Recent Survey (via Jana Reiss)

[MormonVideoGame]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In some cases, it's a matter of teaching correct principles and letting people govern themselves.

Yes, I like that! Now we are getting somewhere. 

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Many people became enraged that the Church said anything at all on marriage redefinition, even though as pertaining to public policy it merely encouraged its members to get involved instead of becoming involved itself as an institutional entity.

I think the church is getting more political https://www.lds.org/church/news/first-presidency-asks-members-to-oppose-recreational-marijuana-assisted-suicide?lang=eng

but for some reason it is politically silent on legislative proposals concerning abortion. It is even silent on stem cell research.  

44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But I gather that it's not OK with you that Mormons, guided by their religious beliefs, choose to become involved in the political process. That attitude strikes me as un-American.

Everyone has the right to vote, but imagine if the US had a conservative Muslim majority ? or a conservative Hindu majority? Imagine if blood transfusion was illegal? or abortion under all circumstances? or cows in the streets? 

Jesus was wise to say "my kingdom is not of this world".  

Romney said, "Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion...Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin." 

So isn't best to vote as Americans?  

43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Edited to add: The Church's legal counsel, Lance Wickman, has spoken out against measures that would require health care providers to perform abortion or dispense abortion advice against their moral or religious values. I started a thread that is still active on threats to religious freedom in the mental health profession, but it also discusses secondarily threats to religious freedom in the health care profession in general.

that is something else 

45 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't know how to progress this 'discussion'... 

You an anthropologist?   

[Calm]

"I think the church is getting more political"

That is because you are young and weren't on the scene when abortion first arrived, ERA, lotteries, and a few other political issues I can't think of.

ERA blows SSM out of the water, but perhaps it seems that way to me because I was not in CA for the SSM.

"You an anthropologist?"

Please explain why a trained historian would be incapable of researching and comprehending effectively the development of politics out of religion as well as the current relationship between religion and politics, but a trained anthropologist would be.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

... Everyone has the right to vote, but imagine if the US had a conservative Muslim majority ? or a conservative Hindu majority? Imagine if blood transfusion was illegal? or abortion under all circumstances? or cows in the streets? ...

So, people shouldn't be guided by their religious convictions in how they vote, but it was OK for someone to decide to vote for, e.g., President Obama because it would be cool to watch him on Jimmy Kimmel or Saturday Night Live or Steven Colbert?  If we're not going to violate the sanctity of the voting booth even for people who decide for whom to vote based on trivial or invidious criteria, why should we violate its sanctity for people who are motivated by religion in casting their votes?  

See also:

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2016/07/28/religious-devotion-and-political-participation/ 

Edited June 28, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

... So it is a sin to support the legalization of SSM?  Why doesn't the church have a position on the legalization of Abortion?

"The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion" Please explain the difference, I am confused. 

So why doesn't the church have a position on the legalization of Abortion? Why is the politics neccesary [sic] for SSM issue? 

Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.

So what did Jesus mean?

Do you know? 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not oppose the legalization of abortion because, while its leaders strongly caution members about it, there are rare circumstances in which it might be necessary, medically speaking.  

Edited June 28, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Gray]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The biblical teaching on homosexuality is pretty clear and unambiguous.  One doesn't need to go any further than orthodox Judaism to understand that. LDS Scripture includes the OT and it seems unlikely that the prohibition on homosexuality will be abandoned soon.  Those whom you declare in favor of SSM are probably merely tolerant of it.  It is not likely that they will begin practicing it themselves.  Your terminology is confused and incoherent.

In historical context, there is no reason to suppose any of the Biblical writers understood homosexuality. Certainly none of the the writers were responding to committed, monogamous gay marriage. Much of what they were responding to was prostitution or fornication. In historical context, none of those teachings really have anything to do with gay marriage.

[Gray]

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Sure ... if you have your fingers deeply thrust into both ears. And utterly reject the foundational claim that the Restoration brought back living prophets...

Living prophets who haven't excercized any of their prophetic faculties on the subject thus far.

 

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Just as there is no mention of robot marriage either. Therefore what?

Anything not explicitly mentioned is forbidden? That must mean chocolate pudding and yoga are forbidden to the saints, right?

 

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

 

Is that what you're getting at when you say homosexuality is "just" a construct? Elder Bednar is at odds with official church teachings on the subject in this off the cuff statement. And of course Mormonism is "just" a construct too - that doesn't imply there are no Mormons.

