General Conference: Moving Away From Traditional Marriage Definition?

[Jeanne]

If only marriage between a man and a woman conforms to God's definition of marriage, it logically follows that His Church will never accept same-sex "marriage."

Well..at least until tithing revenues are down,

[rockpond]

Per the world or per the laws of God?  God seems to be a little stuck on one position and the mind of man seems to be quite changeable.  

 

I was referring to the teachings of our prophets and apostles.  It's up to you (and each of us) to decide how accurately those reflect God's will vs. the mind of man.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well..at least until tithing revenues are down,

Classic out-of-the-blue cheap shot.

 

And I see rockpond approves.

[Jeanne]

There is going to be a different generation of young mormons coming up in the church.  This generation will have the said  new perspective that tolerance and gospel teachings can co-exist.  Time???  I give it 25 years.

[rockpond]

Classic out-of-the-blue cheap shot.

 

And I see rockpond approves.

 

I thought it was funny.  You gotta laugh a little, Scott.  

[Jeanne]

Classic out-of-the-blue cheap shot.

 

And I see rockpond approves.

Oh Scott...it is my job here as a board member to get you riled up a little.

[rockpond]

There is going to be a different generation of young mormons coming up in the church.  This generation will have the said  new perspective that tolerance and gospel teachings can co-exist.  Time???  I give it 25 years.

 

Uh-oh... now Scott's gonna have to have another clock running.

[jwhitlock]

On this issue within Mormonism, I think that's almost generally accurate in substance, though not in tone--but not universally true in other subjects and life lessons.

We are all products of our cultural blessings and biases.

Every group of people may profit from the collective wisdom from both the generation of elders preceeding them, and of the rising generation younger than them, because each has a unique perspective.

Said another way... the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice, and it is built line upon line, precept on precept, here a little, there a little...

 

That assumes that there aren't any good reasons to oppose SSM.

 

That assumption is false.

 

The old folks know what they're talking about. The younger generation is going to have to learn it the hard way after getting entrenched in a dead end road.

[jwhitlock]

I admit, I'm four-for-five, but ... who you callin' old, Boy!

 

I was trying to figure out which four out of five, and then I realized that you're a critical thinker.

[jwhitlock]

There is going to be a different generation of young mormons coming up in the church.  This generation will have the said  new perspective that tolerance and gospel teachings can co-exist.  Time???  I give it 25 years.

 

I have more faith in our younger generation than you do. We already know that appropriate tolerance and gospel teachings co-exist and are part of what the church teaches today.

 

What the younger generation will understand even better is that they need to rely fully on the will of God, and not on the trendy issues that the world thinks are important. While the world embraces a dystopia whose foundation is a tolerance of sin, the church will move on to Zion under God's direction.

[Daniel2]

That assumes that there aren't any good reasons to oppose SSM.

That assumption is false.

The old folks know what they're talking about. The younger generation is going to have to learn it the hard way after getting entrenched in a dead end road.

That's almost verbatim what my devout LDS and very racist grandpa (whom I loved for his many other praiseworthy characteristics) told me at the breakfast table when I was a youth about 30 years ago when I told him I didn't see anything wrong with IRM (interracial marriage).

Like most of us, Grandpa was a good man with his own share of human virtues and flaws, his strengths and weaknesses, and I learned from his examples of each.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Daniel2

[Kenngo1969]

That's almost verbatim what my devout LDS and very racist grandpa (whom I loved for his many other praiseworthy characteristics) told me at the breakfast table 30 years ago when I told him I didn't see anything wrong with IRM (interracial marriage).

I don't think there's anything wrong with interracial marriage either, but there are certainly reasons, reasons good and sound and having nothing to do with prejudice, why interracial marriages should be entered into with caution (alas, even today).

Edited March 31, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Jeanne]

I have more faith in our younger generation than you do. We already know that appropriate tolerance and gospel teachings co-exist and are part of what the church teaches today.

