So... I know, I know... the presidential race is still far away. But here is a neat-o quiz you can take... 11 questions on key issues, you answer, and it tracks your answers against nominees' positions (all 100 of them...). It gives you your "top three" nominees.
Make sure you drag your arrow across the bottom... it gives the names (helpful) of the nominees and a statement of their positions.
Can anyone guess who my top nominees were??
81 comments:
romney huckabee giuliani
Fun quiz! Mine were Clinton, Clinton, then Clinton. ;o) Actually, it was Romney, Huckabee, Thompson. Now spill-it Amy..what were your 3?
i am ashamed...
my top three are:
1-Rudy Guliani
2-Bill Richardson
3-Barack Obama
i'm not sure what to say. i'm speechless.
so, here's my caveat. on the right of the screen you can slide the dials according to what issues mean the most to you. when i slide the health care bar all the way to the right i get
1-Mitt Romney
2-Rudy Guliani
3-Bill Richardson
now, how did that rascal bill richardson get into my rankings? was it my support for gay civil unions?
when i set all the sliders to their appropriate spots i get mitt, mike then rudy.
i was a bit suprised that bill and barack popped up before the hillary on my list...hmmm.
Mitt Romney, Duncan Hunter and then Mike Huckabee were mine. This was good for me as I'm still deciding who to vote for.
I'm a little worried for you Paul. Do you really support civil union, and for gays to receive the same rights as we do when married? I'm not against the gay community, but I don't agree with civil union. Hilary????? Really????? Interesting.......
I just read this to Chris and he is for civil union also......he just put up a good fight for it and I have to say that in some cases I agree. If a gay couple live together there whole lives and one dies, I think that the partner should get the money of the one who passed. It isn't fair for the government to come in and take it all. So, financially I get it.
It's a hard topic. I'm usually very black and white with the way I believe, however on this issue I feel a little gray.
i'm certainly grey myself on a lot of the gay issues. but i think the repulbican side is probably off in it's treatment of gays.
Agreed. I also support gay civil unions. I believe Marriage is a religious institution, but that doesn't mean those people shouldn't have the same rights as a married couple. There are many gay couples that are just as faithful to each other as committed married couples. Why deny them those rights? I know it's a bit of a semantics game, but it is what it is...
paul.
round one:
rudi, barack, can't remember
round two:
mitt, rudi, hilllary
dude, those questions make the scenario way too simplistic. some of the questions had no good answers or several workable solutions.
Mike Huckabee, John McCain and Mitt Romney. Go Republicans!
libby: yes. i agree.
petey: too simplistic. but fun nonetheless.
dad: mike and john. i'm interested to see what answers got you there. i wouldn't have guessed you would give a shout out to the republicans. i like mitt fiscally and economically, but there are a lot of other issues that could use a democrats touch right now in the world.
Word has it that my dad won't post his answers because he's a demo-crap.
bok, bok, bok...
Romney, Thompson, McCain.
I don't quite agree with civil unions, and there are ways to pass on an inheritance without it (that old legal document called a will), aren't there?
Bottom line is that such relationships are fundamentally wrong and are a draw on society, not a contribution (in my view). What benefit is there to society in supporting long or short-term gay relationships? Name one if you can.
encouraging long-term homosexual relationships rather than short term daliances with many partners is one good reason to support civil unions...
but more than that...there are a lot of basic civilities that are afforded a couple that has lived together for 20 years in a committed relationship...they should be able to call and find out what hospital bed their partner is in without violating hipaa.
divorce rates are up because heterosexuals aren't placing enough value on their own relationships. what a homosexual couple does in their bedroom does not affect how well i communicate with my wife.
besides, the tax benefits of getting married are not clear cut...npr did a bit on 'market place' the other day where they talked about couples that make over a certain amount and how the taxes they pay could be lower if they were to cohabitate and not marry. so, civil unions are not promoting homosexuals to get together for monetary reasons...they are more about civility and dignity of human beings.
not to say i'm completely decided on the issue, and i could be swayed otherwise, but those are my initial thoughts.
nice to see you commenting matty. i enjoyed angela's new post on your grandfather.
matty: i enjoyed your original two comments before you thought otherwise and deleted them by the way...
if one willing to support civil unions, then why not support gay marriage? i don't see any difference. i don't agree that marriage is a religious institution. traditionally in our western culture, in order to be married under the law, two people only had to agree that they were married. it did not have to be bound by a justice of the peace, or a person holding religious authority. it was lawful if two people only agreed to be married and decided they were. for some religions, it became a religious institution. but traditionally, i don't think it is so.
for me, civil unions are not any different than marriages. if you support civil unions for financial reasons, visitation rights' reasons, stability reasons, or any other reasons (fair and equal rights, etc.), then why not just let them marry? this would strengthen the value of marriage, and probably lead to longer-lasting marriages. who knows--maybe we could even improve out national divorce rate.
matt, I appreciate your thoughts on the subject, but are gay relationships fundamentally wrong? what about them is fundamentally wrong? if two men (or two women--something our society seems to be more open to) lived in a celibate relationship, but found romantic love through emotional attachment, etc., is that fundamentally wrong? is the only thing wrong with gay relationships the fact that they are sexual? and why is that so wrong? yes, i understand that according to perceived christian/mormon tenets of faith, such sexual relations outside the bond of marriage are wrong. however, how can we take our religious standard and enforce it on the rest of society? i see it akin to illegalizing coffee.
paul makes good points about the reasons for civil unions (which I support). but for me, there is only one reason to support gay rights. a couple of weeks ago I had a friend visit me in New York who recently came out of the closet. he lamented the fact that there is not room in the church for him. how can i claim to care about him while opposing one of the greatest ways he can find happiness? i know some might say that is not true happines; but he is much happier than i have ever seen him. i could not sit down and carry on a guilt-free conversation with him while opposing measures that allow him some degree of happiness in this life.
so for that reason, i guess i could vote for the 1993 mitt romney but, unfortunately, not for the 2007 mitt.
btw, my top three: richardson, kucinich, obama.
please see this about the issue (sort of) at hand. and yes dad, of course it from the new york times.
stevie: thank you for your comments.
there is a powerful recent mormon stories podcast on this issue fuond here. i felt a lot of peace listening to this lds male speak of his uplifting and enjoyable time at byu. he is somewhere in the center to left of the homosexual attraction spectrum (which certainly makes it easier for him to fit into the current doctrinal and cultural moorings of lds society).
i was talking with amy about this topic last night. the lds church has an open canon that has made 180 degree turns in the past, and i think this is an issue that requires thoughtful introspection...not to say that your introspection has to lead to my same conclusions...
stevie's point about the tragedy of the dynamic men and women being excluded from the organization that can bring them some of the greatest joys (akin to the joy i experience from my relationship with amy and the church)
mom: i hope i haven't upset you again..:)
marriage? civil unions? it's semantics and if obtaining civil unions is politically easier, then it's probably a good place to head...
oh, and mitt is the same man from 1993. which is one reason why i can't wait to hear him in a general election debate with hillary where he can truly speak his mind (instead of pandering to the crazies in the primaries)...
