiring lives and guided their church in truth and light.  There is no real understanding of the humanity of the popes and their actions.  

 

Religion protects itself; organizations prefer to hear about faith promoting stories.  They do not like to focus on the negative, because it does nothing to feed the sheep.  Islam is even more demanding of its history - it is whatever they want it to be and historians that don't tow the line are castigated and rejected.  

[Storm Rider]

Those two questions have to do with the CA legal system. My answer: that's the process.

But the question I was asking is why, in a church where we believe in religious freedom, did we feel that it was okay to force our beliefs about marriage on everyone else when we consider the opposite to be a first amendment violation?

 

Hello Rock,

 

Your response is one I have heard many times before.  There are those who promote a kind of odd review and like to think that marriage of SS individuals has always been the norm.  We, as in humanity, don't embrace change easily.  I don't see the Church doing or having done anything abnormal.  One group was pushing an agenda that drastically changed a moral norm.  The Church responded as a Church should respond - it questioned and still questions the morality of this group.  It was not "forcing" anyone to fit to its moral standards, rather it was enforcing the moral norm that has existed for thousands of years with very few exceptions.

 

Further, the "rights" afforded married couples can be provided too without marriage, but those rights were not what was at desired or wanted.  Those who promote this agenda are attempting to force everyone to accept their behavior as healthy and without any reservations.  There should have been resistance to social change for no other reason than to talk about solutions and how best to adapt a new norm.  That has not happened for this cause; there is one side that has an agenda and there is no discussion.  It is either their way or you are branded as a neanderthal.

 

Moral agendas need to be questioned.  I think of the play Rhinocéros by Eugène Ionesco, a wonderful story that discusses how mass movements and the demands of social conformity occur without thought or discussion.  They simply exist and many jump on the bus because of the allure of conformity.  Some don't jump on the bus; some continue to ask questions and think.  They are not condemning, but just need time to think and question.  In the end they may condemn a movement, but I value their need to question.  

[rockpond]

Ban 'em all! Ban 'em from the public square! Install padlocks on Mormons' mouths upon baptism, only to be unlocked when the likes of rp thinks they ought, in some obscure and very narrow instance, to be permitted to speak.

Nope. Not at all what I said. We should be very active... Very active in protecting individual freedoms and religious rights. We failed at that for a while but I'm hopeful that beginning with last weeks press conference, we'll get back on track.

[rockpond]

Hello Rock,

Your response is one I have heard many times before. There are those who promote a kind of odd review and like to think that marriage of SS individuals has always been the norm. We, as in humanity, don't embrace change easily. I don't see the Church doing or having done anything abnormal. One group was pushing an agenda that drastically changed a moral norm. The Church responded as a Church should respond - it questioned and still questions the morality of this group. It was not "forcing" anyone to fit to its moral standards, rather it was enforcing the moral norm that has existed for thousands of years with very few exceptions.

Further, the "rights" afforded married couples can be provided too without marriage, but those rights were not what was at desired or wanted. Those who promote this agenda are attempting to force everyone to accept their behavior as healthy and without any reservations. There should have been resistance to social change for no other reason than to talk about solutions and how best to adapt a new norm. That has not happened for this cause; there is one side that has an agenda and there is no discussion. It is either their way or you are branded as a neanderthal.

Moral agendas need to be questioned. I think of the play Rhinocéros by Eugène Ionesco, a wonderful story that discusses how mass movements and the demands of social conformity occur without thought or discussion. They simply exist and many jump on the bus because of the allure of conformity. Some don't jump on the bus; some continue to ask questions and think. They are not condemning, but just need time to think and question. In the end they may condemn a movement, but I value their need to question.

Storm,

Moral and societal norms both in society and the church change all the time. This is certainly true of marriage looking back over the centuries. There is no reason why the societal norm of not legally recognizing gay unions had to remain in place.

The Church chose to enforce its religious beliefs on others. It was legal but according to the instruction of our leaders last week, our failure to protect the religious freedoms of those who do believe in gay marriage, was wrong.

If there was an agenda it was equality, freedom, non-discrimination... All things we should be fighting FOR not against.

We failed to stand up for the rights of others back in 2008. We failed to follow Elder Holland's advice from Tuesday. Now we start the long road back to a place of healing.

