More fallout from gay marriage spat
 

I know this is only one side of the story, but it still seems a little bit like a witch hunt. It's interesting how arbitrary the crackdowns seem to be.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_8345693

There is a scene in the movie "Witness," where Kelly McGillis's character, Rachel, is having a heated discussion with her dad, Eli. Her father warns her that many in their congregation have been gossiping about her interactions with Harrison Ford's character....that she looks at him, laughs, smiles, whatever.

Eli warns her that the leadership council is thinking of shunning her. Eli expains that he would not be able to pray with her, eat at the same table, talk to her, or even so much as take something from her hand.

It is at this point of the movie where Rachel seems to realize that all of these consequences make no sense and are in place simply for the age old reason....."just because."

This article about disciplining LDS members in good standing because they are not opposed to gay marriage reminds me of the aforementioned scene from Witness. I am not sure what is accomplished by excommunicating members who write letters of concern to a newspaper. Why do we do this? Just because? If no unhallowed hand will stop the work from progressing, then who cares what is written?

For a Church that doesnt concern itself with the ways of the world, it seems to be a bit over-sensitive about a few local yokels writing letters. Such tactics certainly have a "chilling effect" on exploring one's own spirituality if some concerns or worries about the Gospel or Church governance are met with the threat of discipline.

In the spirit of honest and full disclosure, a few scenes after Rachel tells Eli to not worry about all the gossip, she lathers up and attacks Harrison Ford with her moistened sweater cannons, which, to my knowledge, is an anomoly in the world of traditional Amish courtship rituals. So I guess there is also something to be said about ecclesiastical "prevent defense."

An excellent post, with an absolutely boffo ending.

They look like troublemakers to me: Peter has a beard.

What a sad story.

Perhaps this is what Elder Oaks meant by you don't go against the leaders even if they are wrong.

From a purely organizational viewpoint this is what you have to do to keep the troops in line. What if members started actively opposing the churches recent stance on illegal immigrants. In the privacy of your own thoughts I don't think the church cares what you think. It is OK as long as what you do won't lead to harm of the structure or organization.

We are allowed to have our freedom on many many issues. However, if the church takes a stand, it isn't a democracy. You fall into line, at least publicly.

You have to decide what is most important. Full association or another path.

"...the standard of truth has been erected; No unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the great Jehovah shall say the work is done. One exception, of course, is if people write letters to the Salt Lake Tribune or protest on BYU campus--these things could really, REALLY hurt our work."

The original press release on the church's opposition to same-sex marriage (now off-line) included a paragraph stating that members who took the opposite stand politically would not be subjected to church discipline. Of course, the SLTrib article stated that this couple "resigned" their membership rather than face a church court, so we can only speculate as to what actually happened. In any case, it is good to know that Nielson wasn't disciplined.

It's events like this that tell me the clock is ticking for many Mormons--those who have personal beliefs and aren't afraid to share them.

I wonder what Joseph Smith would say to the idea that merely expressing personal opposition to an official act of the church is worthy of excommunication? The idea that there is no back and forth, no common consent.

It's funny--if we defend Nielsen in semi-anonymity on the internet, we are "safe", but if we write in and say the exact same thing in an op-ed, we risk eternal damnation. That's pretty freaking incredible.

That's why I don't really think God gives all that much weight to excommunication. Look at the David O. McKay bio and the attempt by an apostle to excommunicate Juanita Brooks. Do I believe, in one moment as President McKay considered the matter, that Sis. Brooks eternal welfare was on the line? No I don't, not for a second.

Excommunications of conscience such as this case brings to mind, make me sad. There is one person on CB who has said he is preparing a dossier to "expose" me to local church leaders. What happens when my day comes? Do I take the path of conscience, or do I kowtow to unrighteous dominion?

What if the church demands I shut down this website? The clock is ticking.

By the way, it's too f*&#$# bad the guy wasn't an athlete at BYU. His case might have turned out different.

Another lesson from this incident--for some of us it would be best to turn down callings to serve in the church. Because our service will be used as a weapon against us. No one will excommunicate the curmudgeon in the back row with 0% hometeaching and no tie. But by golly, if you are in MoTab, or have a stake calling, watch out.

It's odd if it's occurring that way.

However, these guys could do it differently by just stating, "hey, we oppose the FMA or whatever it's called."

The mistake, politically, these folk make, is to go public against the Church. In many other circumstances folks can do that and get away with it, but not in this context.

Nonetheless, I imagine this too shall pass and change.

and so the tent gets smaller....