 

What the younger generation will understand even better is that they need to rely fully on the will of God, and not on the trendy issues that the world thinks are important. While the world embraces a dystopia whose foundation is a tolerance of sin, the church will move on to Zion under God's direction.

This is true and I do have faith in the youth as a whole..of course!  But we say the same about the times that Joseph Smith grew up..the revival..the changes in culture regarding the civil war..the environment itself is used to justify some of  the things that came about at that time..and even why the law of Moses is different than after the atonement.  I believe that all churches evolve  in regard to to the nature of human growth.

[jwhitlock]

That's almost verbatim what my devout LDS and very racist grandpa (whom I loved for his many other praiseworthy characteristics) told me at the breakfast table 30 years ago when I told him I didn't see anything wrong with IRM (interracial marriage).

 

This assumes, as you're inferring (SSM supporters are very adept in trying to associate opposition to SSM with racism in the past), that anyone who opposes SSM is also a bigoted, homophobic, intolerant (add your own epithet here) individual who hates gays.

 

That assumption is also false.

[Daniel2]

I don't think there's anything wrong with interracial marriage either, but there are certainly reasons, reasons good and sound and having nothing to do with prejudice, why interracial marriages should be entered into with caution (alas, even today).

There are always reasons, reasons good and sound and having nothing to do with prejudice, why each and every marriage known to humankind should be entered into with caution. Our choice of spouse is the most important human relationship we have in life, and should never be taken lightly.

But that's really beside my point, as my grandfather's bigoted rejection of any interracial relarionship was based squarely on prejudiced and racist notions that whites were more valiant in the pre-existance, that all members of the negro race had been cursed because of their lack of full support of Christ, and cultural notions that whites were simply superior to blacks.

Those generational prejudices are the subject I'm referring to--not careful and thoughtful considerations of spousal compatiability.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Daniel2

[jwhitlock]

This is true and I do have faith in the youth as a whole..of course!  But we say the same about the times that Joseph Smith grew up..the revival..the changes in culture regarding the civil war..the environment itself is used to justify some of  the things that came about at that time..and even why the law of Moses is different than after the atonement.  I believe that all churches evolve  in regard to to the nature of human growth.

 

Things evolve positively when the results of that human growth are positive.

 

They evolve negatively when humans become more wicked. Not all change is good. 

 

Marriage has evolved negatively over the years. SSM propagates that evolution in the same direction; it does not strengthen marriage even though its supporters would like us to believe it does. Hence, it cannot be viewed as a positive evolution. Since the church is going in the direction of strengthening marriage, rather than dumbing it down as the world wants, a more "enlightened" generation molding the church after its own image (or the image of the world) would eventually discard marriage as unimportant. If one believes that this church is The Church of Jesus Christ and is led by Him (as I do), then anything that weakens marriage is not going to be acceptable to God or His church, no matter what young people "want".

 

SSM in the church will never happen.

[Jeanne]

Love is colorblind.  I have many multiracial relatives....same difference.

[Kenngo1969]

There are always reasons, reasons good and sound and having nothing to do with prejudice, why each and every marriage known to humankind should be entered into with caution.

But that's realky beside my point, as my grandfather's bigoted rejection of any interracial relarionship was based squarely on prejudiced and racist notions that whites were more valiant in the pre-existance, that all members of the negro race had been cursed because of their lack of full support of Christ, and cultural notions that whites were simply superior to blacks.

Those generational prejudices are the subject I'm referring to--not careful and thoughtful considerations of spousal compatiability.

Hey, he's your grandfather.  If you don't want to give him the benefit of the doubt, that's your business.  While it may be of little consequence to anyone whether a quasi-anonymous Internet poster who, to the best of his knowledge, has never met him and doesn't know him, does so, I just think it's the charitable thing to do.  And no, contrary to your implication, I'm not defending his prejudices or anything he based them on.  Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify. 

[Daniel2]

This assumes, as you're inferring (SSM supporters are very adept in trying to associate opposition to SSM with racism in the past), that anyone who opposes SSM is also a bigoted, homophobic, intolerant (add your own epithet here) individual who hates gays.