[why me]

I disagree; you seem to think that Catholics know the history of the Catholic Church, whereas they don't begin to know or understanding the works of the papacy.  For them it has been a long line of wonderful, saint-like individuals who have lived inspiring lives and guided their church in truth and light.  There is no real understanding of the humanity of the popes and their actions.  

 

Religion protects itself; organizations prefer to hear about faith promoting stories.  They do not like to focus on the negative, because it does nothing to feed the sheep.  Islam is even more demanding of its history - it is whatever they want it to be and historians that don't tow the line are castigated and rejected.  

You misunderstood me. I said that catholic can discover their history from books written by historians and scholars. The vatican does not teach history on their site. However, for the lds, independent historians have shown very little interest in lds history. Perhaps if romney would have become president more historical books would have been written about the lds church So, we are basically in agreement. I have said over and over again, it is only the lds church that is expected to teach their history. It has become a critic manta. Others faiths do not have to teach their history....very little pressure is exerted in that direction.

[why me]

I think that we can now see that the Maxwell Institute was right when Dan was there. The piece about john should have been published. I believe that the author of the piece has been vindicated. But the poor GA who asked for it to be silenced now has egg on his face. If that piece was allowed to be published when it should have been published, much would have been learned from what john did. But at the same time, the piece would have given john an excuse to leave the fold by eclaiming foul. Lets hope that when this is all over, the article will be published with an update.

[Robert F. Smith]

The whole deal is just bad. I hope and pray for him but he is on a long dark road straight into the jaws of hell.

Not the Dark Side . . . 

[Robert F. Smith]

I think that we can now see that the Maxwell Institute was right when Dan was there. The piece about john should have been published. I believe that the author of the piece has been vindicated. But the poor GA who asked for it to be silenced now has egg on his face. If that piece was allowed to be published when it should have been published, much would have been learned from what john did. But at the same time, the piece would have given john an excuse to leave the fold by eclaiming foul. Lets hope that when this is all over, the article will be published with an update.

I know of no GA who squelched publication of Gregory Smith's article.  This was a local in-house decision at the BYU level.  Nervous Nellies . . .who didn't even read the paper to see if it was a "hit piece."  Yokels is as yokels does.

[Storm Rider]

You misunderstood me. I said that catholic can discover their history from books written by historians and scholars. The vatican does not teach history on their site. However, for the lds, independent historians have shown very little interest in lds history. Perhaps if romney would have become president more historical books would have been written about the lds church So, we are basically in agreement. I have said over and over again, it is only the lds church that is expected to teach their history. It has become a critic manta. Others faiths do not have to teach their history....very little pressure is exerted in that direction.

 

Sorry for my confusion.  Your point makes sense to me now.  

 

I have grown rather fatigued by the entire "I didn't know that ??? and I am shocked" problem.  I am not dismissing the fact that some historical facts are difficult to understand or even accept; I am just tired of the constant whining.  

 

Do what makes you happy; know what makes you happy.  I know that when I am obedient I feel happier and when I follow after my own desires I end up less happy.  I suspect this is the same for all people.  It really does not matter what Joseph did or did not do.  It does not matter what any prophet did and did not do.  I am not a member of the Church because of prophets; they have never been my cornerstone or foundation.  

 

I appreciate your thoughts. 

[why me]

I know of no GA who squelched publication of Gregory Smith's article.  This was a local in-house decision at the BYU level.  Nervous Nellies . . .who didn't even read the paper to see if it was a "hit piece."  Yokels is as yokels does.

Of course, john was in touch with one GA. We just don't know what went on in that meeting. However, I do hope that whomever was involved now sees the error of their ways. And basically that was my point. I do believe that Dan has been vindicated in what has now transpired with John and the lds church.

[bluebell]

Nope. Not at all what I said. We should be very active... Very active in protecting individual freedoms and religious rights. We failed at that for a while but I'm hopeful that beginning with last weeks press conference, we'll get back on track.

But we should not base our political activism or voting on our morals, right?

We should champion things we believe are immoral and detrimental to society if not doing so would mean the government won't endorse those things because that's what the church of Christ would do?