Just look at what you all have done to my nice post about a cute test. That'll teach me to bring up politics on this here blog.
Paul said: "what a homosexual couple does in their bedroom does not affect how well i communicate with my wife."
While it might not directly affect how well we communicate... my dear... it does impact the world we raise our children in and the morality of our world... which will certainly affect what we must communicate ABOUT.
I hate the argument that what other’s do in private doesn’t affect others. In microscopic ways, it does. And when prevalence steadily increases… so do the affects and effects.
I’m not going to pretend that gay issues are only a product of our generation, and that it is all “nurture” and no “nature.” But the numbers are steadily increasing as acceptance/tolerance/prominence of the gay lifestyle grows. (I’m not saying we shouldn’t accept PEOPLE, here.)
I know there have been many in the past generations that suffered in their closet, without having the relief of coming out to society. But the growing numbers makes me really wonder… I mean did Heavenly Father just hold back the majority of the gay souls to come to earth in the 21st century when they’d be more “accepted?” How much of this growing number of gays is “nurtured” by societal trends, and how much is true nature? I have a feeling there is a mixture of both… and my worry is that as acceptance/tolerance/prominence increases, so will the “nurture” trend.
There are some eternal truths that worldly trends will not change. I don’t know exactly where the line between eternal doctrine/truth and current church practice lies. Not all is always as cut and dry as we’d like… as seen by the past issues of blacks and the priesthood, polygamy, women’s roles in the Church, etc. We do have an open cannon, but/and we are commanded to follow the living prophet.
If I am to err… I prefer to err on the side of the Proclamation until otherwise guided. In addition to proclaiming that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan,” it also “call[s] upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.” I’d like to consider myself a responsible citizen.
We live in an area that remembers when church leaders charged them to go door-to-door to defend the traditional definition of marriage. I wonder what Stephen would do if faced with the same request? (especially living in NYC) What would you do, Paul? (see… it IS affecting our communication…)
I tell myself I would never force my own beliefs/morals onto another. I would, however, try to keep a person from killing another. I would keep a pedophile behind bars instead of allowing him the chance to violate again. I would lock up every scrap of pornography if I could. But legislation about homosexuality??
In all of this, there is the eternally important issue of agency. It is the foundation of our nation, and the foundation of our mortality. That is the only real argument in my mind for civil unions/marriage. But, supposedly the majority rules in a democratic society. So where do YOU stand?? Issues like Stephen’s friend’s happiness in this life and his ability to have guilt-free conversations appeal to my social work ethics. It is not enough, however, to keep me from defending the family, as it is defined in the Proclamation. Most of the said issues could be handled with will/power of attorney-like documents… and charity as we truly love one another.
when my wife and i disagree...she is usually right.
Excellent comment, Amy.
Stephen, when I say fundamentally wrong, I mean fundamentally wrong. If you really believe the basic, cut and dry, eternal doctrines of our gospel, there is no room for homosexuals. The gospel is about growing us into eternal families. Isn't that the basis of all we believe?
I still have yet to hear an argument showing how gay civil unions/marriages will benefit our society long-term. I understand the inconvenience for the individuals. I feel for those that feel trapped inside themselves, but I know that when they obey God's commandments (and they are very clear on this issue), He will not leave them comfortless.
I believe that God lives and reveals his will to his living prophets, and as Amy said, in the midst of the push for homosexual acceptance (1995 I believe), the living prophets came out with The Family: A Proclamation to THE WORLD (not just the church), but lets talk about the law of the harvest...
So some in our society (and on this blog) seem okay with sowing more homosexual permissiveness and inclusion into our society. What is going to grow out of this that will benefit our nation and people in a collective sense? Name something.... if you can.
Now that I put this all down in electronic format, I will never be able to run for office..... what a relief.
In my paragraph to Stephen, I intended to say that there is no room for homosexuality. There is always room in Christ's gospel for any individual who is willing to repent and become as a little child.
How humble and childlike would a person be to live with same-sex attraction and still put God before themselves?
Matt... you use the words "cut and dry" when it comes to "eternal doctrines of the gospel." When I think about the doctrines of the gospel... the more I learn, the less I am apt to use words like "cut and dry."
We as individuals, as well as a church body learn line upon line etc. etc. There is so much that is unknown... especially (in these cases) about eternity, judgment, and individual weakness.
Who knows what the church practices/membership will look like 20-40 years from now. I wonder if our grandparents ever thought they'd see the day an interracial couple would be temple workers together in the temple. "Strange" things have happened... and I won't pretend to know the future of the church. I cannot, however, fathom a change in celestial marriage ordinances to include homosexual relationships.
The church is asking its members who struggle with the temptations of homosexuality to trod an extremely painful and lonely road. Enduring to the end is a commandment fraught with struggle and confusion for them.
But we are all children of God... and there is always room for those who are seeking to become better disciples of Christ. The gospel of Jesus Christ has so much to offer anyone... always.
I'd like to see the Church become more open in including those who who will never marry or have children (not just homosexuals... you know??), in important and fulfilling service in the church. While eternity might be all about families... this life can also be about loving God, and loving one another. Church service allows us to learn this so well.
But the direction of the church is one thing. The direction of our nation is another. I will continue to vote against measures that aim to displace the family as the fundamental unit of society. I will continue to follow the prophet and the counsels of Christ's special witnesses. But when you take our gospel understanding and the morality of it all out of the picture, there is no ground upon which to bar homosexual relationships from enjoying the same privileges that heterosexual relationships have. Unless you are a bigot.
