Apparently BYU is gearing up to offer a new master of fine arts (MFA) degree in creative writing. I’m very curious to see how BYU’s MFA is different from its M.A. with creative writing emphasis, which I completed back in 1998.
I really enjoyed my BYU experience, but not so much the actual creative writing track. For one thing, at that time they lumped all kinds of creative writers into one workshop, which made only a little more sense than lumping those learning French, Spanish, and Chinese into one class.
For another, the theory courses were very ambiguous and ethereal and academic and didn’t provide any practical training for a creative writer. The emphasis seemed to be more on preparing me for a Ph.D. program, since the M.A. is not considered a terminal degree. I did like some of my two workshop experiences, but in one the professor never said anything, so it seemed like students teaching students, and in the other I had to complete it by mail with the instructor, as I came down with Hodgkin's disease and had to file an incomplete. My favorite class of the whole degree was the Mormon literature reading class I took from Eugene England.
My BYU M.A. gave me some great things. It turned me on to Mormon literature, the Association for Mormon Letters, etc. which have continued as abiding interests in my life. And it was through the M.A. program that I got an (extremely boring) summer internship in the LDS Church’s curriculum dept. which then directly led to a less-boring full-time stint at the Ensign magazine and a subsequent reasonably well paid career in corporate marketing communications. However, as far as preparing me to become an actual published creative writer, the BYU program did less for me than two years of participating in a good writer’s group and studying books and magazines put out by the likes of Writers Digest would have done.
While I can see benefits to M.A. and MFA programs, I come down on the side of thinking it’s too often all just a big pipe dream for the students. It’s a lot like the multilevel marketing industry in which I work: everyone wants to launch their own successful home-based biz and make money, but fewer than 5% actually make it. If a program in law or dentistry had those job-placement odds, it would fail.
If someone has the time and the money to spend on an MFA without needing to earn a living afterward, I think it's potentially a fair-to-good investment in personal development and could lead to some satisfying literary experiences later, for those who stick with the writing discipline beyond school or luck out with a sustainable teaching job. But for the majority of us who need a real career, I think MFA programs should be much more realistic and should include much more practical emphasis on carving out a workable writing life.
In fact, I tend to think that most creative-writing degrees should be a tag-on minor to some real vocational degree in a discipline with reasonable odds for providing a lifetime remunerative career. For most of us, an MFA is a luxury we can't afford, but I don't think many students realize that until later, when the impossibility of making a living as a creative writer really sinks in.
Here's a very interesting article from a recent New Yorker on this whole topic.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Zarahemla Clearance Sale
Like nearly all publishers in this economic climate, Zarahemla Books has been hit by returns of unsold books from booksellers.
To help us move excess inventory and raise funds to publish several upcoming new titles, we are currently offering the following titles at heavily discounted prices:
Hooligan - $4.95
Hunting Gideon - $3.95
On the Road to Heaven - $5.95
Long After Dark - $6.95
Shipping is only $2.95 for orders totaling under $25.00 and FREE for orders totaling $25.00 or more.
If you've been procrastinating purchasing these titles, now's obviously the time! It's also a good time to stock up on gifts. Prices will return to normal once inventory catches up.
To take advantage of this sale, visit the Zarahemla Books website, where you can order with secure PayPal payment processing:
http://www.zarahemlabooks.com/main.sc
To help us move excess inventory and raise funds to publish several upcoming new titles, we are currently offering the following titles at heavily discounted prices:
Hooligan - $4.95
Hunting Gideon - $3.95
On the Road to Heaven - $5.95
Long After Dark - $6.95
Shipping is only $2.95 for orders totaling under $25.00 and FREE for orders totaling $25.00 or more.
If you've been procrastinating purchasing these titles, now's obviously the time! It's also a good time to stock up on gifts. Prices will return to normal once inventory catches up.
To take advantage of this sale, visit the Zarahemla Books website, where you can order with secure PayPal payment processing:
http://www.zarahemlabooks.com/main.sc
Monday, May 18, 2009
15 Books I've Read that Will Always Stick with Me
1. The Hobbit, J.R.R. Tolkien
2. Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain
3. Couples, John Updike
4. Vanity Fair, William Makepeace Thackeray
5. Moby Dick, Herman Melville
6. The Crimson Petal and the White, Michel Faber
7. Bleak House, Charles Dickens
8. Saturday, Ian McEwan
9. Middlemarch, George Eliot
10. The Corrections, Jonathan Franzen
11. How We Die, Sherwin Nuland
12. The Stand, Stephen King
13. Oryx and Crake, Margaret Atwood
14. The Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt
15. The Beatles: The Biography by Bob Spitz
And you?
2. Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain
3. Couples, John Updike
4. Vanity Fair, William Makepeace Thackeray
5. Moby Dick, Herman Melville
6. The Crimson Petal and the White, Michel Faber
7. Bleak House, Charles Dickens
8. Saturday, Ian McEwan
9. Middlemarch, George Eliot
10. The Corrections, Jonathan Franzen
11. How We Die, Sherwin Nuland
12. The Stand, Stephen King
13. Oryx and Crake, Margaret Atwood
14. The Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt
15. The Beatles: The Biography by Bob Spitz
And you?
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Going Underground on Gay Marriage?
As a Kool-Aid-swilling Mormon, my big question on the whole gay marriage issue is, What is the LDS Church's next move?
I used to think the church should keep fighting in the public arena on this issue. But now I'm thinking it would buy us more peaceful years in society if we went mostly dark on the issue—not refute our beliefs, but circle the wagons, reaffirm what we believe to each other and our children and whatever sincere seekers come our way, and let society do what it will without much further input from us.
I think winning Prop 8 actually backfired because it galvanized the gay movement. Gay marriage is definitely coming, one way or another, probably on the federal level. But Prop 8 was an important opportunity for the LDS Church to make it clear to all Mormons everywhere that the gay lifestyle isn't going to be accepted by the church, despite all the wishful thinking that goes on within liberal Mormon circles. The message is clearer than ever: If you want to be in the church, you need to work on resisting and overcoming your same-sex weakness, not seek justification through so-called marriage. And this message is especially important for our children, who will grow up in a world where the gay lifestyle is promoted and celebrated far more than it is today. God help any of our kids who feel same-sex attraction, because it's going to be damn hard to survive spiritually in tomorrow's radically pro-gay moral climate.
Obviously Mormons will continue to reaffirm the sanctity of godlike marriage within our own group, but I don't see the point in raising much more stink about it in general society, which is pretty much equivalent to the great and spacious building nowadays anyway. It's not worth all the bad publicity and ill will to fight something that's going to happen anyway. We've gone on record with Prop 8, we're now widely known to oppose gay marriage, and I think we should just wash our hands of it and sit back and watch with dismay as society does what it will. To do otherwise seems as unwise to me as pasting targets on our foreheads and butts.
Even if we go mostly underground about this issue, though, I still think society will eventually become so culturally fascist about gay marriage—so politically correct in a twisted, diabolical way—that society will eventually dig us out of our burrows, and of course we'll have to hold our ground at that point, come what may. But clamming up until then will hopefully buy us more time.
The only exception I can think of is that the church should probably help block gay marriage at the Utah level, because we can't just roll over and play dead right here in our own backyard. However, even if Utah votes against gay marriage, it will still eventually gain federal acceptance, and then Utah won't really have a choice, at least while the union still stands.
At some point down the road closer to the Second Coming, when our society is really falling apart due to the majority's departure from God, I'm sure we Mormons will be able to say, "Told you so." Your thoughts?
I used to think the church should keep fighting in the public arena on this issue. But now I'm thinking it would buy us more peaceful years in society if we went mostly dark on the issue—not refute our beliefs, but circle the wagons, reaffirm what we believe to each other and our children and whatever sincere seekers come our way, and let society do what it will without much further input from us.
I think winning Prop 8 actually backfired because it galvanized the gay movement. Gay marriage is definitely coming, one way or another, probably on the federal level. But Prop 8 was an important opportunity for the LDS Church to make it clear to all Mormons everywhere that the gay lifestyle isn't going to be accepted by the church, despite all the wishful thinking that goes on within liberal Mormon circles. The message is clearer than ever: If you want to be in the church, you need to work on resisting and overcoming your same-sex weakness, not seek justification through so-called marriage. And this message is especially important for our children, who will grow up in a world where the gay lifestyle is promoted and celebrated far more than it is today. God help any of our kids who feel same-sex attraction, because it's going to be damn hard to survive spiritually in tomorrow's radically pro-gay moral climate.
