New Research Reports Most Younger Mormons Now "Strongly Favor" or "Favor" SSM

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm sorry you feel that my previous post(s) was or were non-responsive.  I'm sorry you feel that they're nothing more than "lots of words."  It doesn't necessarily take a Juris doctor, or even, necessarily, a lot of research to see how Obergefell v. Hodges is simply another in a long line of majority decisions in which courts have paid mere lip service to the idea of free exercise, one of the First Amendment's core concepts, while inventing competing concepts out of mysterious "penumbras" and "implications," if not doing so out of whole cloth entirely.  True, nobody has called for the repeal of the First Amendment ... yet.  But today's Precious Little Snowflakes are tomorrow's appellate lawyers and judges.

Obergefell v. Hodges decision was not decided upon based on the First Amendment.  It was based on the 14th Amendment.  Equal preotection under the law guaranteed in the Constitution.  FYI

 

[california boy]

5 hours ago, kllindley said:

I'm sorry. You are misunderstanding me. I'm saying that favoring "allowing. . .to marry legally" is different than "favoring the marriage.". One (the actual survey question) focuses on allowing people the freedom to choose. The title implies favoring the relationship itself. 

Maybe it would make it more clear to look at the negative. The way the question is worded, I would have to oppose allowing them to legally marry. The negative of the "summary" is that I would oppose the marriages. 

I can both support allowing them to marry while in principle opposing the action.  Like I support legalizing marijuana, whole opposing its recreational use. If a majority of church members support legalizing marijuana, it would not be correct to assume that the majority support marijuana use. 

Of course, even then you are in opposition to what church leaders are teaching about this issue.

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

What happens when the membership no longer believes what the leadership is teaching?

What has always happened:

Quote

2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,

3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.

4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.

5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:

6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.

7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.

9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.

10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

Duplicate. 

Edited May 2, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[california boy]

39 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

What has always happened:

 

Quote

 

Quote

2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,

3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.

4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.

5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:

6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.

7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.

9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.

10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.

 

 

So you think this is how the church should deal with, now, 40% of it's members?  Interesting.  Thanks for your post.

[kllindley]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Of course, even then you are in opposition to what church leaders are teaching about this issue.

On marijuana? CFR that the Brethren have anywhere asked members to oppose legalization efforts or suggested that members who hold different political views are in opposition. 

On SSM? No. Elder Christofferson was very clear on that point. 

 

[kllindley]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Obergefell v. Hodges decision was not decided upon based on the First Amendment.  It was based on the 14th Amendment.  Equal preotection under the law guaranteed in the Constitution.  FYI

 

Exactly. I think he was pointing out that the ruling gave precedence to the 14th at the expense of the 1st.

[CV75]

13 hours ago, ALarson said:

In this recent article, it state that although most Mormons (53%) still oppose gay marriage, this opposition is "fading fast" because most younger LDS support it:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/05/01/most-mormons-remain-against-gay-marriage-new-poll-shows-but-that-opposition-is-fading-fast-younger-lds-support-it/

That last statement is what I have found to be true within the youth in my ward.  Just listening to conversations or over hearing comments regarding gay friends or family members, I'm hearing support for gay rights and SSM.  I personally find this very encouraging.

But, I know not all will agree....

Each generation, and as this survey indicates, each generation of LDS youth in particular, seems to have its own “growing pains” vis-à-vis Church teachings, policies, standards, etc., trying to reconcile the spiritual with the political, social and moral.

For those that see a trend here that is more intense or significant than past generations, consider the words of President Monson: “May I say to all of you, and particularly to you young people, that as the world moves further and further away from the principles and guidelines given to us by a loving Heavenly Father, we will stand out from the crowd because we are different… We will certainly stand out as we make choices regarding morality—choices which adhere to gospel principles and standards. Those things which make us different from most of the world also provide us with that light and that spirit which will shine in an increasingly dark world.” https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/10/be-an-example-and-a-light?lang=eng

I think it is important to encourage the youth in our wards to reconcile Church teachings and socio-political issues in a way that helps them keep their personal religious behavior and practices aligned and in unity with the prophets.

