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

[RevTestament]

11 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

[Yes, Miserere Nobis, I just made another completely-substance-free post!  Sue me!]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So you're admitting to being the Diet Coke of posters!

 

Diet Coke has plenty of substances - albeit mostly of the synthetic type, and the legality of which may be questionable. Arrr! Well, that didn't come out like I thought it would at first for some reason...

[california boy]

38 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I clearly realize the Supreme Court's decision trumps state law. I am just saying they are usurping state power, and departing from traditional constitutional law. The Equal Protection Clause is not meant to grant equal rights or benefits to everybody. Not everybody is entitled to state housing. Maybe I should teach these dumb judges a lesson and go apply for Veterans benefits, and free medical care. They will say well you never served as a Vet, and I will say I paid their salaries and responded to my draft registration, and am entitled to the same treatment. The reasons for marriage laws largely do not apply to gays. There are legitimate reasons a state may choose not to grant them certain rights, but the Supreme Court in recent years has been undermining all those reasons including ruling that sodomy laws were unconstitutional. That's on par with deciding that the fed gubbermint can force you to buy insurance,. which may cost more than you make. 

I realize gays have had a stream of victories in the courts. Judges have become much more liberal, and sympathetic - I would venture that has carried down to state attorneys charged with defending these laws. Many judges are quite subject to public opinion as they are voted into office, and do not want to be on the wrong side of history. The Federal system has hollowed out state rights until there is nothing left. States have become mere pawns of federal fiat. If that is what the public wants or plain is just too nonchalant to worry about, then that will be the ultimate end of the states - to serve as federal bureaucracies. However, I think all included, including gays, would be better served by garnering public support for law changes at the state level, rather than trying to convince everybody that there is no rational reason for treating gays differently than a man and wife. On the flip side now the courts have totally opened up the road for polygamy. I guess next will be marriage to adolescents which most leftists on this board seem to routinely mock and attack Joseph Smith for.  Is there a marriage license a state can legally deny?

At first glance my position may seem unfair - we as a society have become so keyed in on "fairness," however, that we don't realize there are legitimate reasons for treating some people differently. I merely strive to point out that there sometimes are. Equal protection does not mean equal rights, but the federal courts have made it so - at least in the case of its newest pet - gay rights. I view a right as being able to force a government to do something. Equal protection has become equivalent to equal rights, but which I view as mostly pertaining to equal application of existing laws. For instance since there is no right to marriage, a state can do away with marriage licenses and marriages. The Equal Protection clause merely requires the state equally apply its existing laws under a rational basis of its police power and power to regulate public welfare, which rights were retained by the states under the 10th amendment, the Supreme Court has seemed to forget about: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

I will leave it at that.  Thanks for expressing your opinion.

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 

Diet Coke has plenty of substances - albeit mostly of the synthetic type, and the legality of which may be questionable. Arrr! Well, that didn't come out like I thought it would at first for some reason...

Yes, but 0 calories!  The can is very full, yet at the same time empty.

Edited May 2, 2018 by ksfisher

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

The clarity of Elder Christofferson's comments were later muddled by the subsequent Handbook policy, at least as applied to LDS members who's own parents are in a same-sex marriage. 

Since the policy, it's my understanding that LDS minors/adults wanting to serve an LDS mission must disavow the practice of same-sex marriage if they have a parent(s) who married to someone of the same gender.

 

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

I don't see the contradiction. Disavowing the practice as contrary to God's plan does not equal opposing legalization. 

Just so we're on the same page, the Handbook states:

A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:

1. The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.

2.  The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage."

While you may not see the contradiction, the Handbook itself doesn't say that the child must disavow "the practice [of same-sex marriage] as contrary to God's plan."  That part appears to be editorializing by adding your interpretation to the text of the Handbook.

In addition to saying "the child accepts and is committed to living the teachings and doctrine of the church," the Handbook says the child must also "specifically disavow the practice of same-gender...marriage."  

In my mind, that's clear that a child of a parent in a same-sex marriage must disavow the practice of same-sex marriage itself, apart and addition to "accepting and committing to live the teachings and doctrine of the church."

My two cents,

Daniel

[Hestia]

Kennego, tone it down or you'll be banned from the thread.  

[ttribe]

55 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So you're admitting to being the Diet Coke of posters!

More of a court jester schtick, than anything.

Edited May 2, 2018 by ttribe

[MiserereNobis]

40 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

[Yes, Miserere Nobis, I just made another completely-substance-free post!  Sue me!]