Obviously Mormons will continue to reaffirm the sanctity of godlike marriage within our own group, but I don't see the point in raising much more stink about it in general society, which is pretty much equivalent to the great and spacious building nowadays anyway. It's not worth all the bad publicity and ill will to fight something that's going to happen anyway. We've gone on record with Prop 8, we're now widely known to oppose gay marriage, and I think we should just wash our hands of it and sit back and watch with dismay as society does what it will. To do otherwise seems as unwise to me as pasting targets on our foreheads and butts.
Even if we go mostly underground about this issue, though, I still think society will eventually become so culturally fascist about gay marriage—so politically correct in a twisted, diabolical way—that society will eventually dig us out of our burrows, and of course we'll have to hold our ground at that point, come what may. But clamming up until then will hopefully buy us more time.
The only exception I can think of is that the church should probably help block gay marriage at the Utah level, because we can't just roll over and play dead right here in our own backyard. However, even if Utah votes against gay marriage, it will still eventually gain federal acceptance, and then Utah won't really have a choice, at least while the union still stands.
At some point down the road closer to the Second Coming, when our society is really falling apart due to the majority's departure from God, I'm sure we Mormons will be able to say, "Told you so." Your thoughts?
Monday, April 06, 2009
Why I'm Against Gay Marriage
Okay, I got myself involved in another blog smackdown on the gay marriage issue. I think I did a better job representing my position this time; below are all my comments, and you can click here if you want to go to the original post on Mormon Feminist Housewives and read them all in context. While I'm not following that blog anymore (for reasons you'll see below), I welcome being reasoned with on this blog, if you have any counter-arguments (however, I've been around the block on this issue enough that I've probably already heard them all).
Some interesting logic, but your post shows that you don’t really understand (or accept) Mormon theology. Same-sex marriage is simply absolutely impossible in Mormon theology. Marriage with accompanying sexual relations is a holy, godlike state. As far as we understand, God doesn’t have sex with other male Gods, and neither does Heavenly Mother have it with other female Gods.
To convince someone who really understands and believes in Mormon theology that God would ever say it’s OK for same-gender couples to marry and have sex with each other, you would have to convince us that our heavenly parents could do that too with other same-gender deities. Good luck with that.
++++
#5: With interfaith marriages, the status of the non-Mormon partner can change in this life or the next, with regards to accepting the Mormon gospel. However, gender is eternal, so there’s no way to transform same-gender couples into godlike couples. Sorry!
#6: Absolutely not satirical. Just voicing the Mormon side, putting out the challenge for someone to harmonize same-gender marriage with Mormon theology. I think it’s impossible, but I’m all ears.
++++
#13: OK, I’ll tell you my logic. (I know sources exist outside of the four standard works in which GAs have spoken of similar things, but I don’t have them handy. Some of it was McConkie, which may not hold much credibility anymore anyway.)
We’re taught that God has a corporeal body with “parts and passions.” We’re also taught that we’re created in God’s image and that gender is eternal. So, basically, our heavenly parents must have actual genitals. Personally, I cannot conceive of a God who has a humanoid body and who possesses male gender who is just blank and smooth between his legs, like a Ken doll. (And similar reasoning applies for our female deity.)
And if God has a reproductive organ, I can’t imagine he doesn’t use it in some celestial way, and same with his spouse(s). I don’t pretend for a moment to understand exactly how celestial procreation works, but my Mormon logic tells me that it is a glorified, ultra-turbocharged version of our mortal version here on earth. (By the way, I personally tend to agree with one GA who gave his opinion that those resurrected to a lesser degree will not receive their genitals in the resurrection–indeed, perhaps they WILL be like Ken and Barbie dolls in the crotch area.)
This is deep stuff, and today’s GAs won’t touch it with a ten-foot pole, but it’s essential to the conversation about same-gender “marriage” and why it will never be compatible with Mormon theology, in my opinion.
++++
#11 said: “Why in a pluralistic,civil society does Mormon theology take precedence over equality for all?”
If I understand Mormonism correctly, we believe that God inspired America’s founding on Judeo-Christian principles chiefly as a seedbed for the restoration of the gospel. If this society devolves from this original purpose and nature, then it is cause for great alarm and strong action. Legitimizing sodomy in any form is against basic Judeo-Christian principles, not just against Mormon ones. Now, the libertarian in me personally agrees that we shouldn’t be prosecuting people for committing sodomy or anything, but to change the definition of marriage to fully accommodate sodomy is just WAY over the top.
From a Mormon standpoint, I agree with us taking any steps possible to help slow our host society’s devolution into post-Judeo-Christian secularism, because otherwise we know that the same thing will happen to our civilization that happened to the Book of Mormon civilizations. In fact, we know it WILL eventually happen in the time leading up to the Second Coming, but it’s worth fighting to delay the inevitable by a few decades. Also, standing up for what’s right helps sort out the god-fearing from the post-god people, a process that will only keep accelerating as we progress ever deeper into these latter-latter days.
This whole gay-marriage issue is both a sign of our civilization’s degree of pulling away from God and an unprecedented opportunity for people to choose which side they’re on. I’m sure thousands of people are weeding themselves right out of Mormonism because they’ve been deceived by the modern-day gay movement. In my belief and that of most Mormons like me, same-gender attraction is a mortal failing to be resisted or dealt with like any other addictive tendency that may be beyond some individuals’ control, with compassion that stops well short of actually condoning sinful behavior or, even worse, presuming to change eternal principles to legitimize the sin.
++++
#44: That’s all fine and good, and obviously you know history better than I do and how to discuss it. My statement wasn’t a sweeping statement precluding any other influences on this country’s founding as well, and I also wasn’t using the term “Judeo-Christian principles” to mean the whole package transported over from Europe or something. I was more meaning biblical morality and the bits and pieces of the Judeo-Christian tradition or mindset that God saw fit to salvage from among the errors of history and put into the hearts and minds of America’s founders, many of whom asked for such inspiration, after all.
++++
Eh, you guys don’t scare me. I’ll continue to browse FHM any time I want and comment any time I want, unless you ban me.
I guess lots of people see blogs like this as havens from things in Mormonism they don’t like, rather than as places to really fully consider all viewpoints, including conservative Mormon ones like mine is on these issues.
I’m sure there are at least a handful of readers out there who relate with and appreciate most of what I’m saying, even if they don’t speak up because they don’t have much stomach for the demeaning flak that ensues. Get used to it, folks, because it’s only going to get worse, and it’s eventually going to reach YOU too, one way or another, as society puts more and more pressure on us to deny our beliefs. It’s too bad when it comes from ostensibly within the faith…
++++
Like I said before, Quimb-o, I’m open to people using logic and evidence to help me examine my beliefs, which I admit have been hard-fought and hard-won and are not something I’ll put aside easily, and which I tend to communicate as certainties because that’s how I experience them at this point in my life.
That’s why I occasionally get involved in discussions on this issue, to allow for the chance that someone might be able to explain some bit of theology or spiritual reasoning that might make it possible to give up my views against gay marriage and go along with the secular/liberal crowd. But so far no one has been able to do that; instead, I get lots of logical fallacies and emotional stuff. (And I’m not claiming that I don’t return in kind, sometimes.)
Also, I’m very interested in learning more about how others think, and it’s breathtaking to me to see the audacity of people within Mormonism on this issue. Really, it’s VERY entertaining to me and thought-provoking too, mostly in a cautionary way.
Bottom line: I think it’s a discussion worth having and am glad it’s online rather than in person. Quimby, I don’t really care if you’re on my side either, but I have an almost voyeuristic interest in how people with views like yours justify yourself and–again–just a TINY bit of curiosity to see if anyone can win me over to the other side.
++++
OK, I’m back from having Indian food with the editors of Sunstone and Dialogue, both in town for a conference today, and I wanted to weigh in on a few more things before I watch some Big Love on DVD:
#33: I agree that the idea of no genitals in the lower kingdoms is wonderfully hilarious, while also being something that I can believe. I admit I got the concept out of one of the Tanners’ anti-Mormon books, but they’re usually quite scrupulous about their quotes, if quick to go for the weirdest stuff in places like the Journal of Discourses. I just went down in the basement and tried to find it, but couldn’t. I like testing out my Mormon mind against people like the Tanners from time to time, and I’ve learned a lot about my own religion from them. I also get a real kick out of The Godmakers.
Mfranti, I have somewhat more to say unto thee. I think you were too quick to take my crack about Mormon Kool-Aid too personally. I don’t have a clue about your background or anything, so I was responding solely to the person who made the outraged comment in #41. Judging solely by that comment, the person writing the comment has not encountered or absorbed much deep Mormon thought yet, at least in some areas. I can’t reconstruct for you exactly how my Mormon worldview came about, but it goes far beyond the scriptures and includes countless other Mormon books and articles, as well as countless seminary and institute classes, firesides, and employee meetings and retreats while I was an editor at the Ensign magazine for over six years, at which high-ranking church officials, apostles, and other GAs would share frank, intimate insights into the Church, the latter days, America, the gay movement, etc. So you see, I’ve drunk very deeply of Mormon Kool-Aid, and anyone else who has drunk as deeply would recognize what I say as very much reflective of fairly widespread currents of Mormon thought, not freak out and attempt to apologize for them like the writer of comment #41 did, whoever she may be.