[Amulek]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Good points.  I also wonder how many respondents have a same-sex-marriage-is-the-law-of-the-land-and-there's-nothing-I-can-do-about-it-anyway-so-why-oppose-it? approach to this issue.

I seem to remember Elder Oaks saying something along the lines of, 'we made our position known and we lost; time to move on.' 

That's an attitude I've seen from many people who still have moral objections to same sex marriage. 

[CV75]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

Can the church continue to teach a principle that the majority of members don't agree with?  Has the church ever taught a doctrine that the majority of members disagreed with?

Yes, for example tithes and offerings, keeping the Sabbath Day holy, daily scripture study, temple ordinances, etc. -- all these seem to be things a minority of members actually practice. Just because passive disagreement isn't politicized or vocalized doesn't make it any less valid.

[JAHS]

8 hours ago, JulieM said:

8 hours ago, JAHS said:

They will find themselves no longer being members, like others who have decided to not believe other things. 

That’s not true and so extreme!  Many members would support SSM for a friend or loved one (many already do).  They’re still a member of the church.  Do you have to believe everything the leaders believe in order to be an active member?

I know so many who do not support the new policy, but who are still good members.

And I know many who have left the church over the new policy. I am just saying if they get too passionate about opposing the Church's position on SSM there is a good chance they could leave.
We have been told it's OK to support a loved one who wants that to happen, but we can't support a campaign to make it happen.

[Gray]

As always, divine revelation comes most powerfully from the ground up, like young plants stretching toward the sun.

[stemelbow]

2008 was a life time ago to youngsters these days.  If you're 18, you were 8.  If you are 25, you were 15, if you are 30-20.   That is, 8 years olds had no clue what was going on politically.  Most 15 year olds weren't capable of understanding much nuance. 20 years olds were on their mission outside of politics.   To me, it's obvious how the attitudes have changed.  The growing generation doesn't see things like Oaks and Packer of the 70s and 80s taught.  We simply don't treat people like that any more, generally, in society.  Even old folks who were around in the 70s and 80s, and heard all of that stuff from leaders don't see things the same as they did back then, for the most part.  The revelation of the past on this stuff is nonsense.  The inspired leaders were speaking out of turn, just like on the priesthood ban stuff.  

Let's accept the process of learning in growing in life.   I know in many ways the Church is stuck on this and other issues.  It's going to have to accept change at some point.  

 

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

So you think this is how the church should deal with, now, 40% of it’s [sic] members?

It’s not about how the Church ‘deals with its members’. At all. It is, as it always has been, how the members deal with their prophets ... and the God for whom they speak. Jesus Christ as a mortal knew intimately what it was like to lose most of his followers over doctrinal disagreements. As indicated clearly in the parable, He also knows how to respond when it happens. 

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Quote

Good points.  I also wonder how many respondents have a same-sex-marriage-is-the-law-of-the-land-and-there's-nothing-I-can-do-about-it-anyway-so-why-oppose-it? approach to this issue.

I seem to remember Elder Oaks saying something along the lines of, 'we made our position known and we lost; time to move on.' 

That's an attitude I've seen from many people who still have moral objections to same sex marriage. 

Same here.

I approach same-sex marriage in much the same way I approach fornication.  I think it is morally very wrong, but I am not going to publicly "oppose" it, since it doesn't violate the law of the land.  

I think it's possible to disagree, on moral grounds, with something privately, while not opposing it in the public sphere.  Same-sex marriage is here to stay.  It's a fait accompli.

On the other hand, there are things that are not a done deal, and hence can be worked against in the public sphere (such as elective abortion).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 2, 2018 by smac97

[california boy]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

On marijuana? CFR that the Brethren have anywhere asked members to oppose legalization efforts or suggested that members who hold different political views are in opposition. 

On SSM? No. Elder Christofferson was very clear on that point. 

