[convert1992]

I didn’t mean any disrespect to our leaders and I don’t think they are stupid or uneducated, but the Church is not intellectually sophisticated in how it couches its arguments; and it has to be in order to translate what we believe in as a church to the wider society. The answer to the OP’s post is not just the “duh” answer which is what you get from TBMs–that of course we are opposed to it because of our values. That doesn’t explain why a minority religion in this country which many Americans still do not regard as a mainstream form of Christianity tries to impose its views on the majority, then backs off. (By the way, I do not support gay marriage, so I am not complaining about the Church’s stance, just trying to explain why it has been so inept on the issue.)

As for the definition of “intellectual,” there actually is a level of intellectual discourse which is uncommon among Mormons. Sometimes I wonder if President Packer, in referring to “so-called intellectuals,” was actually referring to the fact that many dissenters and exmos make themselves out to be intellectuals when in fact they would not be considered intellectual by educated people in other faiths. I know a lot of very smart Latter-Day Saints, some of whom have gotten professional degrees and MBAs from schools like Harvard or Stanford or Duke; but with the exception of a few jurists and academics, these people are almost universally incapable of talking about philosophical issues on a level that can illuminate fine distinctions. The article that Curtis posted from the BYU president is an exception. In my ward we had a professor who was able to speak on that level and the disparity between her and the next most sophisticated Mormon in our area was always enormous.

This doesn’t diminish the reality that the Church is special/true or whatever you believe, but it limits us in our capacity both as an institution as well as individuals to explain to non-Mormons why it is that we AS MORMONS are opposed to gay marriage, in addition to all the general arguments against it that already are advanced by conservatives.

[convert1992]

Unknown wrote:

Why did the church become such a strong opponent against gay marriage? Why is it a big deal …? As far as I can tell the only reason given by the church is that homosexuality isn’t part of the plan of salvation.

Since you filed this under History and Doctrine Discussions, I’m guessing you want an explanation related to LDS doctrine, not politics or culture. The problem is–and this may be why there are so few posts here on what otherwise is a provocative topic–there has never been a clear rationale based uniquely on LDS doctrine to oppose gay marriage.

That’s because there can’t be. As a religion that was established less than 200 years ago and which came out of its isolation in the Intermountain West only well into the 20th century, the LDS Church has always had a huge problem trying to frame its doctrines in the context of the surrounding society. Our doctrines only make sense within the context of the Church and LDS society such as in Utah. So much of what we teach, especially teachings like food storage that are utilitarian, are applicable pretty much only to LDS people who live in a very specific type of society, the kind where Latter-Day Saints live down the street from one another. We even have problems communicating to the outside world about our faith because we have a unique jargon which evolved to serve the needs of this religious system.

In contrast to other conservative elements in American society, the LDS Church isn’t capable of speaking intelligently or convincingly against same-sex marriage. Our church leaders are intellectual lightweights who would be hard pressed to match wits with the average parish priest or evangelical pastor. We have no credibility talking about history and tradition when we were practicing polygamy only 100 years ago. The Burkean preference for evolutionary tradition is actually a very good argument against this headlong rush to legalize gay marriage, but we just sound like the village idiot when we invoke that line of reasoning.

So the only answer to your original question is an emotional one. Our leaders took on this fight because they believed they were going to inherit the mantle of the leader of Christian America. It was to be part of the pre-millenial destiny of the Church. But oops … 2012 rolled around and we discovered to our chagrin that evangelicals and conservative Catholics still think we’re a cult. Many of them refused to vote for Romney even if it meant letting Obama have another four years. And Pew Research showed us that no one likes us, except ironically Jewish-Americans.

[convert1992]

Thank you for sharing this story of your family. It took courage to write this rather than saying “I was born of goodly parents.” I have noticed the younger generation in the Church is more accepting of dysfunctional families. There is a guy in my ward who is very open about the fact that his parents are divorced, yet he remains a near-fanatical TBM. I guess that’s progress.