Oh, and as far as the “gay movement,” here’s a starting place for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_rights_movement
Personally, I feel no doubt that Satan has largely inspired the gay movement to legitimize sodomy-based relationships as a valid lifestyle. And this must make it incredibly hard for today’s people who are same-sex attracted, to have this large, well-organized campaign luring them all the time by making gayness look normal and acceptable. A hundred years ago, people who felt same-sex attraction might in rare cases act on it furtively but would never have tried to publicly embrace it and defend it as a legitimate long-term lifestyle. But now someone who feels SSA and doesn’t act upon it is made to feel like a repressed coward, so no wonder we have people feeling such pressure to “come out.” With such a vibrant, alluring gay lifestyle beckoning, many people with mixed gender attraction are giving in to same-gender attractions who never would have done so if society had not become so permissive, a process aided and abetted by the devil, who I believe is a real being with a real agenda and real ways of confusing and tempting us.
#56: Huh? I’m actually against sodomy laws. I think consenting adults should be free to practice whatever vices they want and face the consequences, as long as they don’t directly infringe on the rights of others. Even the church hasn’t said anything about enforcing sodomy laws, and it even stated that it doesn’t necessarily oppose basic legal rights for gay couples. Committing blasphemy against God by changing the definition of holy matrimony to include sodomy is a whole other ballgame, though.
#64: That’s a really interesting viewpoint with some good logic. However, Joseph Smith and other early leaders made it quite clear, and it makes total logical sense to me, that God is part of an eternal lineage of Gods who all follow and obey and uphold the same eternal principles, which are very clear when it comes to marriage and procreation and parentage. The universe is one big endless Zion beehive of Gods who are all on the same program, not a chaotic sci-fi scenario like you speculate with “creative families.” At least, from my Mormon perspective.
#68: In logic class, we call this an ad hominim attack. If I do have any narcissistic tendencies, I have lots of other easier topics and more welcoming venues to feed that need. I admit I do feel a sense of responsibility to speak out on this issue as a conservative Mormon when I feel so inclined, because so few other people who think like me do so in venues that I find interesting, such as this one. It’s boring to talk about this with people who already think just like I do.
#71: Thank you. This is just the kind of Mormon Kool-Aid that I’m talking about, which people like the writer of comment #41 don’t seem to have internalized much yet.
#73: Oh, I just like conversations like this online because I have time to formulate my responses and can space it out over a longer time period rather than getting caught in some intense face-to-face encounter. In face-to-face debate, I’m the kind of person who tends to do more listening than talking, with lots of head nodding because I can always see what the other person is saying, but online I can focus on what I think and formulate my responses. I’m sure this is true for other people who are text-driven rather than verbal-driven.
#82 said “There are so many Christian and Jewish sects that are totally fine with gay marriage (either secular or religious) so why should this church, or a group of conservative churches, have the say?” That doesn’t mean anything to me, because none of those churches has the full truth or is authorized by God or led by his priesthood. I’m sure we’ll see the day when the Mormon church is the only one left standing in the right place, all other churches having caved in to secular societal pressure and persecution. (This is another concept I learned at the foot of a mentor while employed at the church.)
#83: Yes, I’m sure he’ll be patient for you to hopefully eventually come around and fully understand Mormon theological reality and accept the stand of the prophets. And if you don’t, he won’t be able to fully trust you and reward you, but he’ll still love you and give you as much reward as he can justify and as you can handle. And if you have some real mental or spiritual block that makes you not fully accountable in this area, then I know he’ll take that into account too, but it won’t make him change the doctrine.
#85: Whoa, the church isn’t trying to force anything on anybody, just trying to rally the majority to block the wrong-headed efforts of the minority to change basic laws and principles upon which the nation was founded. Everyone already agrees that greed, materialism, and poverty are not good, so the church doesn’t need to state the obvious; the reason the homosexual issue is such a telling one is that it’s a recent development in which you now have people saying that the sinful vice of sodomy is actually a good, acceptable thing. That kind of twisting of God’s laws shows an amazing lack of sensitivity to his spirit and respect for his laws, and the more this kind of secular, proudly humanistic thinking catches on in our civilization, the faster God will naturally withdraw his blessing from among us, eventually leaving us to the fate of the Jaredites and the Nephites.
I think one of the most effective ways that Satan is confusing people is to conflate the gay issue with the racial issue and, yes, perhaps even the feminist issue. Race and gender are unchangeable, unavoidable characteristics, while sexual preference is something that one can choose to act upon or not. And I want to say that I’m personally much more alarmed by a supposedly Mormon heterosexual who is so confused by the world that he or she thinks gay marriage is a good idea than I am by a gay person who is having sinful sex but acknowledges that it’s not the ideal and that he is breaking God’s laws but just hasn’t yet figured out a way to resist the temptation. And yes, I do have some gay friends who have left the church.
++++
#142: Hmm, good point. I’m sure I’ve heard someone else argue this better and haven’t restated it as well. I don’t think homosexuality is a characteristic; I think it’s a temptation that can be so strong in some cases that it may FEEL like a characteristic, especially when gay propaganda abets such a feeling. But this gets into areas of whether there’s a biological component to it, which is unproven in either direction. Bottom line: It’s certainly not a clear-cut case like race or gender. Personally, I believe it’s analogous to alcoholism; some people are more prone to it than others and some seem almost born to be taken into its clutches against their will, but it’s something that ideally should be resisted and that should not be enthroned or celebrated by society as something good for us.
#143: Huh, not sure what to say. Are you saying it was wrong for me to comment on your comment from a certain not uncommon Mormon perspective? If so, I think you’re overreacting a bit. I agree with you that God won’t condemn you for doing your best and will give you all the opportunity you need to work it out, and maybe someday someone will finally pull the rug out from under me on this issue and I’ll be in the same boat as you, at odds with the church but feeling that God fully accepts my differing opinion.
I remembered a scripture that encapsulates why I think the LDS Church did the right thing on Prop 8 and should keep trying to rally the people of America along these lines:
26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.
27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land. (Mosiah 29)
I think when this will really get interesting is when gay marriage makes it to the federal level within a few more years or decades.
++++
#174: Bah, no regrets on this end. The reason I brought up my Mormon background is because Mfranti commented as if I were some kind of oddball embarrassment for which she felt the need to apologize, when in reality I’m well seasoned to communicate ideas that come from deep within the church (not without my own idiosyncrasies added in, I admit; and I certainly wouldn’t claim to be free of ego, either; it’s hard to be any kind of effective writer/communicator without some healthy self-confidence).
The main reason I like to let loose in this discussion from time to time in somewhat hostile venues like this is because I suspect that for every person who is vocal about their pro-gay-marriage stand and about their disdain for the Church’s involvement in the issue, there are one or more silent readers of comments who are still trying to figure out where they stand on the issue, and I hate to sit by and not try to communicate the orthodox Mormon side, for those still weighing the evidence.
Personal disparagement like what you just said about me, calling me a judgmental ass, just comes with the territory, that tired old ad-hominem cop out often resorted to when other rhetorical devices aren’t strong enough to effectively counter the orthodox position. I don’t expect that my position will convince anyone who’s actively debating the anti-Church side; it’s the undecided onlookers I’m hoping to influence. Don’t be persuaded by so-called Mormons who go counter to the prophet, even if they claim to have received their own revelation from God!
++++
#167: Ah, the old “the same thing is going to happen with the gay issue as happened with the black issue” argument. “Boy, won’t you prophet-following sheep all feel dumb when the church eventually sees the light and accepts gay marriage.”
Here’s why I think it’s different this time, and I’m open to correction if I get any history or interpretation wrong: With the black race issue, it seems like individual GAs gave their opinions for reasons why the church didn’t give the priesthood to blacks, but I don’t think the church ever had an official unified position that rose to the level of today’s practically scriptural proclamation on the family.
And the Church, to my knowledge, never openly resisted the civil rights movement in any organized way, although I understand that some individual GAs expressed concern about some of the militant aspects of the civil rights movement.
However, the Church leadership is obviously quite intensely unified about resisting the gay rights movement, at least at the marriage level. We have the proclamation, and we have organized campaigns and efforts against gay-rights efforts. That signals a whole different ball game. The church ain’t going to back off from this one; there’s too much solid doctrine and theology behind it, not the sketchy mark-of-Cain stuff used by individuals here and there to justify the racial ban.