 

I was referring to this statement by the church leaders supporting  the medical group that opposed the legalization of marijuana.  I take that as church leaders counseling against voting in favor of medical marijuana.  Isn't that why they released the statement?  To let members know that their counsel is to vote against it?  Perhaps I am all wrong.  Perhaps I have no idea why the church issued the official statement.  If I am, I apologize.

 

[california boy]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Same here.

I approach same-sex marriage in much the same way I approach fornication.  I think it is morally very wrong, but I am not going to publicly "oppose" it, since it doesn't violate the law of the land.  

I think it's possible to disagree, on moral grounds, with something privately, while not opposing it in the public sphere.  Same-sex marriage is here to stay.  It's a fait accompli.

On the other hand, there are things that are not a done deal, and hence can be worked against in the public sphere (such as elective abortion).

Thanks,

-Smac

So if you were asked in a poll, Do you support gay marriage, your answer would be yes?

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, california boy said:

So if you were asked in a poll, Do you support gay marriage, your answer would be yes?

I would respond "No."

But I think there are plenty of people who acknowledge that same-sex marriage is the law of the land, and so "support" it in a generalized, it's-time-to-move-on-because-publicly-opposing-it-is-futile sense.  

I also think there are some who may "support" it out of fear of being accused of bigotry and homophobia.  In other words, the bullying has had its intended cercive effect on some. 

Now shut up and design my "Two Grooms" rainbow cake, bigot!  Or I'll sue you into oblivion!

Answering "no" to such a question may not be the safe thing to do.  Brendan Eich, call your office.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 2, 2018 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, ALarson said:

In this recent article, it state that although most Mormons (53%) still oppose gay marriage, this opposition is "fading fast" because most younger LDS support it:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/05/01/most-mormons-remain-against-gay-marriage-new-poll-shows-but-that-opposition-is-fading-fast-younger-lds-support-it/

 

That last statement is what I have found to be true within the youth in my ward.  Just listening to conversations or over hearing comments regarding gay friends or family members, I'm hearing support for gay rights and SSM.  I personally find this very encouraging.

But, I know not all will agree....

 

Kind of reminds me of the stone cut without hands rolling forward prophesy.  Hearts and minds are changing.  

[Tacenda]

27 minutes ago, california boy said:

I was referring to this statement by the church leaders supporting  the medical group that opposed the legalization of marijuana.  I take that as church leaders counseling against voting in favor of medical marijuana.  Isn't that why they released the statement?  To let members know that their counsel is to vote against it?  Perhaps I am all wrong.  Perhaps I have no idea why the church issued the official statement.  If I am, I apologize.

 

Not wrong at all. The church has motives behind their statements. They know their members loyalty, and will use it. 

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

I was referring to this statement by the church leaders supporting  the medical group that opposed the legalization of marijuana.  I take that as church leaders counseling against voting in favor of medical marijuana.  Isn't that why they released the statement?  To let members know that their counsel is to vote against it?  Perhaps I am all wrong.  Perhaps I have no idea why the church issued the official statement.  If I am, I apologize.

The whole article is worth a review, but this quote applies here: "In February 2008, The Salt Lake Tribune asked newly installed church President Thomas S. Monson if Mormons could disagree with church politics without being disciplined.

"That depends on what the disagreement is ... if ... [it's] an apostasy situation, that would not be appropriate," Monson said. "If it were something political ... there's room for opinions."

So Mormons can back political positions they are "counseled against" (real and imagined) supporting: http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=57396344&itype=CMSID

[HappyJackWagon]

13 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Nope, gay marriage doesn't affect me and mine, nor does it affect those of anyone I know! Nothin' to see here, folks!  Move along!*

*Unfortunately, by the time people with that attitude realize that the legalization of gay marriage was simply another step in a long journey toward the gay marriage tail wagging the marriage-between-a-man-and-a-woman-is-ordained-of-God dog (OK, bad metaphor for this particular example, but you see where I'm going here), it'll be too late.  Religion and religious attitudes and motivations are, after all, tres passe in our Uber-enlightened, post-modernist world!