P.S.: Yeah, well, what can I say?  Perhaps I am a little touchy when people (by implication if not by saying so outright) conclude that, somehow, I cannot read or cannot understand the law simply because I disagree with how they read it or understand it.  I'd like to think ... even if it means that I'm wrong, delusional, stupid, et cetera ... that my law degree actually is worth something.

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/law-school-transparency/

Then write like a lawyer, with claims and evidence and without sarcasm and hyperbole, and we'll take you seriously. I imagine your law school professors would offer you the same advice.

[carbon dioxide]

19 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 agree.  I support SSM in the same sense that I support legalized prostitution, drugs including cocaine, and even suicide.  I believe in agency.  People have a right to choose righteousness or wickedness.  We had a big battle long ago over which plan to choose.   I continue to sustain the plan of Christ of people having agency.   I do not support SSM in the same of endorsing it, calling it good, or saying the Church should ever recognize it as ok.  The day it does the Church might as well just throw out the entire concept of sin since sin simply is what is considered wrong at the moment and God really does not get to decide what sin is.  Basically Millennials choose for God what is sin  or not. 

[Jeanne]

I work with a couple of young LDS women in my bakery.  Very nice and you can tell they are devoted to the church and seeking that Temple Marriage.  That being said, because we had a young gay man working with us for awhile...they mentioned that this is one of the very few things they were troubled with in their faith.  They meet so many good people who are gay  and there are so many "out" as they say than when we were younger.  They find good character and wonderful qualities in their friendships with gay people/members.  Their heart breaks like the rest of us and trying so hard to understand.

[kllindley]

19 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

 

Just so we're on the same page, the Handbook states:

 

A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:

 

 

1. The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.

 

 

2.  The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage."

 

 

 

While you may not see the contradiction, the Handbook itself doesn't say that the child must disavow "the practice [of same-sex marriage] as contrary to God's plan."  That part appears to be editorializing by adding your interpretation to the text of the Handbook.

In addition to saying "the child accepts and is committed to living the teachings and doctrine of the church," the Handbook says the child must also "specifically disavow the practice of same-gender...marriage."  

In my mind, that's clear that a child of a parent in a same-sex marriage must disavow the practice of same-sex marriage itself, apart and addition to "accepting and committing to live the teachings and doctrine of the church."

My two cents,

Daniel

Yes.  The individual must "disavow the practice." I'm unclear how that means they must oppose allowing couples to marry legally. There is no reference to legal aspects of SSM at all. 

I disavow the practice of recreational drug use. And I support efforts to decriminalize that use. 

[MiserereNobis]

5 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The day it does the Church might as well just throw out the entire concept of sin since sin simply is what is considered wrong at the moment and God really does not get to decide what sin is.

Slight tangent. Does God, from the LDS perspective, get to decide what sin is? If God was once human, then morality is bigger than God, since God followed moral rules to become God. It seems to me that would be the logical conclusion, that God is the perfect moral guide since he knows morality perfectly, but not the creator of morality. In that case, it could very well be that at a future moment morality would dictate that same sex marriage is moral and God would go along with it.

[carbon dioxide]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This is accurate. Most LDS realize we lost and no longer oppose legalization of SSM because there is no point. While I would say many long for SSM to be accepted in the gospel for compassionate reasons (for themselves, for people they care about, because they see it as fair or right) and some will support it for less idealistic reasons (embarrassed at the church's stance, wanting to agree with general consensus for social reasons, want a quick same-sex fling). 

I don't believe LDS lost.  We have an obligation to stand for Christ at all times and places. If unrighteous people choose unrighteousness, that is their choice but we have done our job.  Is standing for Christ simply means standing for issues that are popular or uncontroversial, then standing for Christ is worthless.  The population are making choices and God will hold them accountable for it.  The people in Noah's day rejected Noah and his preaching.  Noah did not lose.  The people lost and when the floods came, they were swept off and Noah remained. In the end, Noah was the winner.

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Several years ago, I made a bet with my atheist buddy.  He figured in 20 years, LDS culture will have changed enough that we'll be doing SSM sealings in the temple.  I bet against that proposition.

The loser must wear a pink tutu and sing "I'm a little teapot".

As the years go by, we touch base on elements that support one side or the other.  Recent General Conference talks emphasizing the Proclamation on the Family and doubling-down on the definition of marriage - point for me.   This study - point for him.

I'm not tutu shopping just yet.

In any case..memorize the words to the song...☺️

[cinepro]

Obviously, the key point in the wording is that it focuses on the legality of "allowing" SSM.