[Gray]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Fidelity to the faith typically runs at about 66 percent in the Church, so this survey doesn't surprise me very much. At any given time, about a third of us are particularly susceptible to worldly influence.

In this case, there are two worldly influences - the worldly influence that is in favor of gay marriage, the worldly influence against gay marriage. Only the former influence is also godly.

I'm not sure where you get your number, or how you concluded that this one wedge issue determines "fidelity to the faith". This would be among people who self-identify as Mormons, yes? I don't think we have the statistic of how all people on the rolls think about the issue. It could be much higher than 1/3.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Gray

[Bobbieaware]

On 6/27/2017 at 1:33 PM, JLHPROF said:

I know, I know, another SSM thread.  Because they always go so well and I never complain about the proliferation of them. 

But perhaps we can focus on WHY the Church membership views are changing instead of whether we think this is right/wrong or good/bad.
http://religionnews.com/2017/06/27/mormons-are-changing-their-tune-on-same-sex-marriage/

According to this survey about 1/3 of Mormons now favor SSM and barely more than half oppose it.  Now, the survey may have some issues (most do) but the change from last year is the indicator of interest assuming the survey was handled the same way both times.  We as members appear to be changing our views.

So without opening the debate about SSM itself, perhaps we can discuss the following:
1. WHY are members views changing so rapidly?
2. HOW do members reconcile the doctrinal disparity with Church teachings?
3. The Church is often accused of being afraid of nothing.  Is THIS what the Church really has to fear from the SSM movement?

 

 

The thing that matters to me is what percentage of TBMs with temple recommends (I.e. those who can honestly say they know by the Spirit the Church is true and that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are true prophets of God) are evolving toward acceptance of gay marriage. It seems to me that non-TBM members. who make no bones about disagreeing with the leaders, would be much more susceptible to succumbing to the idea that there will be no serious societal consequences for the general approval of sinful behaviors. 

Edited June 28, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[california boy]

I personally think that perhaps one reason members are becoming more ok with gay marriage is because the solution under Mormonism is immoral as well.  Forced celibacy.  which is different than being celibate until you can find a spouse.

Humans are designed to seek companionship.  From a very early age, we seek companionship.  We value marriage.  Marriage is at the very core of the Plan of Salvation. You take away marriage from that plan and the whole thing falls apart.  Telling someone that they cannot participate in that plan while on earth flies in the face of everything the church builds its paradime on.  You can't just lop off a part of the population from that plan on earth simply because they are gay.  You can't tell them their children are unworthy of baptism.  This issues tug at the Spirit.  People feel something is wrong here.  The church tries to ignore those feelings by doubling down on the evils of gay marriage.  Calling them apostates did nothing to change the minds of members. More important, it did nothing to change how people feel deep inside.  It just doesn't smell right.  Why can't a gay couple marry for time at least?  Where is the harm in that?  99.9% of the world marry for time.  There is no forbidding of that?  And why can't we let God sort all this out in the next life just like we do on so many other issues.  We certainly don't worry if a woman marries two husbands when the first one dies.

The church has been down this road before.  At some point the whispering of the Spirit to so many members may be more powerful than the policies of church leaders.  Pretending that all those that support gay marriage must be inactive is putting your fingers in your ears.  Every graph I have ever seen on gay marriage has only headed one way.  

 

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I guess I've seen things a little differently in my conservative Utah ward.  Our HP group leader was talking about this just recently in the quorum about attending a SSM wedding and asked the group what they thought about this and how in times past he would have thought it inappropriate.  Many of the members in the quorum, even very orthodox types said they thought it was a matter of personal conscience and varied by circumstance, but I didn't hear anyone condemn the idea or say that going to the SSM ceremony was anti church or went against the brethren.  At least from my view, times are a chang'n even for conservative Utah Mormons.  

That's encouraging news, to me.  I mean it's small and might not suggest much about anyone involved in that conversation supporting the notion of SSM, but it's something. 

[churchistrue]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Fidelity to the faith typically runs at about 66 percent in the Church, so this survey doesn't surprise me very much. At any given time, about a third of us are particularly susceptible to worldly influence.

This perspective seems really out of touch with what's happening in the church. Normal, regular, active members are changing how they feel on this. And check in with the college crowd. I have kids in this category. They and their active LDS peers nearly universally are taking sides with their gay friends on this issue.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Living prophets who haven't excercized any of their prophetic faculties on the subject thus far.

You cannot refuse to accept anything the living prophets have said and do say on this topic and then blame it on their supposed lack of 'prophetic faculties'. Well, actually you can, but it looks pretty silly.