I would, of course, be shouted down for daring to express this view if I tried to do it at 95% of the college campuses in this country.  (After all, we must protect the Precious Little Snowflakes from exposure to ideas with which they might ... [Gasp!] ... disagree, never mind the facts that: (1) One of the very raisons d'etre of the First Amendment is that it is intended to protect speech which does exactly that; and (2) Something on the order of 95% of the little darlings can't even enumerate which freedoms the First Amendment protects in the first place, let alone why those protections exist.)

Your disdain for the darling little snowflakes is obvious and seems to suggest that you may be the one has struggles with people who disagree.

So the best argument you have against legal SSM is the slippery slope argument? It's no wonder that position is losing support.

[RevTestament]

14 hours ago, ALarson said:

In this recent article, it state that although most Mormons (53%) still oppose gay marriage, this opposition is "fading fast" because most younger LDS support it:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/05/01/most-mormons-remain-against-gay-marriage-new-poll-shows-but-that-opposition-is-fading-fast-younger-lds-support-it/

That last statement is what I have found to be true within the youth in my ward.  Just listening to conversations or over hearing comments regarding gay friends or family members, I'm hearing support for gay rights and SSM.  I personally find this very encouraging.

But, I know not all will agree....

 

14 hours ago, kllindley said:

I hate the wording of the question. They don't distinguish between whether the individuals support legalizing SSM or support it as a morally acceptable decision. 

I support alcohol sales remaining legal. I do not personally drink, nor would I encourage anyone else to drink. I actually work to help people reduce their alcohol consumption and would be happy if the alcohol industry dried up. So do I "support alcohol" or not? 

I share a dislike for the question at hand. I support the rights of states to define marriage and regulate it. Marriage is not a constitutional right, nor is there anything constitutional about it. So do I support the SCOTUS decision on it? No, I do not. Even a pro-SSM law professor, James G. Dwyer, concluded the "Supreme Court decision" is "devoid of clear and intelligible rationale." Do I favor forcing SSM on the states this way? No. Do I favor the states being able to allow SSM? Yes. So, in this sense one might conclude that I support SSM, because I support the rights of states to decide in favor. Nevertheless, I believe the states can have clear rationales for disallowing SSM.

13 hours ago, kllindley said:

Yeah, the actual question is better worded than the journalism. 😉 

To clarify, I honestly do believe that same-sex marriage will prove to bring negative consequences for society. Whether those consequences are any worse than the other ills of society (cohabitation outside of marriage, pornography, culture of no-fault divorce, absent fathers, etc.) I'm not convinced. 

But I do agree that legalizing same-sex marriage was the only logical and legal thing to do following 60 years of consistently eroding the meaning and value of marriage in society. We made marriage into something that was primarily about 2 adults, without any real obligation or commitment. From that point the gender of the two adults became meaningless. So, I believe that at this point legalizing same-sex marriage was inevitable. But so is the fact that many fathers fail to fulfill that role in any meaningful way. Being a bad dad is not illegal. Neither is it good for society. 

I do not follow your conclusion that legalizing SSM "was the only logical and legal thing to do." The SCOTUS decision on the issue was Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States .