With the racial issue, our society moved in a positive, godly direction and the church eventually came around. I agree it’s disappointing that the church didn’t lead out in this area and took so long to change its racist policy. With the gay issue, though, society is moving in the direction of ungodly, permissive, radical change that the church cannot abide or capitulate to. Some people may indeed be
individually unaccountable for their homosexual orientation, and we’ve got to find better ways to help them deal with this challenge, but legitimizing the sin of sodomy with marriage status ain’t the way.
++++
Quimby, I don’t understand you. While “ass” is a pejorative remark based on subjective standards, if someone is pro gay marriage when the prophet is anti gay marriage, isn’t it just a cold, hard fact that the person is “counter to the prophet” on that issue?
++++
#194 wrote: “The American Public sector forced a re-evaluation of LDS doctrine on several occasions, and perhaps that is exactly what Heavenly Father intended by locating the church in American borders.”
Yes, agreed. In my opinion, however, it works the other way around too, and the LDS Church is now called upon by God to try to help persuade the American public from going down the wrong moral path by putting sodomite relationships on an equal footing with procreative hetero relationships.
++++
#196: I’d like to see if I can respond to some of this well-written comment.
I’m sure someone can cite some obscure society somewhere that performed something like gay marriages, but unless someone can convince me otherwise, I would say that our civilization is the first major civilization that actually has the nerve to say the same-sex marriage is a good idea and deserves equal status with traditional hetero marriage. I know that same-sex attraction has always been with us, and I know that people like the Greeks indulged it to an alarming degree, but most of those men were still heterosexually married and, as far as I know, no one tried to say that a same-sex relationship was a suitable alternative. I mean, they wanted to have progeny, after all. Today, of course, we’re a lot less excited about having progeny, and procreative science has muddied the waters further.
Here’s the thing with me: I don’t judge individual gays. I fully believe there are some gay people who really don’t have any choice about their attraction (at the same time, I believe some “gay” people have chosen to magnify their same-sex attractions and minimize their hetero ones). I think it’s even possible that some gay people who have chosen to live a life of fidelity with a same-sex romantic partner may actually be forgiven fairly readily at some point for the sinful sodomy aspect of it; only God knows each person’s degree of accountability and whether they made the best of their circumstances, and the Atonement can fix everything that’s out of whack, for those who let it. (I absolutely do not believe, however, that these couples could ever be sealed as eternal sexual partners, although perhaps their relationship could continue on some basis through the eternities. I’ve heard arguments that same-sex partners could be sealed, but it comes across to me as pure science fiction.)
My problem is with giving gay marriage equal footing with hetero marriage. I’ve already talked about the theological reasons why I object to that. I’ve also talked about why I’m alarmed by the idea of the majority of people preferring this to what we’ve been taught by prophets of God. Another thing I’m concerned about is the confusion it causes for young people. Many young people experiment sexually before settling on their sexual identity. If the gay option becomes so widely accepted and legitimized, many more young people will lock into that lifestyle than otherwise would have. Yes, there will always be some who are just 100% gay through and through regardless of societal influences. But there are many—perhaps the majority—who could resist gay impulses and capitalize on their hetero impulses, but society’s acceptance of the gay side makes it much harder to do so. Bottom line, I don’t want my kids growing up in a world that offers such confusion about marriage.
Here’s another reason I’m against gay marriage from a Mormon standpoint: In our temples, we perform sealings for all married couples. At some point if it hasn’t happened already, some of these gay marriages are going to creep into our family history databases and get sealed, if the fact that they’re same-sex can’t be spotted. For those who believe in Mormon theology, this is a huge inadvertent desecration of the ordinance.
++++
Go ahead and ban me on principle then, Quimby. If I can’t state how I feel from a Mormon perspective when talking about things with other Mormons who are on dangerous ground by preaching against the prophet, then I’d like to request my name to be removed from your records.
I’ve been spending too much time on this anyway. It will be the second blog I’ve been banned from, including Mormon Matters.
Some interesting logic, but your post shows that you don’t really understand (or accept) Mormon theology. Same-sex marriage is simply absolutely impossible in Mormon theology. Marriage with accompanying sexual relations is a holy, godlike state. As far as we understand, God doesn’t have sex with other male Gods, and neither does Heavenly Mother have it with other female Gods.
To convince someone who really understands and believes in Mormon theology that God would ever say it’s OK for same-gender couples to marry and have sex with each other, you would have to convince us that our heavenly parents could do that too with other same-gender deities. Good luck with that.
++++
#5: With interfaith marriages, the status of the non-Mormon partner can change in this life or the next, with regards to accepting the Mormon gospel. However, gender is eternal, so there’s no way to transform same-gender couples into godlike couples. Sorry!
#6: Absolutely not satirical. Just voicing the Mormon side, putting out the challenge for someone to harmonize same-gender marriage with Mormon theology. I think it’s impossible, but I’m all ears.
++++
#13: OK, I’ll tell you my logic. (I know sources exist outside of the four standard works in which GAs have spoken of similar things, but I don’t have them handy. Some of it was McConkie, which may not hold much credibility anymore anyway.)
We’re taught that God has a corporeal body with “parts and passions.” We’re also taught that we’re created in God’s image and that gender is eternal. So, basically, our heavenly parents must have actual genitals. Personally, I cannot conceive of a God who has a humanoid body and who possesses male gender who is just blank and smooth between his legs, like a Ken doll. (And similar reasoning applies for our female deity.)
And if God has a reproductive organ, I can’t imagine he doesn’t use it in some celestial way, and same with his spouse(s). I don’t pretend for a moment to understand exactly how celestial procreation works, but my Mormon logic tells me that it is a glorified, ultra-turbocharged version of our mortal version here on earth. (By the way, I personally tend to agree with one GA who gave his opinion that those resurrected to a lesser degree will not receive their genitals in the resurrection–indeed, perhaps they WILL be like Ken and Barbie dolls in the crotch area.)
This is deep stuff, and today’s GAs won’t touch it with a ten-foot pole, but it’s essential to the conversation about same-gender “marriage” and why it will never be compatible with Mormon theology, in my opinion.
++++
#11 said: “Why in a pluralistic,civil society does Mormon theology take precedence over equality for all?”
If I understand Mormonism correctly, we believe that God inspired America’s founding on Judeo-Christian principles chiefly as a seedbed for the restoration of the gospel. If this society devolves from this original purpose and nature, then it is cause for great alarm and strong action. Legitimizing sodomy in any form is against basic Judeo-Christian principles, not just against Mormon ones. Now, the libertarian in me personally agrees that we shouldn’t be prosecuting people for committing sodomy or anything, but to change the definition of marriage to fully accommodate sodomy is just WAY over the top.
From a Mormon standpoint, I agree with us taking any steps possible to help slow our host society’s devolution into post-Judeo-Christian secularism, because otherwise we know that the same thing will happen to our civilization that happened to the Book of Mormon civilizations. In fact, we know it WILL eventually happen in the time leading up to the Second Coming, but it’s worth fighting to delay the inevitable by a few decades. Also, standing up for what’s right helps sort out the god-fearing from the post-god people, a process that will only keep accelerating as we progress ever deeper into these latter-latter days.
This whole gay-marriage issue is both a sign of our civilization’s degree of pulling away from God and an unprecedented opportunity for people to choose which side they’re on. I’m sure thousands of people are weeding themselves right out of Mormonism because they’ve been deceived by the modern-day gay movement. In my belief and that of most Mormons like me, same-gender attraction is a mortal failing to be resisted or dealt with like any other addictive tendency that may be beyond some individuals’ control, with compassion that stops well short of actually condoning sinful behavior or, even worse, presuming to change eternal principles to legitimize the sin.
++++
#44: That’s all fine and good, and obviously you know history better than I do and how to discuss it. My statement wasn’t a sweeping statement precluding any other influences on this country’s founding as well, and I also wasn’t using the term “Judeo-Christian principles” to mean the whole package transported over from Europe or something. I was more meaning biblical morality and the bits and pieces of the Judeo-Christian tradition or mindset that God saw fit to salvage from among the errors of history and put into the hearts and minds of America’s founders, many of whom asked for such inspiration, after all.
++++
Eh, you guys don’t scare me. I’ll continue to browse FHM any time I want and comment any time I want, unless you ban me.
I guess lots of people see blogs like this as havens from things in Mormonism they don’t like, rather than as places to really fully consider all viewpoints, including conservative Mormon ones like mine is on these issues.