There's a lot to be said for the libertarian approach of not caring what two consensual adults do, or if the state allows them to be married. But for those of us who lived through Prop 8 here in California, I can only say that the idea that we can somehow divorce the "legality" of SSM with the "morality" of SSM is a new development and one that would have been great to hear 10 years ago. 

As with abortion (and, in the early 1930s, drinking alcohol), the Church only seems to achieve peace and clarity on this distinction after it has had its hat handed to it by the public and the courts.  This approach to the issue is an adaptation (or, dare I say, "evolution") that works to preserve some semblance of the original doctrinal claims in the face of a radically changing society (and laws).

While the present numbers (and muddled wording of the survey) are interesting, it is far more interesting to imagine what the future holds.  What will the Church look like if the coming generations adopt much more tolerant views towards homosexuality, including homosexual sex inside monogamous homosexual marriage?

I suspect the first impulse will be for the Church to try and minimize the damage by just not talking about it anymore.  For example, after losing in the USA and seeing the tide shift in other parts of the world, we don't see any more massive and concerted efforts by the Church to rally the time and money of members to fight it.  It's not talked about much at all anymore.  And it will be talked about less and less, to create as few points of conflict as possible.

That may be enough to appease some members, but I suspect there will be enough friction that it won't ever be relegated to the same back burner as abortion and legal alcohol sales, because SSM (and homosexuality) is a fundamentally different issue.  Leaders may think it's simply a doctrinal hot potato that they just have to keep juggling, but I suspect it's more of a doctrinal hand grenade, and time is running out.

 

[Gray]

A little off topic, but can we be done with the weird lingo on this issue? It's not SSM. SSM is a health system. SSM is a kind of missile. The topic is gay marriage.

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

A little off topic, but can we be done with the weird lingo on this issue? It's not SSM. SSM is a health system. SSM is a kind of missile. The topic is gay marriage.

Some lesbians don't like being called gay but I don't know enough to say what the LGBT community generally thinks about these terms.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

A little off topic, but can we be done with the weird lingo on this issue? It's not SSM. SSM is a health system. SSM is a kind of missile. The topic is gay marriage.

Yeah, but it's easier to type SSM on my work computer without being flagged for controversial language (not that I think it should be controversial)

 

[RevTestament]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

A little off topic, but can we be done with the weird lingo on this issue? It's not SSM. SSM is a health system. SSM is a kind of missile. The topic is gay marriage.

The thread topic clearly reads: 

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

I do not equate the two. I have been speaking in reference to lesbian marriage too, which I differ from "gay marriage." 

[smac97]

 

5 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Slight tangent. Does God, from the LDS perspective, get to decide what sin is?

Yes.

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Quote

Sin is willful wrongdoing. James indicates that it can also be the willful failure to do right: "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin" (4:17). Sin is transgression of the law (1 Jn. 3:4), but one is not held responsible for sins against a law that one has not had opportunity to know. Orson F. Whitney, an apostle, explained: Sin is the transgression of divine law, as made known through the conscience or by revelation. A man sins when he violates his conscience, going contrary to light and knowledge-not the light and knowledge that has come to his neighbor, but that which has come to himself. He sins when he does the opposite of what he knows to be right. Up to that point he only blunders. One may suffer painful consequences for only blundering, but he cannot commit sin unless he knows better than to do the thing in which the sin consists. One must have a conscience before he can violate it.

God does not hold one responsible for wrong done in ignorance or harm done to others unintentionally, because such actions do not constitute sin. One's ignorance, immaturity, or even recklessness may injure others, and individuals may be accountable for the consequences they help to bring about. But in such situations, where there is no ill intent, there is no sin.

And a quote from Joseph Smith:

Quote

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said, "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted--by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.... 

"Whatever God requires is right."  God is the arbiter of right and wrong, and hence decides "what sin is."

5 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

If God was once human, then morality is bigger than God, since God followed moral rules to become God.

I think omniscience and moral perfection, both of which are attributes of God, resolve that issue.

Here's how I approach this issue generally:

1. Perfection, as an attribute of God, includes total mastery of will/agency.
2. Total mastery of will means total/perfect compliance with eternal laws.  
3. Total compliance with eternal laws puts the surety of God's unchanging/unending righteousness (and, hence, His status as "God") on par with those eternal laws.  So 2 + 2 (in an interval scale) will always equal 4.  Always.  No question.  No debate.  No hypothetical scenario where 2 + 2 ≠ 4 (again, on an interval scale).  God's righteousness is likewise definite.  Enduring.  Everlasting.  Quite a comforting thought, that.