Quote

That must mean chocolate pudding and yoga are forbidden to the saints, right?

If you mean what Americans call 'chocolate pudding', then almost certainly.

Quote

Elder Bednar is at odds with official church teachings on the subject in this off the cuff statement.

CFR.

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You cannot refuse to accept anything the living prophets have said and do say on this topic and then blame it on their supposed lack of 'prophetic faculties'. Well, actually you can, but it looks pretty silly.

When they default to the positions taken before them by the Christian fundamentalists, I think it's safe to conclude that they haven't exercised their prophetic mantle on this issue.

 

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

If you mean what Americans call 'chocolate pudding', then almost certainly.

The rantings of a heathen!

 

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

CFR.

https://mormonandgay.lds.org/

Mormon and Gay - An Official Church Website

[BlueDreams]

19 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So without opening the debate about SSM itself, perhaps we can discuss the following:
1. WHY are members views changing so rapidly?
2. HOW do members reconcile the doctrinal disparity with Church teachings?
3. The Church is often accused of being afraid of nothing.  Is THIS what the Church really has to fear from the SSM movement?

1. From a different, social perspective. This also happened with interracial marriage. There's a difference between generally being ok with a hypothetical construct v. being ok with it on a more personal level. Nowadays the majority of people say they approve of interracial marriages.....but that stat changes drastically shifts if they're asked if it's okay for a close relative to marry interracially. I'm sure this is still higher than from the 1960's but it's obviously lagging from the generalized social acceptance. I would also assume that it follows age as well. SSM is the law of the land and people are accepting that. I think most LDS don't want to make this the cross they die on. And for younger generations that's even more pronounced. But I honestly doubt that this represents a drastic shift beyond legality. Because in general, the more personal it becomes the less likely ideals are to drastically shift. Mine haven't, as a millenial. I'm still a little on the fence and never really cared one way or the other. I thought the arguments of a doomed society were overdramatic. I also didn't believe some of the arguments that it would have no effect from the other side a little naive. If I had been polled I would have probably polled as "no opinion."  

2. When/if ever my cousin plans to get married, I hope to get an invite and I also plan to attend. She would most likely marry a woman. I expect at some point I would feel some level of unexpected sadness because that's what I experience when she first came out to me. It was unexpected because it had never hurt with other people who were casual friendships or clients. But as I mentioned, making it personal can change a construct drastically. Each person deals with the disparity differently. Personally I believe strongly in the eternal constructs and need for a marriage between a man and woman. But if my cousin doesn't want that and wants to be as happy as she can here, then I want that for her. I'd also like her to have a stable relationship with responsibilities and rights to said partnership however that's done. I don't expect the marriage itself to carry over to the next life...I keep that to myself because she probably knows and I don't see the point of beating a dead horse. But I love her and I wouldn't want to add hurt to her. There's only one thing that's really taken a doctrinal shift for me. It was immediate too. I came to a firm knowledge that the kingdoms would have more interaction than many assume now.  It wouldn't be heaven to me, after all, if I couldn't see my cuz or my bro (who's non-practicing at the moment) or any other person who may not feel comfortable in a celestial glory.  Beyond that, as a TBM nothing's changed. I don't have to reconcile the church's teaching that SSM is not an eternal principle and a false teaching with supporting my cousin in her own decisions outside the church. Any more than I have to feel uncomfortable when I attended a Krishna religious service and danced about the floor with them. Just because we don't see things the same way doesn't mean I can't be there and learn from our differences.

3. If I understand this one....I don't think so. I don't know if I ever thought the church is afraid of nothing....just that it moves forward no matter what. I think they were probably more concerned about the further erosion to a traditional marriage construct and the importance of both mother and father present in the home and lives of the children. I'm concerned about that in part because I had a non-traditional family construct all of my life. As much as I love my family (I do) I wouldn't want to reconstruct my family structure.

 

With luv,

BD 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Everyone has the right to vote, but imagine if the US had a conservative Muslim majority ? or a conservative Hindu majority? Imagine if blood transfusion was illegal? or abortion under all circumstances? or cows in the streets? 

That's why we have the Bill of Rights as part of the U.S. Constitution.

The sort of thing you imagine above would be prohibited by the same First Amendment that forbids you to prevent people of faith from participating in the political system if they are guided by their religious principles.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Elder Bednar is at odds with official church teachings on the subject in this off the cuff statement.

 

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

CFR.