Edited February 3, 2015 by bluebell

[Buckeye]

Of course, john was in touch with one GA. We just don't know what went on in that meeting. However, I do hope that whomever was involved now sees the error of their ways. And basically that was my point. I do believe that Dan has been vindicated in what has now transpired with John and the lds church.

 

Maybe, but don't expect them to apologize.

[stemelbow]

But we should not base our political activism or voting on our morals, right?

We should champion things we believe are immoral and detrimental to society if not doing so would mean the government won't endorse those things because that's what the church of Christ would do?

But thinking it is immoral and detrimental to society is a big fat whopping guess. Indeed, it might end up being far more moral and healthy for society.

[rockpond]

But we should not base our political activism or voting on our morals, right?

We should champion things we believe are immoral and detrimental to society if not doing so would mean the government won't endorse those things because that's what the church of Christ would do?

 

Of course we should base our political activism and voting on our morals.  But in this case... which moral?  The one that tells us gay people should be celibate or the one that tells us we should allow all people freedom of the soul and the right to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience?

 

Based on what was said in the presser last week, I would assume that we now feel individual and religious freedoms should have won the day.

[Avatar4321]

But thinking it is immoral and detrimental to society is a big fat whopping guess. Indeed, it might end up being far more moral and healthy for society.

so we are supposed to ignore the proclamation on the family now?

[Ferdinand55]

Of course we should base our political activism and voting on our morals.  But in this case... which moral?  The one that tells us gay people should be celibate or the one that tells us we should allow all people freedom of the soul and the right to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience?

I have no problem with allowing homosexuals to live their lives as they please. And I am all for non-discrimination in housing, employement, etc. But that is not the issue here. The issue is that they not only want to live their lives in an immoral way, but they desire legal recognition and tax benefits for their lifestyle. They want a certificate from the state saying that the state approves of their relationship, and will provide them with the benefits that they desire.

[Mars]

The following is all recall.  I trust my memory, but you may not, and that's perfectly fine.

 

I read a Church PR release during the fun that was Prop 8 which said the Church supported domestic partnerships and civil unions.  Before you go all "separate but equal...  LIKE KANSAS SCHOOLS?!?!?!?!  RACIST!!!" on me, and you'd have a point, I don't think the Church is trying to get laws to be written such that two gay men or women can't co-habit or solemnize their union under full protection of the law.  I think the Church - reading their mind here - is saying (and has said) "I understand you guys want to get together.  Just please don't call it marriage."

 

I also recall reading Judge Vaughn Walker's (hope I got his name right) ruling outlining why domestic partnerships and civil unions don't cut the mustard.  He essentially said that even if all the protective shortcomings were addressed, the two unions - marriage and civil union - wouldn't be esteemed equally in the eyes of the people.  As such, the law should seek to support what is equal in the eyes of the people.  It made sense as I saw it from his angle, but it struck me by and large as not being about affording rights and protections via the law, but about promoting a culture that would ensure the laws reflected the mores of the people.  It was about legislating his version of morality.

 

Why bring this up?

 

I really find it unfair to characterize the Church as wanting to block gays from being happy, or having rights afforded to them.  Even this last press release, which when I read with my TBM/Morg/unthinking/super duper traditional/gay hatin' background, I thought "Oh hey that's cool.  They're trying to acknowledge that we all live in a world without unanimous agreement about what's right and wrong, so let's try and find a way to make sure religious freedom is preserved, and gay people don't get thrown out of houses because the landlord finds their relationships icky."

 

So imagine my surprise when everyone else seemed to think the whole PR release was just another chapter in the "Elder Oaks and the Mormons are unapologetic, unyielding, and cold hearted pieces of work who want to use religious freedom as a nudge and a wink skirting of the law to continue a pointed and protracted campaign against the gays."

 

I don't buy it.  I don't think that Elder Oaks is unapologetic because he is unfeeling and thinks that anyone who's upset about their treatment needs to just get over it.  I think the Church recognizes that we live in a very diverse world and is trying to protect religious freedom while not trampling on the basic real life rights of a human being.  Seems like the harder they try to do that, the more they get damned for it.

[stemelbow]

so we are supposed to ignore the proclamation on the family now?

No