Matt... even if you can't run for office, perhaps the NRA has a position for you?? hee hee.
how to respond? i'm not sure i have much to add to what amy has said. she has said some wonderful things and i don't have a specific defined answer. my opinion on these matters has migrated in different directions in recent years.
what stephen says about what his heart impressed upon him while dealing personally with his gay friend resonates strongly with me. what he says feels right. how stevie's stance fits into the church's stance right now and how it will fit into the church's stance in 20 years (in light of the drastic change in its stance the last 20 years) is hard to define.
two of matt's statements beg a response...so i will respond..:)
"The gospel is about growing us into eternal families. Isn't that the basis of all we believe?"
i feel the basis of all we believe is the atonement of jesus christ. the greatest commandment, "love the Lord thy God with all thy heart...second...love thy neighbour as thyself."
claiming the family as the end all of our existence here on earth is fraught with problems for those who cannot have children, never marry, are widowed, widowers etc...making our church only about families alienates many stalwart members and disregards their powerful potential here on earth.
"What is going to grow out of this that will benefit our nation and people in a collective sense? Name something.... if you can."
less hatred.
less violence.
less injustice.
less misunderstandings.
less suicide.
less pride.
less sin.
all of us have vices. some are more externally apparent than others. even if homosexuality is a vice, it is one characteristic of a multifaceted son or daughter of god...
You guys get pretty crazy with your blogging. All I have to say is an echo of what Amy said by quoting from the first presidency, "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan." There are so many issues that humans face, we have been asked to endure to the end. I have a brother that suffers from schizo affective disorder, I can't image what he goes through every day, I imagine it is hell. I also feel that homosexuals can feel the same way, whether in or out of the closet. If we all endure to the end, our Savior will atone for what we lack, but it is up for us to do what we can to live as our Savior has asked us to, and as we have learned from the first presidency that is "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God." I don't believe that can be argued with.
sharlene: sorry about you brother.
it's true, lots of people have really tough lots...often through no fault of their own. maybe i'm just reacting to the guilt i feel from having had really good experiences in my life...
The family is central. It has always been. It may be hard for some because for them a family is not an immediate possiblity, but THAT IS THE WAY IT IS. We all know the story of Abraham and his wife and the struggles they had. They are the same struggles people have today with the blatant emphasis the gospel puts on the family. Abraham's wife wanted to die rather than be barren... and that was thousands of years ago.
Some things in the gospel change, but this basic and dare I say "cut and dry" bedrock doctrine of eternal families in the gospel will never change. It is simple to understand and eternal in nature. While Christ is the fount of living waters, eternal families are the trees he intends to grow from it. He himself has told us that this is the loftiest of goals we can hold, and that our love for him manifest through repentance and full dedication will bring us there. The covenant of eternal marriage is necessary to obtain what our Father wants to give us and that will never change, because it was in place before our world, church and society existed. Eternal increase = righteous upbringing of children.
Paul, let me make it clear that I do not have any place in my heart for hatred, violence or injustice toward any person. This stems from ignorance. I become frequently frustrated however with special interests and the tail continually trying to wag the dog.
Amy said if you take the gospel understanding and morality out of the argument that there is no reason to bar gay marriage. However, we will be held accountable for any decision we make where we ignore our gospel understanding and morality, including in our votes, or in our lack of action. Trying to honor your moral commitments does not make you a bigot.
For some, there cannot be a more complex issue. Many times these behaviors and tenancies are deeply rooted in abuse, neglect, and lack of guidance. I have spoken with people and listened to their stories where this has been the case. With some of these people I have heard their story not once, but progressively over the span of months.
I have seen them make changes in life as they have embraced honesty with themselves and others and sought help from others to live the Gospel correctly. It is not something that they overcome by themselves, so it is imperative that they not be turned away because of bigotry, misunderstanding, or personal discomforts or distaste, and the church IS reaching out to these individuals. We are no more valuable than they are to God.
Having said all of this, I feel somewhat hypocritical, since I am very aware of my own shortcomings and sins and yet take such a hard line on homosexuality. I think this is where we must separate the sins from the individuals. We must respect everyones right to chose until they infringe on that same right of another individual. We must not, however, be accepting of sinful and deviant behaviors given our gospel understanding and morality of it all. Our society will brand people as a bigot for saying that homosexual sex is sinful and deviant.... but that's what it is! So was free love in the 60's, despite how it was praised at the time as a liberation for the youth of the country.
We are moving through the largest case of psychological warfare campaign in Earth's history and there the invading general is spreading sin, violence, confusion, hatred, abuse, despair and deception. You can really come down on either side of this issue as far as your stance, and still be on the wrong side in your heart.
The other General has always and will continue to focus on righteousness, work, obedience, hope, forgiveness, love, mercy, justice, truth, and the family.
Sorry to interrupt the "no-spin-zone", Matt.
I hope it's not too late to share my top three: Gravel, Kucinich, and Obama. I saw Kucinich and Obama coming, but I knew so little about Gravel. I thought the quiz was fun, and it made me do a further research about candidates like Gravel. Hopefully fun quizzes like these will get my generation fired up and interested about the upcoming elections. Honorable mentions included Ron Paul, McCain and Edwards.
I wish I could have commented earlier, but reading everyone’s opinions at once its own enjoyable experience. I definitely have my own four page opinion on the issue, but it received a "B-" in Philosophy class, so I will spare you.
Hey Paul, just because BYU isn't in the top 25, it doesn't mean we can't talk about football anymore.
I don't know how this blog ever took this turn... but I am interested in those who are reading and haven't yet responded. Libby? Jonny? AJ? Dad(s)? Amy L? Jenni and your deleted comment?
Thinking about these issues is a good morality exercise for me. Commandments are easy on paper. They are easy to commit to when everything looks one-dimensional. But as time goes on, the dimensions come alive, and soon it is all more complicated than you ever imagined. But, the commandments are still the commandments. Wisdom and understanding must come into play to make them work in the real world.
Judgment is on the heart, and--as Matt eluded--personal differences in where you come down on this issue is not an accurate judgment of righteousness, charity, or commitment to God and his prophets. We all have different understanding according to our personal/spiritual experiences.
But the real question to me remains how to treat this issue in the political arena, and in the day-to-day goings on in the church.
I've been thinking about this a lot during my routine days. It was still on my mind during scripture study, which today took me to Paul's letters to the Corinths (famous for their debauchery and fornication). Homosexuality is even eluded to (according to the footnotes...) through these chapters (1 corinthians 5&6). Paul (the apostle) comes down hard on cleansing the church of dissension and sin with strong words like: "Put away from yourselves that wicked person," and what provoked much thought for me: "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven..."