I guess what it boils down to, is that I believe in a personal relationship with God. And I don't think ANY mortal man has the power to step between a person and God.

I don't care what the religion is, I don't care about what priesthood, what authority, or anything. The personal relationship between a person and God is inviolate, and only dependent on God and that person.

I recognize that social organizations do have and should have the power to regulate their membership. That's fine. And we are always taking in data that either pushes into stronger or weaker membership in that social organization.

We need to decide who we want to be. Figure out how big this tent is. And also we need to think about why some stakes have larger tents and other stakes have smaller tents.

Maybe SEIQ is right. Maybe the very soul of the LDS church is up for grabs right now, and the mullahs are in furious attacking retreat.

It's sad.

What athletes do you know that have taken public stances in direct conflict to general policies of the church. Not once, but repeatedly. I will bet the guy didn't get thrown out of the orchestra because he refused to shave his beard. What do you think would happen if an athlete grew a beard and refused to shave it.

I understand and can sympathize with the bulk of your post. I think at this point the bulk of the church doesn't mind the order of things. Maybe as time moves on that will change and then the churches stance on this might too.

AS one who doesn't approve of gay marriage, I hope they don't. However, I don't ever use the churches stance as being a doctrinal issue. I consider it a social issue, much like the black situation was.

It seems inevitable that gay marriage is legalized. I dont care one bit if it is. I am not against it.

But I am interested to see the also inevitable reactions of homophobes in and out of the Church that will hide behind a phony shield of conservatism and family values to justify exclusionary behavior.

How many LDS families will do the following upon the legalization of gay marriage:

1. Not speak to gay couples that come to our Sacrament meeting
2. Not allow their children to play with children of gay couples
3. Not befriend gay couples that move to your street, block, etc...

All of these will happen, no doubt. And all in the name of family values and adherence to what Christ would want us to do.

You know, I often wonder if our kids will be talking about our parents' generation, (and ours to a lesser extent) in the same way that we talk about our grandparents' generation in relation to blacks and the priesthood. They'll wonder how we could have been so out of touch.

Triplet, you're being too harsh on the members.

In gay couples, they represent something which is very difficult for the members to understand. Gay copulation is a sin in the eyes of most members. So they won't know how to respond.

Some will respond cautiously, some will stand off and some will act as they would with heterosexual couples. You take social conservatives and can't expect them to behave as if they were living on Castro Street in San Francisco.

I suspect members would treat gay couples better than they will treat members who support gay couples.

Is it possible to think that gay marriage is not a good idea without being called a homophobe. I am against gay marriage. The fact I am wouldn't make me do any of the 3 things you mentioned.

Just noticed that Dr. Bradshaw from the Biology dept. at BYU got quite a bit of mention at the end of that article. He was one of my favorite professors at the Y.

My grandpa tells a story about his grandpa. Apparently, back in Draper, UT in the early 1900s, this ancestor (named Leonard) and his stake president got into a tiff over irrigation rights (the history of the west is the history of water rights, IMO). Apparently, the SP got so angry he had Leonard ex'd. At a church meeting shortly thereafter, President Joseph F. Smith showed up and asked Leonard to come sit on the stand with him. When Leonard explained that he couldn't since he had been ex'd, President Smith said something like, "Oh, whatever. You're not excommunicated." And Leonard went up on the stand and lived the rest of his life as if nothing had ever happened. No rebaptism or anything.

That's the story, anyway - don't know if it's very true but it's a nice family story.

It is already happening, hermano.

My niece was in a HS play called (quite humerously) "The Phantom of the Oprah." I asked her if they had a black student playing Oprah and my niece swiftly corrected me saying that african american is the terminology of chouce.

I dont view this is PC gone amok, but rather as evidence of your hypothesis.

I think in 20 years, we will all look back at this and say to ourselves, "why the heck did I care so much if two gay people wanted to wear rings and get married?" I dont think homosexuality will be acceptable within the Gospel, but I do think that, as a whole, we will be more aware and sensitive in greater numbers towards gays.

Unfortunately, we will have also likely moved on to the next group to fear, hate, and ostracize. Maybe amputees? The elderly? Cyclists?

For me personally, I would say absolutely.

If what you say is accurate, you are someone who, for personal spirutal reasons, does not approve of gay marriage, yet would still treat homosexuals with respect in social and familial settings.

This doesnt sound like homophobia to me. I would assume you feel the same way about....say....smokers? Not a smoker yourself and are against it, but you dont fear or hate smokers as a group.