I’m sure there are at least a handful of readers out there who relate with and appreciate most of what I’m saying, even if they don’t speak up because they don’t have much stomach for the demeaning flak that ensues. Get used to it, folks, because it’s only going to get worse, and it’s eventually going to reach YOU too, one way or another, as society puts more and more pressure on us to deny our beliefs. It’s too bad when it comes from ostensibly within the faith…
++++
Like I said before, Quimb-o, I’m open to people using logic and evidence to help me examine my beliefs, which I admit have been hard-fought and hard-won and are not something I’ll put aside easily, and which I tend to communicate as certainties because that’s how I experience them at this point in my life.
That’s why I occasionally get involved in discussions on this issue, to allow for the chance that someone might be able to explain some bit of theology or spiritual reasoning that might make it possible to give up my views against gay marriage and go along with the secular/liberal crowd. But so far no one has been able to do that; instead, I get lots of logical fallacies and emotional stuff. (And I’m not claiming that I don’t return in kind, sometimes.)
Also, I’m very interested in learning more about how others think, and it’s breathtaking to me to see the audacity of people within Mormonism on this issue. Really, it’s VERY entertaining to me and thought-provoking too, mostly in a cautionary way.
Bottom line: I think it’s a discussion worth having and am glad it’s online rather than in person. Quimby, I don’t really care if you’re on my side either, but I have an almost voyeuristic interest in how people with views like yours justify yourself and–again–just a TINY bit of curiosity to see if anyone can win me over to the other side.
++++
OK, I’m back from having Indian food with the editors of Sunstone and Dialogue, both in town for a conference today, and I wanted to weigh in on a few more things before I watch some Big Love on DVD:
#33: I agree that the idea of no genitals in the lower kingdoms is wonderfully hilarious, while also being something that I can believe. I admit I got the concept out of one of the Tanners’ anti-Mormon books, but they’re usually quite scrupulous about their quotes, if quick to go for the weirdest stuff in places like the Journal of Discourses. I just went down in the basement and tried to find it, but couldn’t. I like testing out my Mormon mind against people like the Tanners from time to time, and I’ve learned a lot about my own religion from them. I also get a real kick out of The Godmakers.
Mfranti, I have somewhat more to say unto thee. I think you were too quick to take my crack about Mormon Kool-Aid too personally. I don’t have a clue about your background or anything, so I was responding solely to the person who made the outraged comment in #41. Judging solely by that comment, the person writing the comment has not encountered or absorbed much deep Mormon thought yet, at least in some areas. I can’t reconstruct for you exactly how my Mormon worldview came about, but it goes far beyond the scriptures and includes countless other Mormon books and articles, as well as countless seminary and institute classes, firesides, and employee meetings and retreats while I was an editor at the Ensign magazine for over six years, at which high-ranking church officials, apostles, and other GAs would share frank, intimate insights into the Church, the latter days, America, the gay movement, etc. So you see, I’ve drunk very deeply of Mormon Kool-Aid, and anyone else who has drunk as deeply would recognize what I say as very much reflective of fairly widespread currents of Mormon thought, not freak out and attempt to apologize for them like the writer of comment #41 did, whoever she may be.
Oh, and as far as the “gay movement,” here’s a starting place for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_rights_movement
Personally, I feel no doubt that Satan has largely inspired the gay movement to legitimize sodomy-based relationships as a valid lifestyle. And this must make it incredibly hard for today’s people who are same-sex attracted, to have this large, well-organized campaign luring them all the time by making gayness look normal and acceptable. A hundred years ago, people who felt same-sex attraction might in rare cases act on it furtively but would never have tried to publicly embrace it and defend it as a legitimate long-term lifestyle. But now someone who feels SSA and doesn’t act upon it is made to feel like a repressed coward, so no wonder we have people feeling such pressure to “come out.” With such a vibrant, alluring gay lifestyle beckoning, many people with mixed gender attraction are giving in to same-gender attractions who never would have done so if society had not become so permissive, a process aided and abetted by the devil, who I believe is a real being with a real agenda and real ways of confusing and tempting us.
#56: Huh? I’m actually against sodomy laws. I think consenting adults should be free to practice whatever vices they want and face the consequences, as long as they don’t directly infringe on the rights of others. Even the church hasn’t said anything about enforcing sodomy laws, and it even stated that it doesn’t necessarily oppose basic legal rights for gay couples. Committing blasphemy against God by changing the definition of holy matrimony to include sodomy is a whole other ballgame, though.
#64: That’s a really interesting viewpoint with some good logic. However, Joseph Smith and other early leaders made it quite clear, and it makes total logical sense to me, that God is part of an eternal lineage of Gods who all follow and obey and uphold the same eternal principles, which are very clear when it comes to marriage and procreation and parentage. The universe is one big endless Zion beehive of Gods who are all on the same program, not a chaotic sci-fi scenario like you speculate with “creative families.” At least, from my Mormon perspective.
#68: In logic class, we call this an ad hominim attack. If I do have any narcissistic tendencies, I have lots of other easier topics and more welcoming venues to feed that need. I admit I do feel a sense of responsibility to speak out on this issue as a conservative Mormon when I feel so inclined, because so few other people who think like me do so in venues that I find interesting, such as this one. It’s boring to talk about this with people who already think just like I do.
#71: Thank you. This is just the kind of Mormon Kool-Aid that I’m talking about, which people like the writer of comment #41 don’t seem to have internalized much yet.
#73: Oh, I just like conversations like this online because I have time to formulate my responses and can space it out over a longer time period rather than getting caught in some intense face-to-face encounter. In face-to-face debate, I’m the kind of person who tends to do more listening than talking, with lots of head nodding because I can always see what the other person is saying, but online I can focus on what I think and formulate my responses. I’m sure this is true for other people who are text-driven rather than verbal-driven.
#82 said “There are so many Christian and Jewish sects that are totally fine with gay marriage (either secular or religious) so why should this church, or a group of conservative churches, have the say?” That doesn’t mean anything to me, because none of those churches has the full truth or is authorized by God or led by his priesthood. I’m sure we’ll see the day when the Mormon church is the only one left standing in the right place, all other churches having caved in to secular societal pressure and persecution. (This is another concept I learned at the foot of a mentor while employed at the church.)
#83: Yes, I’m sure he’ll be patient for you to hopefully eventually come around and fully understand Mormon theological reality and accept the stand of the prophets. And if you don’t, he won’t be able to fully trust you and reward you, but he’ll still love you and give you as much reward as he can justify and as you can handle. And if you have some real mental or spiritual block that makes you not fully accountable in this area, then I know he’ll take that into account too, but it won’t make him change the doctrine.
#85: Whoa, the church isn’t trying to force anything on anybody, just trying to rally the majority to block the wrong-headed efforts of the minority to change basic laws and principles upon which the nation was founded. Everyone already agrees that greed, materialism, and poverty are not good, so the church doesn’t need to state the obvious; the reason the homosexual issue is such a telling one is that it’s a recent development in which you now have people saying that the sinful vice of sodomy is actually a good, acceptable thing. That kind of twisting of God’s laws shows an amazing lack of sensitivity to his spirit and respect for his laws, and the more this kind of secular, proudly humanistic thinking catches on in our civilization, the faster God will naturally withdraw his blessing from among us, eventually leaving us to the fate of the Jaredites and the Nephites.
I think one of the most effective ways that Satan is confusing people is to conflate the gay issue with the racial issue and, yes, perhaps even the feminist issue. Race and gender are unchangeable, unavoidable characteristics, while sexual preference is something that one can choose to act upon or not. And I want to say that I’m personally much more alarmed by a supposedly Mormon heterosexual who is so confused by the world that he or she thinks gay marriage is a good idea than I am by a gay person who is having sinful sex but acknowledges that it’s not the ideal and that he is breaking God’s laws but just hasn’t yet figured out a way to resist the temptation. And yes, I do have some gay friends who have left the church.
++++
#142: Hmm, good point. I’m sure I’ve heard someone else argue this better and haven’t restated it as well. I don’t think homosexuality is a characteristic; I think it’s a temptation that can be so strong in some cases that it may FEEL like a characteristic, especially when gay propaganda abets such a feeling. But this gets into areas of whether there’s a biological component to it, which is unproven in either direction. Bottom line: It’s certainly not a clear-cut case like race or gender. Personally, I believe it’s analogous to alcoholism; some people are more prone to it than others and some seem almost born to be taken into its clutches against their will, but it’s something that ideally should be resisted and that should not be enthroned or celebrated by society as something good for us.
#143: Huh, not sure what to say. Are you saying it was wrong for me to comment on your comment from a certain not uncommon Mormon perspective? If so, I think you’re overreacting a bit. I agree with you that God won’t condemn you for doing your best and will give you all the opportunity you need to work it out, and maybe someday someone will finally pull the rug out from under me on this issue and I’ll be in the same boat as you, at odds with the church but feeling that God fully accepts my differing opinion.