This, to me, is the biggest part of the issue in allowing same sex marriage/civil unions. I know that allowing them would not suddenly increase the number of gays amongst us. But if we consider the "lump" the morality and families of the world... including (and especially) children, it is a huge issue to me. Yes, it is my moral value... and yes, it does infringe on the "agency" of others... but it also affects society's morality, and is important to the moral health of the world. I believe this is why the church has come out strongly on this political issue.
And, within the church, here are so many struggling with this who have solid testimonies of the gospel. Yet they feel isolated and shut-out... mostly because of the importance of temple ordinances and the family unit. (Not to trivialize... but it is the same for many single members.)
What is the balance of accepting deviation in the name of fellowshipping and coming to Christ, and letting a little leaven affect the whole lump?
What measures could we take to be sure all have a place in the church, without allowing leaven to affect the whole lump? My thought is that we're told the sin is not the temptation. The sin is the act of immorality... no matter what your sexual orientation is. But how does that play out in real life?
Any ideas?
AJ... you posted while I was formulating mine. Nice to see you... and please give us the cliff notes version of your B- philosophy.
speaking of paul...
romans 7:8-9, "i say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as i. but if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."
marriage according to paul is settling, not the foundation of salvation.
this scripture juxtaposed with amy's is one reason dogmatism can be dangerous.
it doesn't mean that we can't have a deep and abiding faith that God loves us and is leading us. it just means that he is leading us through other imperfect people who make mistakes...
matty: extrapolating cut and dry facts from the proclamation is potentially problematic. if you were a member in 1969 and were using 'doctrines of salvation' for your gospel study text for that year, you would have come across this passage on page 61 (1955 edition), "There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less."
there are a lot of reasons why the ban on the priesthood lasted for as long as it did. this 'doctrine' (the above statement is tame compared to others) led many to err in their treatment of black men and women. this doctrine still leads men and women of our faith to mistreat them. it is understandable that our leaders were caught up in christian cultural morays that led to mistreatment of blacks. very disappointing, but understandable. a rationale for the doctrine either requires allowing for the truth of "blacks as inferior" or debunking the myth and allowing for fallibility in our leaders...
i sustain our prophets...including joseph fielding smith. we are all making our way through life and learning God's will line upon line. we can know the truths of the doctrines as we live them ourselves. those testimonies are personal.
oh, and aj. it makes me very happy to see you here.
you know my feelings about the validity of the rankings...let's not break our truce my brother.
Paul, there is a difference.... to me. The proclamation was written and approved by all fifteen of the men that God has called as our leaders. Not so with Doctrines of Salvation, Mormon Doctrine, Journal of Discourses, and many other texts that may be used as dogmatic references for "doctrines" that have been changed or altered.
The fact that the proclamation was given at the same time that prominent public figures were beginning to "come out" and fight for equal societal status is not a mistake.
In my book, no one is homosexual unless they commit the sin of homosexual sex, no matter what their tenancies. If they stop committing the sin, they are no longer homosexuals (in my book). That sin will always keep the individuals involved from entering the temple without complete repentance just as adultery would, no matter if it is done within the bonds of gay marriage or out of it. It will keep them from salvation if they are not willing to obey God's commandments on the matter, and the commandments are not going to change all of the sudden in the eleventh hour.
Blacks and the priesthood is not a doctrine that dated back to the days of Sodom. It has no scriptural base in our "open" scriptures.
Polygamy is something we still believe in (though I don't pretend to understand it), as even some of our living apostles have been sealed to another spouse after their first eternal companion passed away. This doctrine has not changed in the gospel, just the societal implementation of it.
How can anyone reasonably conceive that God would change his mind regarding homosexual sex to be a sin, even if done in a socially contracted, monogamous relationship? Leaders may be fallible, but when they make a proclamation to the world and all fifteen of them sign off, you can bet it is an ETERNALLY TRUE DOCTRINE.
That is the church's stance, and I couldn't agree more. There is no full membership in our church for a practicing gay. There is no full membership in our church for a continual fornicator. There is no full membership in our church for those who are unwilling to give up pornography. There never will be, because such things are filthy, and if the individual is not willing to come clean from the filth, then they will remain filthy.
It doesn't matter how sorry you feel for them if you don't try to help them overcome their sin. You can give them everything they ask for and pander to their bleeding-heart stories all you want, and in the end if they don't repent, they are lost! A brother or a sister lost! Focusing on relieving the pressure they feel from society is not the answer. How will that help them overcome a sin that will destroy them eternally? How can you claim to love such individuals if you understand the gospel, and then try to make it more convenient to live a life of sin? I am not saying that they should be shunned or looked down on. They should be treated as our brothers and sisters, and they should be nurtured and taught with the gospel, just as everyone should, but society should not make place for these sinful relationships... much less the church.
This stance does not need to be logically defended because that is how it is.
We are all in the same boat. We all have weaknesses, and making it easier or more convenient to live out our lives coddling our weaknesses will not help anything. It is not a complex issue. It is simple to understand. It is very hard to do.
Amy,
My idea for giving place in the church for them...
Treat them the same as everyone else. Counseling and discipline if necessary (in case of sinful actions). Support groups. Full membership for those that supply evidence of full repentance, a broken heart, and a contrite spirit.
This is what the church is doing currently, and I think they have it right. Read the article in the newest Ensign on this subject.
i have more to say; however, i'm not sure this is the correct forum for my thoughts. I do know, however, that the issue can in no way illicit so many capital letters and strong opinions. i don't know what the best thing to do is. but i do know that the issue is not cut and dry. i do know that i should be unsure, which is what i am. i do know the issue is complex and there are many things I do not understand. i do know that many people are suffering and hurting because of our current church/cultural policies/doctrines. i do know the proclamation can be interpreted in a way to allow a place in the church for people struggling with SSA or even practicing homosexuality (whatever than means). i do know the scriptures can be interpreted in a way to allow a place for practicing gay members. but, of course, i'm not sure what that it. but i do know that personally, i have to conduct my life in a way that is compassionate and caring toward my friends and loved ones. and hopefully this is somehow mimicking the love God has for each one of us. but then again, i don't know. and i'm not sure that any of us can be so sure either....
Wow. I've been away for a month, and everyone has run amuck! I am dizzy! My top three were Romney, Huckabee, and Brownback.