 

3 hours ago, Gray said:

https://mormonandgay.lds.org/

Mormon and Gay - An Official Church Website

You don't get off that easily. You can't just point to a whole website and claim it answers the call for references. That's like pointing to a whole book instead of identifying a single paragraph in the book.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

In historical context, there is no reason to suppose any of the Biblical writers understood homosexuality.

Not sure on what basis you make that statement.  There is no reason to doubt that biblical writers understood homosexuality.

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Certainly none of the the writers were responding to committed, monogamous gay marriage. Much of what they were responding to was prostitution or fornication. In historical context, none of those teachings really have anything to do with gay marriage.

Well, of course, there was no U.S. Constitution in those days, so notions of SSM would not have been at issue, but it is certainly not true that this was merely a matter of prostitution or fornication being mistaken later for homosexual relations.  The biblical condemnation is explicit.  Jacob Milgrom, “Does the Bible Prohibit Homosexuality,” Bible Review, 9/6 (Dec 1993):11ff., online at http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBR&Volume=9&Issue=6&ArticleID=3 , which brought reader replies in BR 10/2 at http://members.bib-arch.org/search.asp?PubID=BSBR&Volume=10&Issue=02&ArticleID=01 .  Lev 18:22, 20:13.

[Gray]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You don't get off that easily. You can't just point to a whole website and claim it answers the call for references. That's like pointing to a whole book instead of identifying a single paragraph in the book.

The statement "There are no homosexual members of the Church" is totally at odds with "Mormon and gay". Otherwise the website would be "Mormon and That's It."

[Thinking]

23 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Is a sample size of 700 statistically significant?

More important than the sample size is how the sample was selected. Is it a simple random sample?

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not sure on what basis you make that statement.  There is no reason to doubt that biblical writers understood homosexuality.

What makes you think they understood it when we're only just starting to understand it now? Let's not fall into the trap of presentism. Paul believed that homosexuality was a curse from God, after all - a punishment for holding incorrect beliefs.

Quote

Well, of course, there was no U.S. Constitution in those days, so notions of SSM would not have been at issue, but it is certainly not true that this was merely a matter of prostitution or fornication being mistaken later for homosexual relations.  The biblical condemnation is explicit.  Jacob Milgrom, “Does the Bible Prohibit Homosexuality,” Bible Review, 9/6 (Dec 1993):11ff., online at http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBR&Volume=9&Issue=6&ArticleID=3 , which brought reader replies in BR 10/2 at http://members.bib-arch.org/search.asp?PubID=BSBR&Volume=10&Issue=02&ArticleID=01 .  Lev 18:22, 20:13.

I didn't say that every statement in the Bible relating to homosexuality is about prostitution. But, as scholarship goes, this is quite dated. That doesn't mean it's wrong (and I haven't read it), but the date inspires a raised eyebrow.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Gray

[katherine the great]

53 minutes ago, Gray said:

The statement "There are no homosexual members of the Church" is totally at odds with "Mormon and gay". Otherwise the website would be "Mormon and That's It."

I was struck by the wording of the comment as well.  I think I understand what he is trying to say: we are not defined merely by our sexual preference. However, he then went on to give an example of the challenges of beautiful people and physically challenged people.  From that logic, there are no beautiful members of the church or hearing impaired members of the church (or heterosexual or athletic or tiny or smart, etc.) We may not be completely defined by our traits, but they are certainly part of who we are as individuals. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, churchistrue said:

This perspective seems really out of touch with what's happening in the church. Normal, regular, active members are changing how they feel on this. And check in with the college crowd. I have kids in this category. They and their active LDS peers nearly universally are taking sides with their gay friends on this issue.

 

It's possible I'm out of touch; it has happened before. It's also possible your own perception is skewed by your exposure to your kids' college-age associates. To some degree we are all like the six blind men of Indostan in our perspectives. Last night, I attended the devotional at the Provo Utah Missionary Training Center. As I looked at that sea of young men and young women gathered in that auditorium, it struck me that they represented the true heart and soul of the youth of the Church.

As one gets older it becomes clearer that younger people are more apt to sympathize with "progressive" and counter-culture attitudes but they become more conservative as they grow older. I've seen this in my own peer group and, to some extent, even in myself. The issues du jour change, but the pattern remains the same.

Fifty years ago, it was a matter of whether to embrace free-wheeling, pre-marital sex and domestic arrangements outside of marriage. The term "new morality" was in vogue then. What the Church leaders of the day told us was that the "new morality" was, in reality, the old immorality dressed up in new and fashionable clothes. They were absolutely right, of course.