I remembered a scripture that encapsulates why I think the LDS Church did the right thing on Prop 8 and should keep trying to rally the people of America along these lines:
26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.
27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land. (Mosiah 29)
I think when this will really get interesting is when gay marriage makes it to the federal level within a few more years or decades.
++++
#174: Bah, no regrets on this end. The reason I brought up my Mormon background is because Mfranti commented as if I were some kind of oddball embarrassment for which she felt the need to apologize, when in reality I’m well seasoned to communicate ideas that come from deep within the church (not without my own idiosyncrasies added in, I admit; and I certainly wouldn’t claim to be free of ego, either; it’s hard to be any kind of effective writer/communicator without some healthy self-confidence).
The main reason I like to let loose in this discussion from time to time in somewhat hostile venues like this is because I suspect that for every person who is vocal about their pro-gay-marriage stand and about their disdain for the Church’s involvement in the issue, there are one or more silent readers of comments who are still trying to figure out where they stand on the issue, and I hate to sit by and not try to communicate the orthodox Mormon side, for those still weighing the evidence.
Personal disparagement like what you just said about me, calling me a judgmental ass, just comes with the territory, that tired old ad-hominem cop out often resorted to when other rhetorical devices aren’t strong enough to effectively counter the orthodox position. I don’t expect that my position will convince anyone who’s actively debating the anti-Church side; it’s the undecided onlookers I’m hoping to influence. Don’t be persuaded by so-called Mormons who go counter to the prophet, even if they claim to have received their own revelation from God!
++++
#167: Ah, the old “the same thing is going to happen with the gay issue as happened with the black issue” argument. “Boy, won’t you prophet-following sheep all feel dumb when the church eventually sees the light and accepts gay marriage.”
Here’s why I think it’s different this time, and I’m open to correction if I get any history or interpretation wrong: With the black race issue, it seems like individual GAs gave their opinions for reasons why the church didn’t give the priesthood to blacks, but I don’t think the church ever had an official unified position that rose to the level of today’s practically scriptural proclamation on the family.
And the Church, to my knowledge, never openly resisted the civil rights movement in any organized way, although I understand that some individual GAs expressed concern about some of the militant aspects of the civil rights movement.
However, the Church leadership is obviously quite intensely unified about resisting the gay rights movement, at least at the marriage level. We have the proclamation, and we have organized campaigns and efforts against gay-rights efforts. That signals a whole different ball game. The church ain’t going to back off from this one; there’s too much solid doctrine and theology behind it, not the sketchy mark-of-Cain stuff used by individuals here and there to justify the racial ban.
With the racial issue, our society moved in a positive, godly direction and the church eventually came around. I agree it’s disappointing that the church didn’t lead out in this area and took so long to change its racist policy. With the gay issue, though, society is moving in the direction of ungodly, permissive, radical change that the church cannot abide or capitulate to. Some people may indeed be
individually unaccountable for their homosexual orientation, and we’ve got to find better ways to help them deal with this challenge, but legitimizing the sin of sodomy with marriage status ain’t the way.
++++
Quimby, I don’t understand you. While “ass” is a pejorative remark based on subjective standards, if someone is pro gay marriage when the prophet is anti gay marriage, isn’t it just a cold, hard fact that the person is “counter to the prophet” on that issue?
++++
#194 wrote: “The American Public sector forced a re-evaluation of LDS doctrine on several occasions, and perhaps that is exactly what Heavenly Father intended by locating the church in American borders.”
Yes, agreed. In my opinion, however, it works the other way around too, and the LDS Church is now called upon by God to try to help persuade the American public from going down the wrong moral path by putting sodomite relationships on an equal footing with procreative hetero relationships.
++++
#196: I’d like to see if I can respond to some of this well-written comment.
And with all due respect, I find your position full of folk doctrine and speculation at best.I wouldn’t deny that there’s some of that in my beliefs, but are you calling the proclamation on the family folk doctrine?
The uniquely LDS scriptures say not one word about homosexuality. […] Having never canonized anything about this issue since the Restoration, and with the founding prophet Joseph Smith saying nothing about it either, this means all statements by the Church about homosexuality rest on a Biblical basis which is questionable at best.I don’t really have a direct refutation for this, especially for the biblical stuff, but here’s my thought: It may be that the reason homosexuality isn’t dealt with in LDS scripture is because it wasn’t even an issue, it wasn’t even on the radar, it wasn’t even within the realm of possibility that society could devolve to the point where same-sex marriage could actually become a serious proposal on the table. (After all, we’re often reminded that most all of Joseph Smith’s revelations came in response to the Church’s needs and requests.)
I’m sure someone can cite some obscure society somewhere that performed something like gay marriages, but unless someone can convince me otherwise, I would say that our civilization is the first major civilization that actually has the nerve to say the same-sex marriage is a good idea and deserves equal status with traditional hetero marriage. I know that same-sex attraction has always been with us, and I know that people like the Greeks indulged it to an alarming degree, but most of those men were still heterosexually married and, as far as I know, no one tried to say that a same-sex relationship was a suitable alternative. I mean, they wanted to have progeny, after all. Today, of course, we’re a lot less excited about having progeny, and procreative science has muddied the waters further.
Here’s the thing with me: I don’t judge individual gays. I fully believe there are some gay people who really don’t have any choice about their attraction (at the same time, I believe some “gay” people have chosen to magnify their same-sex attractions and minimize their hetero ones). I think it’s even possible that some gay people who have chosen to live a life of fidelity with a same-sex romantic partner may actually be forgiven fairly readily at some point for the sinful sodomy aspect of it; only God knows each person’s degree of accountability and whether they made the best of their circumstances, and the Atonement can fix everything that’s out of whack, for those who let it. (I absolutely do not believe, however, that these couples could ever be sealed as eternal sexual partners, although perhaps their relationship could continue on some basis through the eternities. I’ve heard arguments that same-sex partners could be sealed, but it comes across to me as pure science fiction.)
My problem is with giving gay marriage equal footing with hetero marriage. I’ve already talked about the theological reasons why I object to that. I’ve also talked about why I’m alarmed by the idea of the majority of people preferring this to what we’ve been taught by prophets of God. Another thing I’m concerned about is the confusion it causes for young people. Many young people experiment sexually before settling on their sexual identity. If the gay option becomes so widely accepted and legitimized, many more young people will lock into that lifestyle than otherwise would have. Yes, there will always be some who are just 100% gay through and through regardless of societal influences. But there are many—perhaps the majority—who could resist gay impulses and capitalize on their hetero impulses, but society’s acceptance of the gay side makes it much harder to do so. Bottom line, I don’t want my kids growing up in a world that offers such confusion about marriage.
Here’s another reason I’m against gay marriage from a Mormon standpoint: In our temples, we perform sealings for all married couples. At some point if it hasn’t happened already, some of these gay marriages are going to creep into our family history databases and get sealed, if the fact that they’re same-sex can’t be spotted. For those who believe in Mormon theology, this is a huge inadvertent desecration of the ordinance.
Nothing in your arguments, CB, necessarily excludes the possibility of same sex relationships in the eternities. The best you can defensibly say is that our knowledge is incomplete. If you truly believe the 9th Article of Faith then you must concede this.Yeah, you’re right, I can’t prove it. But I think the bigger burden is on those who are trying to introduce this new idea, not those who are trying to defend the status quo.
A generation ago it was proclaiming as a matter of doctrine and faith that homosexuality was a choice. Now it’s flipped on that. So when was/is the ChurchI don’t think the Church has so much flipped as they have refined and clarified their verbiage. They acknowledge that unwanted homosexual feelings are not a choice, but they continue to maintain that acting on those feelings is a choice.
wrong?
Now the Church is conceding that this “core characteristic” may not change for some in this life. In which case, what afterward? The Church has no answers.Incorrect. Through the Atonement and resurrection, all earthly flaws can be corrected, including same-sex attraction, even for gay people who can’t currently imagine what it will be like to have hetero desires.
The best you can say CB is that based on your limited knowledge at present, you and the Church believe XYZ, and you must acknowledge that it is all subject to change.Anything’s possible! But it’s also possible to hope for change for the wrong reasons, such as extreme compassion for gays and/or the desire to be politically correct in today’s society. Both of these motives have redeeming qualities, but not when they outweigh understanding and adhering to the bounds the Lord has set. Any Mormon who is not following the prophet’s lead on this issue is taking a real gamble; I acknowledge that the gamble paid off for those who rejected the Church’s racist policies prior to 1978, but I just don’t see it paying off this time, and I really worry about you Mormon folks who are pro-gay marriage. I worry more about you than I worry about an actively gay person who acknowledges that his lifestyle is in error.