I know that my own views on gays and same sex relationships has definitely softened over the last 10 years. Having family members come out of the closet, having family members drift from the church because of friends coming out of the closet, and also having an opportunity to watch a previously active homosexual man, who had AIDS, find the church, embrace it and join, live the commandments, go to the temple, and die with a remarkable testimony have all made their mark in my life. Our family has had several friends of my last description come in to our lives, and they each have left such an incredible peace with the decisions that they decided to make. Maybe it is because those decisions have come after they have contracted AIDS and have no longer had the desire or need for a sexual relationship that made it easier for them to accept eternal principles and no longer practice? I am unsure on that point, but I do know that their countenance is one I would love to have some day.
I have to agree with keeping a union out of what is acceptable in society as long as the Prophet tells us to. I remember how strongly it hit me when the First Presidency asked us to make call centers and walk from house to house and put up signs in our front yards, only to have eggs thrown at our cars, our yards trashed, and feeling like chaos could break out at any moment. If they asked us to stand so strongly then, I will continue until they tell me otherwise - and I have a personal revelation that what they are asking me to do is correct.
Amy--Here I am, over a month late. I did take your test, but did not post results because I was worried that you would not send me a Christmas card this year.
And AJ: Great "No-Spin-Zone" reference. When did Matt become buddies with Billieo Rilley?
Is anyone out there interested in my opinion about "relationships?" I know too many really good people who don't fit into the husband+wife=children=eternal bliss equation.
I didn't get to finish my comment. I am glad that we were commanded to "judge not," because it is way to complicated for me. Nature/nurture? There are lots of unacceptable proclivities, and I am sure that there are some wonderful people dealing quietly with some difficult issues in their lives, that they certainly didn't ask for. I am grateful for the atonement which I have faith will one day make all of this fair.
After Dad and Stephan's softer comments, I feel a little embarrassed. What I wrote down at the time felt like a declaration of clear truths, but sounds now like more of a prideful tirade.
A pleasant young man in his early 20s sat across from me. He had an engaging smile, although he didn’t smile often during our talk. What drew me in was the pain in his eyes.
“I don’t know if I should remain a member of the Church,” he said. “I don’t think I’m worthy.”
“Why wouldn’t you be worthy?” I asked.
“I’m gay.”
I suppose he thought I would be startled. I wasn’t. “And … ?” I inquired.
A flicker of relief crossed his face as he sensed my continued interest. “I’m not attracted to women. I’m attracted to men. I’ve tried to ignore these feelings or change them, but …”
He sighed. “Why am I this way? The feelings are very real.”
I paused, then said, “I need a little more information before advising you. You see, same-gender attraction is not a sin, but acting on those feelings is—just as it would be with heterosexual feelings. Do you violate the law of chastity?”
He shook his head. “No, I don’t.”
This time I was relieved. “Thank you for wanting to deal with this,” I said. “It takes courage to talk about it, and I honor you for keeping yourself clean.
“As for why you feel as you do, I can’t answer that question. A number of factors may be involved, and they can be as different as people are different. Some things, including the cause of your feelings, we may never know in this life. But knowing why you feel as you do isn’t as important as knowing you have not transgressed. If your life is in harmony with the commandments, then you are worthy to serve in the Church, enjoy full fellowship with the members, attend the temple, and receive all the blessings of the Savior’s Atonement.”
He sat up a little straighter. I continued, “You serve yourself poorly when you identify yourself primarily by your sexual feelings. That isn’t your only characteristic, so don’t give it disproportionate attention. You are first and foremost a son of God, and He loves you.
“What’s more, I love you. My Brethren among the General Authorities love you. I’m reminded of a comment President Boyd K. Packer made in speaking to those with same-gender attraction. ‘We do not reject you,’ he said. ‘… We cannot reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We will not reject you, because we love you.’ ”
First, let’s be absolutely clear on what God wants for each of us. He wants us to have all of the blessings of eternal life. He wants us to become like Him. To help us do that, He has given us a plan. This plan is based on eternal truths and is not altered according to the social trends of the day.
At the heart of this plan is the begetting of children, one of the crucial reasons Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden (see 2 Nephi 2:19–25; Moses 5:10–12). They were commanded to “be fruitful, and multiply” (Moses 2:28), and they chose to keep that commandment. We are to follow them in marrying and providing physical bodies for Heavenly Father’s spirit children. Obviously, a same-gender relationship is inconsistent with this plan.
For various reasons, marriage and children are not immediately available to all. Perhaps no offer of marriage is forthcoming. Perhaps even after marriage there is an inability to have children. Or perhaps there is no present attraction to the opposite gender. Whatever the reason, God’s richest blessings will eventually be available to all of His children if they are clean and faithful.
Through the exercise of faith, individual effort, and reliance upon the power of the Atonement, some may overcome same-gender attraction in mortality and marry. Others, however, may never be free of same-gender attraction in this life.
As fellow Church members, families, and friends, we need to recognize that those attracted to the same gender face some unique restrictions regarding expression of their feelings. While same-gender attraction is real, there must be no physical expression of this attraction. The desire for physical gratification does not authorize immorality by anyone. Such feelings can be powerful, but they are never so strong as to deprive anyone of the freedom to choose worthy conduct.
In saying this, let me make it clear that attractions alone, troublesome as they may be, do not make one unworthy. The First Presidency has stated, “There is a distinction between immoral thoughts and feelings and participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior.”2 If you do not act on temptations, you have not transgressed.
The failure to see that distinction sometimes leads to despair. I ache for those who do not understand that every blessing offered by God is available to anyone who obeys the laws upon which those blessings are predicated (see D&C 130:20–21). No one who lives the gospel should despair. Hope and peace come from the Comforter, and the answer to despair is to invite the Holy Ghost into our lives.
Elder Holland
Ensign, Oct. 2007
matty: i know you pretty well, and you are salt of the earth. prideful is not a term i would use in the same sentence with your name...
i read elder holland's talk a few weeks back and it is nice.
while we disagree on a few crucial points, you and i are probably more alike than not in the way we approach others dealing with this particular proclivity.
and i certainly prefer bill o'reilly facing issues head on to jon stewart who uses manipulative humor to take the edge off his left wing rants...still taking into account the fact that jon stewart is a whole lot funnier the billy o'reilly.
I haven’t wanted to dabble in this thread, honestly I don’t know if I am brave enough, but it has been very thought provoking and the basis for some discussion in our home. First though, read this with a soft tone, and a smile on your face, that is all I intend it to be. I find it hard to separate what I think of this topic morally to how I think of it politically. I find my mind running in circles always going back to my beliefs. I don’t support creating a civil union, or partnership or anything that by definition is the equivalent of marriage. I might support giving certain, not all, rights to couples for the sake of providing for and protecting children in the relationship.