No, it doesn't. My grandfather was a loving father and grandfather and a faithful Latter-day Saint. He insisted he didn't hate black people, and I believe that to be true, just as I know many Latter-day Saints who oppose same-sex behavior on religious grounds don't hate gays (Sometimesaint and Rockpond are great examples of that, here on this board--as are many others).

Grandpa asserted he loved all people, and his objections to interracial relationships were entirely justified because of hia sincere religious convictions, just as many today feel their religious objections to same-sex behavior are justified because of their beliefs that God condemns them as sin.

I have not and do not characterize my LDS brothers and sisters as hateful... those are your words that create a Strawman in an effort to paint me as being unreasonable. I agree--most are not hateful.

Whether or not someone allows their religious feelings to dictate public policy restricting equal civil rights for others indicates whether their actions are bigoted. Even so, I don't find accusations of bigotry to be productive, to any extent that such serves as any attempt to shut down open dialogue on the issue.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Daniel2

[jwhitlock]

No, it doesn't. My grandfather was a loving father and grandfather and a faithful Latter-day Saint. He insisted he didn't hate black people, and I believe that to be true, just as I know many Latter-day Saints who oppose same-sex behavior on religious grounds don't hate gays (Sometimesaint and Rockpond are great examples of that, here on this board--as are many others).

Grandpa asserted he loved all people, and his objections to interracial relationships were entirely justified according to his religious faith, just as many today feel their religious objections to same-sex behavior are justified because of their beliefs that God condemns them as sin.

I have not and do not characterize my LDS brothers and sisters as hateful... those are your words in an attempt to claim I am being unreasonable. I agree--most are not.

 

I'm glad you were able to clarify your own position. One correction, however - opposition to SSM is not based solely on what God condemns as sin. There are other reasons, outside of religious ones, to be concerned about the impact of SSM.

 

However, there are others (some post on this board) who do claim that SSM opponents are basically bigoted gay-haters. That attitude seems to be fairly prevalent.  Hence while comparing racism to those who actually hate gays might have some merit, bringing up racism in a discussion where that is not the case (there is opposition to SSM without hating gays) is not productive.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have more faith in our younger generation than you do. We already know that appropriate tolerance and gospel teachings co-exist and are part of what the church teaches today.

 

What the younger generation will understand even better is that they need to rely fully on the will of God, and not on the trendy issues that the world thinks are important. While the world embraces a dystopia whose foundation is a tolerance of sin, the church will move on to Zion under God's direction.

In fact, more young people than ever before in history are making the sacrifice to carry the gospel message to the world, even as the Church of Jesus Christ refuses to succumb to societal pressure regarding this and other current issues.

 

I share your optimism about youth in the Church today.

[Daniel2]

I share your optimism about youth in the Church today.

I'm glad you and I share optimism about youth in the Church in spirt, if not in principle.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Daniel2

[jwhitlock]

In fact, more young people than ever before in history are making the sacrifice to carry the gospel message to the world, even as the Church of Jesus Christ refuses to succumb to societal pressure regarding this and other current issues.

 

I share your optimism about youth in the Church today.

 

Thanks.

 

I do need to clarify that I'm speaking of youth in the church as opposed to youth outside of the church. Those young people who do not embrace the restored gospel are not going to have those anchors in their lives (including, most importantly, the Spirit) to guide them in understanding what's really happening in the world. When I talk about youth heading down dead end paths, I'm not talking about those in the church who give heed to the prophets and to the Spirit. There will be some incredible leaders coming from the new generation who will not succumb to worldly trends that everyone else thinks are somehow "normal" because they are widely accepted. I'm seeing some very, very impressive young people who are fully committed to the gospel and who know the Lord at an age when I was still...  well, we won't go there.

 

So when I hear talk about a new generation with changed attitudes taking over leadership of the church, because "everyone's" attitudes have changed towards SSM, I think of these young people. The Lord is clearly raising a generation to take over in righteousness when the old generation dies off, and the church will continue to stand firm against the world.