++++
Go ahead and ban me on principle then, Quimby. If I can’t state how I feel from a Mormon perspective when talking about things with other Mormons who are on dangerous ground by preaching against the prophet, then I’d like to request my name to be removed from your records.
I’ve been spending too much time on this anyway. It will be the second blog I’ve been banned from, including Mormon Matters.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Things I've Done in My Lifetime
X = I've done it
O = I haven't
(X) Gone on a blind date - that's how I met my wife Ann
(X) Skipped school - a fair bit during my senior year, especially seminary
(O) Watched someone die - never seen someone actually pass away
(X) Been to Canada - Alberta when I was young; Montreal and Toronto (twice) as an adult
(X) Been to Mexico - just Tiajuana; I'd love to visit Mexico City and southward
(X) Been to Florida - just Orlando a couple of times for conventions
(X) Been to Hawaii - one time, Oahu
(O) Been on a helicopter - I'm not particularly interested
(X) Gone to Washington, DC - yeah, maybe 5-6 times; not my favorite
(X) Swam in the ocean - Pacific and Indian (Perth, Australia); I've been to Atlantic but may not have actually swum, due to cold
(X) Cried yourself to sleep - I'm sure I did as a kid
(O) Sang karaoke - I don't drink alcohol, so what's the point?
(X) Paid for a meal with coins only - I'm sure I did in high school or college
(O) Been to the top of the St. Louis Arch - just drove by it
(X) Done something you told yourself you wouldn't - duh
(X) Made prank phone calls - yeah, did a lot of those at one point in junior high
(X) Been down Bourbon Street in New Orleans - with my wife
(X) Laughed until some kind of beverage came out of your nose & elsewhere
(X) Caught a snowflake on your tongue
(O) Been deep-sea fishing - I may very well like to try it, with a good guide
(X) Driven across the United States
(O) Been in a hot air balloon - would like to try sometime
(O) Been sky diving - absolutely no interest
(X) Gone snowmobiling - once as a boy scout; would like to go again
(X) Lived in more than one country - Australia for my mission; would LOVE to again somewhere
(X) Enjoyed the beauty of Old Faithful Geyser - yep, and going again this summer
(X) Seen the Statue of Liberty - I've even climbed up into her head (took longer than it was worth)
(X) Gone to the top of Seattle Space Needle - I'd like to spend more time in Seattle
(O) Been on a cruise - part of me wants to try, but part worries it would be boring at times
(X) Traveled by train - the farthest is probably Boston to New York City
(O) Traveled by motorcycle - no, just a little local riding
(X) Been horseback riding - just hour-long trail rides at resorts
(X) Ridden on a San Francisco cable car
(X) Truly believe in the power of prayer - I was miraculously healed of cancer
(O) Been in a rain forest - not sure exactly what the definition of one is
(X) Seen whales in the ocean
(X) Been to Niagara Falls
(O) Ridden on an elephant - I would love to visit India someday
(O) Swam with dolphins - sounds a little corny to me, but I'd probably try it
(X) Been to the Olympics - one hockey match here in Provo, seat so uncomfortable I waited outside in the lobby
(O) Walked on the Great Wall of China - plan to this June
(O) Saw and heard a glacier calf - not a big priority
(O) Been spinnaker flying - I don't even know what this is
(X) Been waterskiing - several times in high school, no interest now (I hate cold water and exertion requiring any skill)
(X) Been snowskiing - quite a bit in high school, don't mind going with kids every once in a while
(X) Been to Westminster Abbey - yes, last April I attended a fascinating evensong service there
(X) Been to the Louvre - yes, last April, cool building but I like the contents of British museums better
(O) Swam in the Mediterranean - maybe this September, if my work sends me on a trip there (50/50 chance)
(X) Been to a Major League Baseball game - several Dodger games as a kid in L.A.; no interest now
(O) Been to a National Football League game - I would be willing to try one
O = I haven't
(X) Gone on a blind date - that's how I met my wife Ann
(X) Skipped school - a fair bit during my senior year, especially seminary
(O) Watched someone die - never seen someone actually pass away
(X) Been to Canada - Alberta when I was young; Montreal and Toronto (twice) as an adult
(X) Been to Mexico - just Tiajuana; I'd love to visit Mexico City and southward
(X) Been to Florida - just Orlando a couple of times for conventions
(X) Been to Hawaii - one time, Oahu
(O) Been on a helicopter - I'm not particularly interested
(X) Gone to Washington, DC - yeah, maybe 5-6 times; not my favorite
(X) Swam in the ocean - Pacific and Indian (Perth, Australia); I've been to Atlantic but may not have actually swum, due to cold
(X) Cried yourself to sleep - I'm sure I did as a kid
(O) Sang karaoke - I don't drink alcohol, so what's the point?
(X) Paid for a meal with coins only - I'm sure I did in high school or college
(O) Been to the top of the St. Louis Arch - just drove by it
(X) Done something you told yourself you wouldn't - duh
(X) Made prank phone calls - yeah, did a lot of those at one point in junior high
(X) Been down Bourbon Street in New Orleans - with my wife
(X) Laughed until some kind of beverage came out of your nose & elsewhere
(X) Caught a snowflake on your tongue
(O) Been deep-sea fishing - I may very well like to try it, with a good guide
(X) Driven across the United States
(O) Been in a hot air balloon - would like to try sometime
(O) Been sky diving - absolutely no interest
(X) Gone snowmobiling - once as a boy scout; would like to go again
(X) Lived in more than one country - Australia for my mission; would LOVE to again somewhere
(X) Enjoyed the beauty of Old Faithful Geyser - yep, and going again this summer
(X) Seen the Statue of Liberty - I've even climbed up into her head (took longer than it was worth)
(X) Gone to the top of Seattle Space Needle - I'd like to spend more time in Seattle
(O) Been on a cruise - part of me wants to try, but part worries it would be boring at times
(X) Traveled by train - the farthest is probably Boston to New York City
(O) Traveled by motorcycle - no, just a little local riding
(X) Been horseback riding - just hour-long trail rides at resorts
(X) Ridden on a San Francisco cable car
(X) Truly believe in the power of prayer - I was miraculously healed of cancer
(O) Been in a rain forest - not sure exactly what the definition of one is
(X) Seen whales in the ocean
(X) Been to Niagara Falls
(O) Ridden on an elephant - I would love to visit India someday
(O) Swam with dolphins - sounds a little corny to me, but I'd probably try it
(X) Been to the Olympics - one hockey match here in Provo, seat so uncomfortable I waited outside in the lobby
(O) Walked on the Great Wall of China - plan to this June
(O) Saw and heard a glacier calf - not a big priority
(O) Been spinnaker flying - I don't even know what this is
(X) Been waterskiing - several times in high school, no interest now (I hate cold water and exertion requiring any skill)
(X) Been snowskiing - quite a bit in high school, don't mind going with kids every once in a while
(X) Been to Westminster Abbey - yes, last April I attended a fascinating evensong service there
(X) Been to the Louvre - yes, last April, cool building but I like the contents of British museums better
(O) Swam in the Mediterranean - maybe this September, if my work sends me on a trip there (50/50 chance)
(X) Been to a Major League Baseball game - several Dodger games as a kid in L.A.; no interest now
(O) Been to a National Football League game - I would be willing to try one
Saturday, March 28, 2009
So far in 2009 have I . . . ?
Sorry, it's been a while, and this questionnaire I pulled off Facebook is kind of lame...
1) kissed someone? Of course, my wife, every day.
2) been dumped? Nope, I'm still married and employed. I think a few people have unfriended me on Facebook, though. Can't imagine why...
3) been drunk? No. I sometimes wonder if I could actually handle moderate alcohol usage in my life right now or if the Mormon church is right that none of us should enjoy any of it, ever.
4) stayed out/up all night? Not on purpose, but I've lost a few nights to insomnia, due mainly to indigestion from eating too much too late. But I still slept at least a few hours.
5) ate so much you got sick? See number four above. The older I get, the less well my digestive system works, though I continue to eat mostly what I want.
6) cried? Oh, my eyes have welled up quite a few times, usually more feelings of excitement than sadness.
7) gone to a funeral? Not that I remember.
9) watched something/someone die? Yes, I witnessed my furnace dying. It was more hearing it than seeing it, though. Oh, and our dishwasher and computer printer. Fortunately I haven't witnessed any biological death, that I can remember.
10) left home without permission? I guess this list is geared toward younger people?
11) smoked? No. Sometimes I enjoy sneaking some second-hand smoke, but I'm never around that anymore, what with all the new laws and stuff.
12) got in a fight? Maybe some verbal sparring with my ex-wife.
13) made someone cry? Not that I know of, but I wouldn't be surprised if I did.