In the Book of Mormon, both Mormon and Alma made rhetorical statements about conditions under which "{God} would cease to be God."  However, both of them immediately clarify that these are purely rhetorical/hypothetical statements, not predictions or declarations that God might "cease to be God."  See, e.g., Mormons 9:15, 19 (emphases added):

Quote

 15 And now, O all ye that have imagined up unto yourselves a god who can do no miracles, I would ask of you, have all these things passed, of which I have spoken? Has the end come yet? Behold I say unto you, Nay; and God has not ceased to be a God of miracles.
...
 19 And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles.

And Alma 42 (emphasis added):

Quote

 

 13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.
...
 22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

 23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice.

 

See also the numerous scriptures regarding the attributes of God, including:

• the Lord changes not: 3 Ne. 24:6 . (Moro. 8:18.)
• God is same yesterday, today, forever: Morm. 9:9 .
• no variableness or shadow of changing in God: Morm. 9:9–10 .
• God is same yesterday, today, forever: D&C 20:12 .
• God is infinite, eternal, unchangeable, from everlasting to everlasting: D&C 20:17 .

Just my two bits.

5 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

It seems to me that would be the logical conclusion, that God is the perfect moral guide since he knows morality perfectly, but not the creator of morality.

Yep.

5 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

In that case, it could very well be that at a future moment morality would dictate that same sex marriage is moral and God would go along with it.

Theoretically, I suppose.  I doubt it. 

In any event, for now I think we need to listen to the unified voice of prophets and apostles on this issue.  If there were to be such a change, I think it would be revealed to those in authority, not some self-selected individual.

Thanks,

[RevTestament]

18 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Slight tangent. Does God, from the LDS perspective, get to decide what sin is? If God was once human, then morality is bigger than God, since God followed moral rules to become God. It seems to me that would be the logical conclusion, that God is the perfect moral guide since he knows morality perfectly, but not the creator of morality. In that case, it could very well be that at a future moment morality would dictate that same sex marriage is moral and God would go along with it.

That is an interesting thought. God has changed positions on certain things such as polygamy - disallowing it when the people were not able to live it righteously. However, the way the scriptures read, makes it seem God is not likely to change His position on the issue of homosexual relations since it is contrary to His design. I would not necessarily say that morality is bigger than God either. I believe Yeshua followed what His Father taught, and was bound by it, just like the Father was. How this all began, we don't quite understand, but I believe on some prior world or perhaps before all worlds God was basically elected to be God, and so the rules were agreed to ever since. I don't believe you will find any LDS consensus on this issue.

[MiserereNobis]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.

Thanks for your detailed response. Interesting theological issues for sure.

[RevTestament]

34 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I work with a couple of young LDS women in my bakery.  Very nice and you can tell they are devoted to the church and seeking that Temple Marriage.  That being said, because we had a young gay man working with us for awhile...they mentioned that this is one of the very few things they were troubled with in their faith.  They meet so many good people who are gay  and there are so many "out" as they say than when we were younger.  They find good character and wonderful qualities in their friendships with gay people/members.  Their heart breaks like the rest of us and trying so hard to understand.

I believe it speaks well of them to treat their co-employee with respect and dignity - and to even be friends. I have at least one gay friend on Facebook. Yeshua hung around with sinners and although He reminded them not to sin, He seemed to usually be cordial with them unless they were teaching sin or hypocrisy. The world is full of nice, funny people who are sinners. Rather than thinking of others as sinners, I think of them as people - people whom God loves, and wants to help. I'm sure I've hung around with fornicators and even adulterers. I treat them as I would like to be treated. Usually people are so grateful to be accepted, that they are not going to sin against you.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Thanks for your detailed response. Interesting theological issues for sure.

Happy to help.  

I should note that I was sharing our beliefs, not making declarations that I insist you accept.  Just puttin' things out there...

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Hestia said:

Kennego, tone it down or you'll be banned from the thread.  

You must be getting soft in your old age.  Usually, I'm banned with neither prior warning nor comment!  

Edited May 2, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Jeanne]

19 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I believe it speaks well of them to treat their co-employee with respect and dignity - and to even be friends. I have at least one gay friend on Facebook. Yeshua hung around with sinners and although He reminded them not to sin, He seemed to usually be cordial with them unless they were teaching sin or hypocrisy. The world is full of nice, funny people who are sinners. Rather than thinking of others as sinners, I think of them as people - people whom God loves, and wants to help. I'm sure I've hung around with fornicators and even adulterers. I treat them as I would like to be treated. Usually people are so grateful to be accepted, that they are not going to sin against you.

One thing  we have to remember though...they hung around with us.