I think homophobia creeps in when the fear is irrational. Those who think all gays will molest kids, you cant have gays in your home, etc.....that kind of stuff I just dont get. I can appreciate that it is a tough issue, though.

The oldies will always be ostracised.
I'm slitting my wrists when I turn 83. I shant be one who aimlessly stares at the grocery store aisle with my cart turned at an angle and lines of people in both directions trying to get past.

That's a great story. You should find the actual sources and document it for your family and for others.

If their is any rallying cry to this website, it is "the church is a big tent." "You don't think anyone thinks like you, well there are actually a lot of people who do. You are not alone.

We are just one small foot soldier in a larger cultural "battle". We are not the "loyal opposition". We are merely people who would like to open discuss those things which we never have the opportunity to discuss in our day-to-day lives.

At least, that's what I aspire to. I don't have a problem with the mullahs, as long as they do not rip the stakes of zion and shrink this tent. They have no right. The small tent is their own mental creation.

My guess is the next group to be feared, hated and ostracized will be pedaphiles. Maybe in 40 years we will be able to accept them too. Someday hopefully we will be able to live in a world where no social behavior is not accepted.

How long before you think we will be able to get porn on regular TV without paying for it.

Your point is more than fair and admittedly, I did not articulate well.

Also interesting is the notion that, to many members, gay individuals represent homoerotic copulation first, not child of God first. This, my friend, is homophobia. If you look at a gay person and think "you have sex with men" as opposed to "hey, new person in my ward," then there is an irrational phobia going on there, at least in my opinion. I'm no expert, though.

I completely agree that there will be a spectrum...some will treat others well, some will be standoffish, others will be rude and cold.

My tent got bigger just reading this post.

Inspiring!

Agree. There are people in the church I would call non-LDS o phobes. Non active=LDS o phobes.

For instance, I would not treat a homosexual couple any different than some people I know who live together and aren't married. As long as they don't push their lifestyle on me or what I am trying to teach my kids.

I teach my kids to get married first. I teach them that is for their benefit not because people who don't are bad people.

Ah, the pedophile argument. Good one. Pwned. The two issues are strikingly similar.

I predict your next post will be one of the two:

1. The "what if a person wants to marry an animal?" argument
2. The story about your fraternity voting and blackballs.

I dont see any of that as being homophobic. Again, I am not an expert.

This seems the most reasonable position they can take, but the obvious solution to the problem is for them to quit meddling in politics and to therefore avoid presenting their members with these moral dilemmas.

Good I'm safe.

You don't like the fraternity story? I would think I could use it 4-5 times before it loses it's pizzazzz.

I think the person marrying an animal argument is probably 80-100 years off.

I agree with you, but must point out that there is nothing politically correct about "african american" vs "black." The former excludes black folks living outside america, as well as white americans from Africa, unless we consider that every american is an african american, some just further removed from their continent of origin than others.

I once heard a native american guy declare that the preferred term to describe his people is "American Indian." Similar to african american, it just doesn't make any sense and I will therefore not use it.

I will admit that I have a soft spot for your fraternity story.

Mine was just a cheap attempt to goad you into telling it 2 weeks before you normally would have. :o

You should take that point up with black folks. go into a predominantly black neighborhood and go door to to door, letting them all know the error of their ways.

There was a guy in my BYU ward who was from Joberg, South Africa. White as a sheet. And he jokingly told people he was African American. He actually was correct, I guess.

That's the idea. It just doesn't make any sense. Of course the other issue is that white folks would need to become "european americans" or something in order for "african american" to make sense.

One thing that was a little disconcerting to me when I was young involved the fraternity and my first Temple venture. A couple of things in the fraternity ritual I was sworn to keep secret. Later in the Temple I did the same two things and was sworn to keep that secret.

Don't ask what the two are. I doubly swore to keep them secret.

The SL Trib loves to do anything to stir up contention when it comes to the LDS Church, so it isn't surprising that this article was written. I've always decided that when it comes to something like this situation, because it's in the Trib, it's most likely not as bad as it sounds, just like stuff in the DesNews is most likely not as rosy as reported.

It seems that every time something comes up involving a member of the LDS church, especially if it involves some sort of illegal activity, the Trib is more than glad to report it and point out that the alleged criminal is LDS. I remember about 15 years or so ago, there was some sort of white collar crime that ended in homicide and there were three who were charged with murder. One of the perps was LDS and it was reported as such, but nothing was said about the religious affiliation of the other two.

A few weeks ago I told my bishop that I supported gay marriage. He shrugged and said he personally preferred civil unions.

Folks should move on out to our neck of the woods.