14) found out who your friends are? Just here on Facebook, if you judge by who invited me and who accepted my invitations. I was offended today because I got a Facebook e-mail saying that a woman I used to work with at the Ensign magazine had accepted my invitation this morning, but when I clicked on her profile she was no longer my friend, suggesting to me that she clicked on my profile and considered me unworthy to keep. I sent her a message that said, "Well, at least the Lord still loves me."
15) been told you were hot by a complete stranger? Yeah, people stop me on the street all the time and tell me that--not.
16) left the state? Not so far this year, but I have plans to do so later this year as many as four times, if they all work out, including possibly two international trips.
17) been kicked out? My boss may have kicked me out of a meeting if I started dozing or getting too smart alecky.
18) been arrested? No.
19) had your heart broken? No.
20) Told someone (outside the family) you love them? Not that I remember. If so, I was using the term casually.
21) fell asleep with the opposite sex in a bed? Every night with my wife. (Yeah, I do think this list is for high school and college ages.)
23) had someone tell you they hate you? Sometimes my kids say that when they're mad, especially our little drama king Austin.
24) been in a wreck or wrecked a car? No, thank goodness. I worry about it a little every day.
25) cried for no reason? No.
26) felt like dying? I certainly wouldn't go that far, but I'm the kind of person who occasionally thinks I wouldn't be all that disappointed if I DID happen to die. Usually I don't feel that way, though.
27) felt like killing someone else? Not for real, although I can think of some people who I certainly wouldn't be disappointed if they died.
28) wished you were someone/somewhere else? Very often, multiple times per day, as far as my career goes and often with regard to not liking living in Utah.
29) missed someone so much it hurt? No.
30) lost someone close but not through death? No. Oh, wait, I did let the little boys wander away from our house one afternoon when I was supposed to be watching them, so I jumped in the car and luckily found them at the bottom of the street.
31) wanted to ask someone something but couldn't? I tend to avoid confrontations and difficult discussions, so probably.
32) lied to your parents? No.
33) lied to anyone? Probably some little social fibs, nothing I can remember. I was totally honest on our taxes, to our great financial pain.
34) bought something for someone other than yourself? I buy things that my wife and kids ask me to, but I don't initiate giving gifts. I hate giving gifts! Not the expense but the pain of picking out something for them.
35) argued over the petty things in life? "Argue" is a strong word, but I tend to nag my wife a little more than she does me, mostly about household cleanliness.
36) wanted to tell someone something but never did? Probably.
37) learned a lesson the hard way? No doubt, but can't remember a specific example right now.
38) trusted someone you shouldnt have? Probably.
39) done something you shouldn't have? If I were as pure and spiritual and religious and healthy as I should be, there are many things I probably should not read, listen to, watch, eat, and drink.
40) laughed so hard you cried? Yeah, a couple of times, at least got tears in my eyes.
41) danced under the stars? Give me a break. I don't dance, and I don't linger under the stars, at least not this time of year.
42) had a pillow fight? Maybe a brief one with some of my boys. I don't like that kind of horseplay much.
43) kissed somone but regretted it? No, except maybe my wife if she had a cold.
44) met someone new? Yeah, lots of new students in my night class.
45) became friends with someone you never thought you would? Hmm, can't think of any.
46) wished on a shooting star? No. Another dumb question.
47) wanted to go back in time and change something you did/said? Sure, but can't remember what. Well, a few weeks ago I cut my thumb.
48) gone to church? Yeah, I've actually been better about attending church this year, because the time changed from 9:00 to 11:00 and Zachary stopped taking naps, which was a good excuse to stay home lots of weeks last year. I don't like attending much, though, and wish I could get away with going only once a month.
49) cried yourself to sleep? No.
50) loved someone so much it hurt? Huh? I worry about family members from time to time, but I don't really get what this question means.
1) kissed someone? Of course, my wife, every day.
2) been dumped? Nope, I'm still married and employed. I think a few people have unfriended me on Facebook, though. Can't imagine why...
3) been drunk? No. I sometimes wonder if I could actually handle moderate alcohol usage in my life right now or if the Mormon church is right that none of us should enjoy any of it, ever.
4) stayed out/up all night? Not on purpose, but I've lost a few nights to insomnia, due mainly to indigestion from eating too much too late. But I still slept at least a few hours.
5) ate so much you got sick? See number four above. The older I get, the less well my digestive system works, though I continue to eat mostly what I want.
6) cried? Oh, my eyes have welled up quite a few times, usually more feelings of excitement than sadness.
7) gone to a funeral? Not that I remember.
9) watched something/someone die? Yes, I witnessed my furnace dying. It was more hearing it than seeing it, though. Oh, and our dishwasher and computer printer. Fortunately I haven't witnessed any biological death, that I can remember.
10) left home without permission? I guess this list is geared toward younger people?
11) smoked? No. Sometimes I enjoy sneaking some second-hand smoke, but I'm never around that anymore, what with all the new laws and stuff.
12) got in a fight? Maybe some verbal sparring with my ex-wife.
13) made someone cry? Not that I know of, but I wouldn't be surprised if I did.
14) found out who your friends are? Just here on Facebook, if you judge by who invited me and who accepted my invitations. I was offended today because I got a Facebook e-mail saying that a woman I used to work with at the Ensign magazine had accepted my invitation this morning, but when I clicked on her profile she was no longer my friend, suggesting to me that she clicked on my profile and considered me unworthy to keep. I sent her a message that said, "Well, at least the Lord still loves me."
15) been told you were hot by a complete stranger? Yeah, people stop me on the street all the time and tell me that--not.
16) left the state? Not so far this year, but I have plans to do so later this year as many as four times, if they all work out, including possibly two international trips.
17) been kicked out? My boss may have kicked me out of a meeting if I started dozing or getting too smart alecky.
18) been arrested? No.
19) had your heart broken? No.
20) Told someone (outside the family) you love them? Not that I remember. If so, I was using the term casually.
21) fell asleep with the opposite sex in a bed? Every night with my wife. (Yeah, I do think this list is for high school and college ages.)
23) had someone tell you they hate you? Sometimes my kids say that when they're mad, especially our little drama king Austin.
24) been in a wreck or wrecked a car? No, thank goodness. I worry about it a little every day.
25) cried for no reason? No.
26) felt like dying? I certainly wouldn't go that far, but I'm the kind of person who occasionally thinks I wouldn't be all that disappointed if I DID happen to die. Usually I don't feel that way, though.
27) felt like killing someone else? Not for real, although I can think of some people who I certainly wouldn't be disappointed if they died.
28) wished you were someone/somewhere else? Very often, multiple times per day, as far as my career goes and often with regard to not liking living in Utah.
29) missed someone so much it hurt? No.
30) lost someone close but not through death? No. Oh, wait, I did let the little boys wander away from our house one afternoon when I was supposed to be watching them, so I jumped in the car and luckily found them at the bottom of the street.
31) wanted to ask someone something but couldn't? I tend to avoid confrontations and difficult discussions, so probably.
32) lied to your parents? No.
33) lied to anyone? Probably some little social fibs, nothing I can remember. I was totally honest on our taxes, to our great financial pain.
34) bought something for someone other than yourself? I buy things that my wife and kids ask me to, but I don't initiate giving gifts. I hate giving gifts! Not the expense but the pain of picking out something for them.
35) argued over the petty things in life? "Argue" is a strong word, but I tend to nag my wife a little more than she does me, mostly about household cleanliness.
36) wanted to tell someone something but never did? Probably.
37) learned a lesson the hard way? No doubt, but can't remember a specific example right now.
38) trusted someone you shouldnt have? Probably.
39) done something you shouldn't have? If I were as pure and spiritual and religious and healthy as I should be, there are many things I probably should not read, listen to, watch, eat, and drink.
40) laughed so hard you cried? Yeah, a couple of times, at least got tears in my eyes.
41) danced under the stars? Give me a break. I don't dance, and I don't linger under the stars, at least not this time of year.
42) had a pillow fight? Maybe a brief one with some of my boys. I don't like that kind of horseplay much.
43) kissed somone but regretted it? No, except maybe my wife if she had a cold.
44) met someone new? Yeah, lots of new students in my night class.
45) became friends with someone you never thought you would? Hmm, can't think of any.
46) wished on a shooting star? No. Another dumb question.
47) wanted to go back in time and change something you did/said? Sure, but can't remember what. Well, a few weeks ago I cut my thumb.
48) gone to church? Yeah, I've actually been better about attending church this year, because the time changed from 9:00 to 11:00 and Zachary stopped taking naps, which was a good excuse to stay home lots of weeks last year. I don't like attending much, though, and wish I could get away with going only once a month.
49) cried yourself to sleep? No.
50) loved someone so much it hurt? Huh? I worry about family members from time to time, but I don't really get what this question means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