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks.

 

I do need to clarify that I'm speaking of youth in the church as opposed to youth outside of the church. Those young people who do not embrace the restored gospel are not going to have those anchors in their lives (including, most importantly, the Spirit) to guide them in understanding what's really happening in the world. When I talk about youth heading down dead end paths, I'm not talking about those in the church who give heed to the prophets and to the Spirit. There will be some incredible leaders coming from the new generation who will not succumb to worldly trends that everyone else thinks are somehow "normal" because they are widely accepted. I'm seeing some very, very impressive young people who are fully committed to the gospel and who know the Lord at an age when I was still...  well, we won't go there.

 

So when I hear talk about a new generation with changed attitudes taking over leadership of the church, because "everyone's" attitudes have changed towards SSM, I think of these young people. The Lord is clearly raising a generation to take over in righteousness when the old generation dies off, and the church will continue to stand firm against the world.

Well said indeed.

 

:clapping: :clapping:

[Mystery Meat]

I would like to weigh in if I may.

 

Inevitably, this thread quickly turned to comparing SSM to Civil Rights. I think there are little to no similarities in the two and have stated as much recently. I also believe that people who draw the comparison are short sided and miss several large differences, but that is neither here nor there.

 

For the sake of conversation, let's entertain the comparison. I think many make the comparison based on one of two general beliefs: (1) the brethren are influenced by social pressure, or (2) the Lord will wait to make the change with His chosen leaders when the Church body as a whole is ready to receive it. Both can be dealt with at the same time and I don't really think there is much of difference between the two.

 

The Civil Rights movement, while building momentum for a long time, was thought to really start in 1954 with the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 and a second in 1968. Many, at least from a quick study use 1954 as the beginning and 1968 as the end. For the most part mainstream Americans were on board by the early 1970s. The Church issued OD 2 in 1978.

 

The Gay Rights movement does have some interesting parallels. The first truly landmark decision by the Supreme Court came in 1996 (Romer v. Evans) which overturned a Colorado Law (somewhat similar to the recent law in Indiana). Lawrence v. Texas followed, and I suspect the Supreme Court will essentially provide the bookend (comparable to the 1968 Act) in a few short months. In this regard, I believe we have until 2025 to reach a comparable timeline like what we saw with the Priesthood Ban (I would argue society is faster to condemn and so I doubt we actually have the same 10 year period from the end of the Civil Rights Movement for the Gay Rights Movement for pressure to build. My guess is we are closer to five years for comparable pressure, but for sake of simplicity we will say 10).

 

What toll has the Church's social stances already taken on its public perception? What toll did its position on blacks and the priesthood have? Does it still have an effect on people? In other words, at what point does it make a difference from a outward pressure standpoint?

 

If the Church isn't already past the point of no return on gay rights, it is getting close. With each year the social benefit of getting with the times is lessened. 10 years from now, most who are going to label the Church as hateful will have already done so. 20 years from now, forget about it. 40 years from now? Ha! The notion that we need a clock that runs that long is a joke.

 

If the Church does not change its stance within the next 15 years, its not happening. At least not if it is influenced by social pressure. If God is simply waiting for some of the older members to either die or be ready for it, then He is favoring the older generation at the cost of the younger (who, if folks on this board on to be believed, are leaving or will leave due to the Church's stance). That makes no sense and I have a hard time believing God is so motivated. In fact, I find it ludicrous.

 

I also take issue with the belief that the Church's membership's view on the righteousness of homosexuality is changing. I am a fairly young person. I hang out with other YSAs. Those who go to Church and are active who I talk to about this issue, are universally in support of the Church's stance (including at least one opening gay member). Without a single exception, everyone young member I know who is opposed is less active, and for reasons unrelated to the church's position on SSM. The Church's base, active membership in the USA (and if you want to talk about countries that are even more conservative...), even amongst younger audiences, is overwhelmingly in support of the Church's stance on SSM. The same cannot be said about the Church's view of the Priesthood ban.