So what happened is that the world in general remained on its misguided trajectory while the faithful core of young Latter-day Saints remained true to -- or returned to -- the values espoused by the Church which, today, remain unchanged.

I've no doubt that the faithful followers of God and Christ, the prophesied "church of the Lamb" will remain relatively few in number, but its global reach will remain viable, as is necessary for it to fulfill its mission to set the stage for the coming of Christ in glory.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

12 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

In what way are their views changing?  Are they believing that it is morally right or do they simply think it should be legal?  Are they going against what the Church teaches?  I don't think so.   I think they are simply saying gays should have a legal right to marry even if they do not agree with it.

For me, I want very little government in our lives.  I also believe in the concept of agency.  People should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as their agency does not negatively infringe on another.  So though I do not accept gay marriage as a valid form of marriage, a  wicked practice and would oppose the Church from ever accepting or endorsing it, I do believe that it should be legal.  Just as I believe prostitution should be legal and ALL drugs from pot to cocaine should be legal.  The whole concept of agency is to allow people to make choices.  That includes very bad choices that would lead to their damnation.  It seems that us LDS believe and teach that we fought a "war" in heaven over the idea of agency.  We won that battle but then we come to this world and try to take agency away from others.  The Church and its members MUST stand for what is right be we also should allow people to make choices that are not right. 

There are two possibilities on this.  

 

One is that the change is due to a shift towards a more libertarian "live and let live" attitude, where LDS still think same-sex marriage is wrong and immoral and sinful and not ok, but it's legal now and there's nothing we can do about it so it's ok if other non-Mormons want to do it.

The second would be if the shift is more fundamental, in that LDS (especially teenagers and young adults) are changing to a belief that same-sex marriage itself is ok.  This would be especially likely if they are seeing first-hand examples of gay couples living happy, productive and fulfilling lives together, raising children and being a "family" in every sense of the word.  This could even happen from shows like "Modern Family", where a fictitious gay couple is shown raising a child.

If it's the former, the Church has much less to worry about.  It is simply a coping mechanism to dealing with the world we live in and choosing our battles.  But if it's the latter, then it's a serious problem. 

[Gray]

26 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

I was struck by the wording of the comment as well.  I think I understand what he is trying to say: we are not defined merely by our sexual preference. However, he then went on to give an example of the challenges of beautiful people and physically challenged people.  From that logic, there are no beautiful members of the church or hearing impaired members of the church (or heterosexual or athletic or tiny or smart, etc.) We may not be completely defined by our traits, but they are certainly part of who we are as individuals. 

Oh yeah, I get what he was saying. I don't want to pile on Elder Bednar. But his message should be understood as his own opinion, not the messaging of the church around sexual orientation.

[Gray]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's possible I'm out of touch; it has happened before. It's also possible your own perception is skewed by your exposure to your kids' college-age associates. To some degree we are all like the six blind men of Indostan in our perspectives. Last night, I attended the devotional at the Provo Utah Missionary Training Center. As I looked at that sea of young men and young women gathered in that auditorium, it struck me that they represented the true heart and soul of the youth of the Church.

As one gets older it becomes clearer that younger people are more apt to sympathize with "progressive" and counter-culture attitudes but they become more conservative as they grow older. I've seen this in my own peer group and, to some extent, even in myself. The issues du jour change, but the pattern remains the same.

Fifty years ago, it was a matter of whether to embrace free-wheeling, pre-marital sex and domestic arrangements outside of marriage. The term "new morality" was in vogue then. What the Church leaders of the day told us was that the "new morality" was, in reality, the old immorality dressed up in new and fashionable clothes. They were absolutely right, of course.

So what happened is that the world in general remained on its misguided trajectory while the faithful core of young Latter-day Saints remained true to -- or returned to -- the values espoused by the Church which, today, remain unchanged.

I've no doubt that the faithful followers of God and Christ, the prophesied "church of the Lamb" will remain relatively few in number, but its global reach will remain viable, as is necessary for it to fulfill its mission to set the stage for the coming of Christ in glory.

Do people get more conservative as they get older, or do their views simply sound more conservative as society continues to move leftward over the decades? At some point in life I think our political views tend to calcify.

In any case, all of us have our "six blind men" moments. I can tell you the RS president and her husband in my ward affirm gay marriage, and so does one of the counselors in our bishopric. But I live in a pretty liberal ward, so that has nothing to do with someone else's ward in Farmington or Boise or Vancouver.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Gray