I think that when some of you say, it’s all in the semantics… you’re right, but that’s exactly why I wouldn’t support it.. By definition you are giving someone all the same privileges as a married couple and then labeling it with a different name. If it is all in the semantics how is supporting a civil union any different than supporting same gender marriage? How is that protecting and defending the sanctity of marriage? And see then it goes back to what you believe…..
I think someone brought up the argument of an individual’s “happiness.” Maybe it’s in my head, but I thought I read it somewhere here, and I don’t have time to read through everything to find it again. Anyway, I think happiness is so relative in the world we live in. Joseph and I have seen first hand how someone else’s “perceived search for happiness” can destroy the lives of families… it’s greviously sad. So I think the happiness card is weak.
And as far as speculating where the church will go with this in the next 20 years, I like President Eyring’s answer when he was called to speculate at the recent press conference…..with a smile, “Let’s wait and see.”
I have people on both sides of my extended family who are attracted to the same gender for one reason or another…only they and God know exactly why. I associate with them, accept them, love them, admire the good qualities they possess, but I can’t support something that goes against what I believe to be true and something that is contrary to those I sustain as special witnesses. I will continue to look to them, my faith in them is much stronger than my faith in my own understanding.
BTW in response to the google reader question. Our friend Lindsey raves about it, and you guys seem to be blog savvy, so I was wondering if you use it?
From what it sounds she is able to see when someone has updated w/o going to their spot???
Thanks, Amy L. for your comments. I'm glad you were brave enough! It is true that happiness is relative. We are all here to find our own way... hopefully it finds us all at the feet of our Savior.
I know others are reading this, too... it has been a very thought-provoking and stretching exercise for me.
As has been mentioned, along with being given commandments, covenants, and counsel by our modern-day leaders, we are also charged to "judge not" and to forgive everyone. What matters is our hearts. Hopefully they will be soft, meek, and humble as we all seek to gain wisdom and understanding concerning this and other matters.
All I know right now is that this post has been taking up way too many of my waking hours, and decreasing my sleeping hours. So I hope to be off to bed soon, and will post some lighter, kiddo pictures tomorrow.
Love you all...
Amy, you need more sleep. I think I will have to sleep tomorrow since I have spent far too much time reading this blog. It has been interesting reading my two sons comments. I have to say I am grateful they are caring, loving and accepting individuals.
I guess I couldn't help but think back on my "family unit" growing up and the devastating effect homosexuality had on our family. I don't know that my brother ever stopped to think how his actions to find "happiness" brought so much sorrow to all of those that loved him. I do think he finally realized, to some degree, what his "happiness" meant as he apologized to my dad over and over again as my dad mursed him through his last few weeks of life. I truly believe that is why my dad followed him in death a month later, so that he could help him find some form of true happiness.
I have to agree with Amy L that the perceived search for happiness can destroy the lives of families.
So I have to side with the Proclamation. All my married life I have wanted for my children something that I never had growing up and that is a stable home. I know the only way to true "happiness" is through obedience to the our Heavenly Fathers' plan. That plan includes families and we all have them. Some of them may be married or single, some of them may be suffering...we love them all.
Paul: You leave jon stewart out of this.
mom: it looks like a late night you had.
amy and amy: i like your thoughts. i agree that happiness is relative. but i also think that if the stigma surrounding homosexuality was lifted, then it would bring a lot less pain and suffering to families (maybe even none). gay men would not get married to women in hopes of being cured, mothers and fathers would not be in despair when a son or daughter came out, gay men and women would not have to hide their tendencies underground and do things that do not promote happiness. but i agree it is a difficult topic and i think it should be approached with a lot of sensitivity and thought.
Amy,
How did you know I deleted my comment. Sneeky!! It was only up for about 30 seconds. I decided not to get too involved. I completely agree with everything you said.....and I appreciate everyone's opinions and comments. It's been an interesting time reading all 55 comments.
Patty,
From what I know of you and the time I have spent in your home, I was quite surprised to hear of your experiences as a youth. I had already admired you for the kind of home you had created for your children (Angela and I have discussed things we would incorporate in our home), and now even more considering how little preparation you may have been given as a youth.
Stephen,
Certainly, much of the suffering that alcoholics, homosexuals, and every other form of addict goes through would be eased if they could be honest with everyone. It would be much better if these people could be reached out to, accepted, and nurtured instead of cold-shouldered, mistrusted, and even hated. I agree that our church and society should be a place when people can openly express their weaknesses and find help, not hurt. Living two lives isn't easy or good for anyone.
There does need to be more understanding and caring for them in the pain they go through, but this is not the same thing as accepting a gay community in society or in the church. We must accept the individuals and help them. We must not grow that into an acceptance of the lifestyle and choices that put self over God. That is where society is going, but it seems clear to me, that if it is not right for God's kingdom, it cannot be healthy for society. If it doesn't come from God, it is clear to me where it does come from.
Frandseypants,
It has been far too long. I must find a way to watch football with you this season. We always tend to agree on football. I love this blog.
homosexuality is not an addiction; it is not a weakness. such sentiments are damaging to those who experience ssa and to those who are determining and developing ideas/policices/doctrines.
and as for something being right for God's kingdom but unhealthy for a society: what about a glass of wine per day?
Stephen... if homosexuality is not a weakness, what is it?
And as far as a glass of wine a day being good for the heart, etc. etc... I liked my dad's response when one of the doctors asked him about it. He remarked that alcohol has broken many more hearts that it has helped.
And as far as mom F's upbringing goes... I am so grateful for the good examples and traditions she had in her youth that she has chosen to continue in her own family. We all pick and choose from what we've experienced for our own children, hoping to improve upon ourselves (...and then they just make their own choices anyway!)
i think stephen is saying that a glass of wine a day is good for you and that we shouldn't legislate against it just because of our religious compunction to avoid alcohol.
amyjo: it’s nice that you dabbled. i support defending the power and importance of marriage and family. i believe that many social ills are made worse when parents are not able or willing to give ample time to their children in teaching them to live good, responsible lives. strong, committed families is a principle i am deeply committed to. my mother’s words about her commitment to our family ring strong and true in my mind. she is a powerful example of giving tirelessly to her children and allowing them to adjust well and adapt to life. i also agree that solely seeking personal pleasure and fulfillment leads to heartbreak and an empty life. paradoxically, seeking others' happiness often elevates our own mood and spirits.
however, there are assumptions being made regarding cause and effect that are potentially unknown.
patty: sorry you weren’t able to sleep. your words were touching and i appreciate what you said. you have been everything a kid could want in a parent. your comments about obedience and a stable home aren’t falling on deaf ears..:)
stevie: surprisingly or not, you and i agree once again.
there are many assumptions being bandied about regarding homosexuality that aren’t necessarily true…that it is only about selfishness, that it is deviant behavior, that it is akin to adultery or pedophilia, that homosexuality is just an addiction, that it is a weakness, that a gay man is denying god, that gay feelings and relationships are of satan.
where do all these ideas come from? culture? perceived prophetic opinion? science? If we are talking about a strict reading of the proclamation to the family, there are two pertinent lines that could mean any number of things.
“gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”
“we further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.”
where do allegations of selfishness, deviancy, addiction, weakness and denying God come from when reading these two sentences? there are certainly gay persons who fit these decriptions, but there are far more heterosexuals that fit the bill. this statement was made in 1995. the church has already changed in leaps and bounds in its treatment of and public statements on gays. the church is certain to continue to change on this topic. how can any of us be sure without a shadow of a doubt and with every fiber of our being that one or both of these two sentences won’t change? if it does change, will we have been guilty of gross misjudgment and mistreatment of a neighbor, former friend or family member?
many things came out of the church’s treatment of blacks, and one big one is for all members (including apostles) to be very careful in ascribing reasons to prophetic pronouncements. many of the myths and folklore about blakcs came from very self-assured members explaining away why blacks weren’t worthy of inclusion. this event in church history serves as a stark warning to those of us who are too sure of ourselves in our judgment of others…
and on a lighter note: i would love to use a blog aggregator. we have a link to ldselect.org on the front page of this blog that follows a multitude of lds blogs and is an outstanding way to keep in touch with all the latest on each blog. i tried to create something similar, but i ran into lots of snags. our blog is password protected and therefore creates problems in the feed that don't allow an aggregator to track it. specifically, google reader only allows you to see when a new post is up, it doesn’t allow you to track most recent comments from any of the blogs you follow (one of the coolest functions of ldselect.org). my goal would be to create a blog aggregator similar to ldselect.org for my extended family or friends. it would allow you to keep up with everyone with one glance at a time and take away the necessity for memorizing how many comments are on each post to know if there has been a new comment. the recent comments function would serve as a tool for recognizing very quickly what people are talking about, where they are talking and who is doing the talking.
I agree with a lot that I've seen in this thread. But I think that sometimes, instead of looking at an issue more closely, we need to step back and clean the glasses that we're looking through. I hate to refer to Nietzsche on a moral/religious comment, but we've seen as time goes by that truth always have a perspective spin on it-even in the Church.
I don't think that it as much a semantics game as it is an epistemological issue. We need to consider the inherent difference between "knowledge-that" and "knowledge-how". This is surprisingly difficult in English because there is only one word, but in Mongolian there are two different forms of the verb "to know" which make the distinction (who would have thought Mongolians were so philosophical?.
I think that through our scriptures and leaders we have recieved abundant "knowledge-how". We "know how" we are supposed to live. We "know how" we are supposed to treat others. All we need to do is live by the two great commandments. When it comes to "know-that" knowledge, I think we tread on thin ice if we get into deep issues like this and assume that we know how things really are. I don't think we can even fathom some of the "pure truths" in the world. However, I do believe that we can learn line upon line and precept upon precept as long a we live and judge righteously.
paul: can you believe it? we agree? it seems strange, doesn't it? i like your epistemological take on things. but i'm wondering where you learned your mongolian. either way, hurray for nietzche.
amy: calling homosexuality a weakness is unfair to those people who cannot change. this is the way they were made and making it a weakness--something to be ashamed about or hidden--makes the person seems somehow less of a person.
ma: you're the greatest ma ever. although I didn't really know David, it seems like from what you've said that struggling with homosexuality was the least of his issues and struggles. but perhaps on that front, if the culture were a little more understanding about such things, it could have been easier for him and his relationship with his family. but either way, both he and grandpa showed how they were both great people when then came together during David's final few months. that is an example of what charity really is, both on David's part and on Grandpa's.
Patty,
That was a beautiful, brave, and touching statement.
Thank you for sharing it with us.
Happiness is such an elusive concept. I feel that is why we have been given so many helpful guidelines, which too many interpret as relative rules and restrictions.
Someone help me with this one: What was the context of the "Proclamation?" My copy says that it was read in a RS conference by the prophet. Does this put it on the same level as scripture, or is it more of a "Journal of Discourses" or Conference talk sort of address? Was it signed by the Presidency and the 12? Is it in any of the newer copies of the D&C?
It is rather difficult to predict evolution-easier to view in retrospect.
And I agree: Amy, when do you sleep? Be careful.
I enter the blog only to say that 'I vote for all of you.' You are all thoughtful, loving, committed children of an all-knowing, loving and infallible God.
here is a great discussion of the status of the proclamation. i don't believe it is scripture.
let me also say that i am not saying that the proclamation will certainly change. i am not questioning my obedience to it at this time. i am saying that it might change (as have many other ideas in the church) which should give pause and caution to definitive statements.
trying to predict the evolution of church policy is certainly a dicey game that could lead to heartache and that isn't what i am proposing wholesale. i'm asking for a more nuanced view that i think is required by an honest look at our church and its leaders' history when it comes to political and cultural pronouncements.
mongolian? i don't get it? nietzche? am unwittingly pushing nietche's teachings..?
Ooooohhhh, I disagree with you, Paul, when you apply the changes that happened with blacks and the priesthood to possible changes in the teachings of the Proclamations.
You site these two sections of the Proclamation, suggesting that they could mean any number of things:
“gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”
“we further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.”
These principles are so central to what we have always been taught about eternity. They are critical principles upon which our commandments and covenants are made. Why, in the “eleventh hour,” would such a drastic change take place?
And I don't think that this issue can be so consistently be correlated with the blacks and the priesthood "situation." Blacks = skin color/race. Gender = different body parts, and roles in mortality and eternity.
Suggesting such changes strikes against so much of what has been taught through the thousands of years of recorded history. If this was so important to our day, I would think that… in all the warnings and mirror-image stories and recorded prophecies in scripture... there would be something to glean from. Yes, we are to love one another and not judge. What other teachings would elude to dealing with a change/difference in the way it is set up now??
I know hindsight will be 20/20 when we look back on all of this... but my foresight doesn't see any of your suggestions...