Constitutionally, the states retained all legal powers and rights not specifically addressed by the constitution including police power and the right to regulate public health. The right to marry was created by the states - not the US Constitution. The general public has apparently not been sufficiently educated about its government, and has little clue about what it can and cannot or should not do. The usual Due Process analysis which historically applies allows the states to regulate public health and welfare so long as those regulations have a rational connection to goal of public welfare. Can it be argued that there is a rational connection between disallowing **** sodomy and SSM? Sure. There are medical repercussions to allowing **** sodomy - fissures, cancer, diseases, etc. But now states have lost the right to prevent this type of activity under two SCOTUS decisions, I believe due to poor argumentation by attorneys representing the states. Even if a law is seen as impinging on a constitutional right, the law may be constitutional if it is seen as compelling. So what "right" is being affected? The only one possibility left is the right of equal protection of the laws. It can certainly be argued that laws allowing a man and woman to marry can be applied equally to the population. These laws normally  grant some property rights to members of the union. Striking down this basis would allow teenagers to marry(disallowing states to stop them). Surely, when it comes to procreation, states can be seen as having legitimate interests in regulating their public health and welfare. There are lots of groups states do not choose to extend rights to without violating equal protection. Mothers often have presumed custodial rights over fathers. Criminals do not have equal rights to non-criminals. Non-state employees do not have equal rights to state benefits, etc. Why do these laws not get challenged? Because they have a rational basis between their ends and their means. It can reasonably be argued that the Equal Protection Clause merely means laws it regulates must be applied equally to those it regulates - not that every conceivable segment of the population must receive equal treatment. There is a law which pertains to this and it protects against discrimination based upon race, gender, age, etc. Rather than the SCOTUS illogically stretching existing law and impinging on legitimate state interests, the Civil Rights Laws could be amended. 

I wonder the reaction of the LGBTQ community if a state simply does away with marriage? Are they going to argue they have a right to be married? Again, none is guaranteed by the constitution. Marriage licenses are granted by states. If a homosexual couple wishes to marry, they would have to go to a state which recognizes marriage. Which brings me to my final conclusion. States should be allowed to regulate this issue - not the federal government. The interests of states in protecting the property rights of an unemployed spouse, and custodial rights of children born to a union, simply do not apply to gay couples. Nor should adoption rights, etc, unless a state so chooses to recognize those interests. The SCOTUS has undone 200 years of constitutional law and irrationally infringed on the rights of the states.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I share a dislike for the question at hand

If you read on, you'll see that kllindley thought the question was worded differently than it actually was.  Here's his comments after he actually sees the question:

Quote

Thank you for drawing my attention to the wording of the actual question. It was framed simply as "supporting same sex marriage" in the quotes. That difference is meaningful.

And:

Quote

Yeah, the actual question is better worded than the journalism. 😉 

To clarify, I honestly do believe that same-sex marriage will prove to bring negative consequences for society. Whether those consequences are any worse than the other ills of society (cohabitation outside of marriage, pornography, culture of no-fault divorce, absent fathers, etc.) I'm not convinced. 

But I do agree that legalizing same-sex marriage was the only logical and legal thing to do following 60 years of consistently eroding the meaning and value of marriage in society. We made marriage into something that was primarily about 2 adults, without any real obligation or commitment. From that point the gender of the two adults became meaningless. So, I believe that at this point legalizing same-sex marriage was inevitable. But so is the fact that many fathers fail to fulfill that role in any meaningful way. Being a bad dad is not illegal. Neither is it good for society. 

Have you read the question that was asked?

Here it is again:

Quote

 

"Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally?" [Check One]

- Strongly Favor

- Favor

- Oppose

- Strongly Oppose

 

 

Edited May 2, 2018 by ALarson

[RevTestament]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If you read on, you'll see that kllindley thought the question was worded differently than it actually was.  Here's his comments after he actually sees the question:

And:

Have you read the question that was asked?

Here it is again: "Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally?"

OK, I have answered it. I favor the states being allowed to decide this under current law. Not the SCOTUS for reasons above. Would I move out of a state which allows SSM to one which does not? I don't know. Do I believe that SSM is simply a matter of choice and equality? No. It has the potential to affect the lives and rights of others - particularly children adopted or otherwise brought into such unions. This issue was addressed by several briefs filed before the SCOTUS by children of SS couples. Epidemics such as AIDS could evolve so as to be a danger to the general public at large. So, I do believe there are legitimate interests to be protected by not expanding marriage rights to SSM. Asking the question as to legality necessarily implies a legal analysis. Beyond this I choose not to discuss my personal feelings on legality, beyond what I think is already evident. I do not read the question as necessarily pertaining to morality.