Is anyone else exhausted by this here post??
funny...i normally skip over what most recently wrote when skimming a post. that's why i missed the post from 'Paul' and didn't understand stevie's epistemological comment.
welcome to the thread paul risenmay. i liked your comments and i agree with you.
Ok, I'm just going to make one more comment. In the lesson today by Spencer W. Kimball he was quoted as saying: We of all people should not be taken in by the specious arguments that the family unit is somehow tied to a particular phase of development a mortal society is going through. We are free to resist those moves which downplay the significance of the family and which play up the significance of selfish individualism. We know the family to be eternal. We know that when things go wrong in the family, things go wrong in every other institution in society.
Hmmmmm. ...Kind of interesting.
Oh... Paul R... that is YOU! Hello, brother. I should have known it was you, because you actually capitalize. Thank you for lending some Mongolian insight to this here discussion. It has been far too long...
And thank you for sharing a quote from RS class. Indeed, families are not just a fad.
oh...paul risenmay. hello.
mom: was that President Kimball quote from the miracle of forgiveness?
I wrote a huge comment that was erased before I could post it somehow.
Maybe we are all better off for it...
Stephen and Paul, perhaps we are using different definitions for the same words and this could be a point of confusion.
I call ssa a weakness in the sense that it is a pull or drive that tempts those with it to disobey God's commandments. Any kind of very strong pull towards something God has put off limits is in my mind a weakness, as it makes you vulnerable to the danger of sin. I am not questioning if it is natural or developed.
Most weaknesses (in this sense) seem to be quite natural. These weaknesses can also include a very strong sexual drive in heterosexuals, the natural inclination towards ease and laziness, a very aggressive and competitive nature, a desire for visible success and adulation, etc...
None of these feelings are sins or addictions, but they are weaknesses to those that find them very difficult to control when it comes to a question of keeping to the very clear path God has given man through the ages.
Is this a different context for the word "weakness" than you felt I was originally applying?
i am going to leave a few more thoughts. i will include another family member who has commented often elsewhere and i guess she can't mind that i include her since that's the nature of posting in a public forum (which this is not by the way--password protected :) the following can be found under comment 46 at this post. now lest she be weirded out by using a random 46th comment of hers, i happened to be reading this post in search of other thoughts on gay mormons and i stumbled across her thoughts and thought them worthwhile...
since most of you don't follow my links i'll quote her thought here, "I pray for the day when a married Mormon gay couple can be considered duly married “for time.�? … for now, we need to find a way to keep gays, not lose them. And the current policy — celibacy or church discipline — is putting too many otherwise good people in an impossible position. I mourn that so many of our brothers and sisters feel so estranged from the Good News of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
Ronan, I absolutely agree that we need to find ways to keep gay people, and that the current situation is nearly impossible—and I too mourn for those who are estranged. The difficulty and estrangement that gay Saints experience is due in part, of course, to the requirement of celibacy. But I’d guess that the thinness of the gay LDS subject position—a narrative for making sense of the gay experience in the Church, a life-plan that accounts for and mitigates the particular difficulties faced, a store of role-models, a cultural identity that one steps into in the way that one becomes a husband or wife or missionary—contributes quite a lot to the difficulty, as well. Right now the only way of being gay and Mormon seems to be to leave the Church, or to renounce activity, and we need to change that at the institutional level, rather than expect each individual homosexual to re-invent the wheel and find his or her own place.
But I think the Church’s sanctioning “time-only” SSM would be a huge mistake, and would, indeed, jeopardize heterosexual marriage. (I’m talking about the Church itself okaying gay Mormon marriage; I’m still very confused about civil marriage.) I am fully persuaded that the availability of SSM would not turn male heterosexuals into homosexuals; by adulthood, male sexuality seems pretty hard-wired in, at least for most men. But female sexuality is very different, much more fluid and circumstantial, and a legitimate same-sex-marriage option could, for a variety of reasons (including the perennial gender imbalance among LDS singles), attract many women who could otherwise marry heterosexually—particularly if adoption or ARTs are okayed for gay couples in the Church. To deny this is, I think, to seriously misunderstand the nature of female sexuality.
Instead—and this is something I’ve heard D talk about in the bloggernacle from time to time—what about some sort of special quorum or status for Saints, male and female, gay and straight, who, for whatever reason, choose celibacy. The Nazarite tradition of the OT comes to mind. Some sort of opening into a legitimate, celebrated LDS celibacy; some way to theorize a subject position, a life plan, a way of making sense of one’s experience and feeling committed to a higher purpose."
and here is an excerpt from this post by a very 'thinky' mormon lawyer about the status of the proclamation, "I think that the best analogy for the Proclamation is a 1916 document entitled “The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve.” Few people read the Doctrinal Exposition any more, but it has been a tremendously influential document in Mormon theology. Essentially, it marks a winnowing down and synthesis of nineteenth-century Mormon thinking on the nature the godhead. In part it was meant as a final repudiation of Adam-God thinking, but it was also meant to stabilize interpretations of Mormon scripture, providing a reconciliation of apparently discordant texts. When modern Mormons explain the relationship between God and Jesus Christ they are generally relying, whether they know it or not, on the Doctrinal Exposition’s interpretation of the scriptures.
If I am right, the Proclamation, like the Doctrinal Exposition, is not a revelation but an authoritative interpretation. (The nature of its authority is open to question.) This makes it different, however, than a revelation. Compare the Doctrinal Exposition with another important addition to Mormon literature from the same time: Joseph F. Smith’s Vision of the Redemption of the Dead, now included in the Doctrine & Covenants as section 138. Joseph F. Smith’s vision also began as an interpretation of scripture — “my mind reverted to the writings of the Apostle Peter” — but in the end the document is not about stabilizing scriptural interpretation. Rather, it adds a text with which future interpretations must cope. It opens up interpretation rather than closing it down."
and if that weren't enough, here's a great post from a gay mormon to a parent who has discovered gay porn on her boy's computer account is worried he might be gay.
how's that for an oblique answer matty?
that first quote was from rosalynde welch...my cousin.
in case you thought this thread was dead...it hasn't taken its last gasps...
Paul,
I enjoyed reading the post. It is becoming more and more clear to me how important honesty and support are.
I would agree that there may be place for a "singles" unit that doesn't exist with the purpose of ceasing to exist.
When I think of individuals that I know that, for whatever reason, do not desire to marry and yet have a testimony and desire to serve God... it makes me wonder at the possibilities of purpose, good works, and sense of belonging they could have... the same things found in marriage and children.
Post a Comment