[convert1992]

Oh yes, you will be accepted here the way you are!

I applaud your courage in sharing your personal trials. It’s so not LDS to reveal psychological problems even when the whole world around us is now comfortable with it. I myself became very obsessive-compulsive (OCD) after I joined the Church in 1992. It reached a peak around 2005 or so and then something happened–which TBMs call the atonement–to set it back to the point where it doesn’t interfere with my life anymore. At its worst, I agonized over the laundry and could not touch light switches.

I think there is something about the Church and its super-controlling ways that exacerbates OCD/anxiety in anyone who is predisposed to these disorders. For example, in what other church would you be called on to stand up and everyone looks at you and votes on whether you are worthy to be a nursery worker? In what other church does it matter whether a 14-year-boy has his shirt tucked in right so he can pass sacrament? In what other church would you get strange phone calls at night cryptically asking you to come to the bishop’s office on Sunday, only to find out he wants you to help with some tiny project?

And yes, I too have found ward members to be unwilling to talk about anything sensitive. Even liberal members have to trust you a lot to talk.

[convert1992]

scthomas34 wrote:

I love helping those who do not quite fit in. I feel my experience has helped me understand those who are lonely, or who need defended in their behalf. I know that in the church, people can burn you. But the Lord has never abandoned me and has as it seems lifted me up by his angels and set me on the straight road and helped me overcome my anger and baggage. Despite the negative experiences and things I don’t understand,I feel incredibly blessed. … I am swallowed in the joy of the Lord. Even though I have have some doctrinal differences with some church policy, I know the church is true. I want to help out in this form where I can.

Hi Brother Thomas! My given name is Thomas. I like that name. Thank you for telling us about your life. After I was baptized, I noticed that certain people were friendlier to me at church. Later I realized that those were the quirky members. They were like you–they weren’t necessarily liberal in a doctrinal or political sense–but they were nonconformists and like you they loved helping those who don’t fit in. I agree with you that the Church is true even if in some respects it has been neglected like a grand old house. Too much emphasis on money and business, I agree. The pendulum will have to swing back at some point, and the Church won’t have a choice. Yes, it is worth it, and like you I would go through it all over again!

[convert1992]

Wow, a lot of very insightful posts! What about the role of the manipulativeness of the Church in provoking anger? As I was showering this morning, I reflected upon memories of my time as a “golden investigator.” I remember the flashes of anger that I had even before I was baptized, because gung-ho missionaries were telling me that I had to serve a mission (at age 24) and get married in the Temple (sans non-LDS parents). And I remember feeling a little angry that they saved mention of tithing to the end instead of telling me upfront. There were so many things that were manipulative about the conversion process, and they are mirrored for lifelong members who are manipulated through callings, testimonies (as OON points out, using them to convince others), love-bombing, and many other methods. No one likes to feel manipulated.

[convert1992]

As a convert, I would question the very premise that there is usually anger upon leaving the Church. Most converts who leave are not angry, just apathetic or perhaps a little disillusioned. In my experience, anger comes from two sources: converts who feel they were promised a lot because this is a Church that holds up a very high ideal; and lifelong members who are angry that they were taught many things for years that they now feel are untrue–and for this latter group some of those “untrue” things are objectively untrue in terms of truths about LDS history that the Church whitewashes. There are also a lot of non-practicing lifelong Mormons who for all practical purposes will never practice the religion again but are not angry.

There is also quite a bit of anger among those practicing in the Church, which I have felt myself, and I think that comes from the reality that the LDS system is so controlling and at times dysfunctional. No other religion except maybe Catholicism has such a visible institution for you to focus your anger on. But for Catholics, that institution of the church isn’t anything like the LDS institution. Catholics aren’t being told how to dress, how to store food, how to groom themselves, what music to listen to, who to date, how to raise your kids. Protestants and evangelicals have little to focus their anger on: very little organized church, if you don’t like the pastor just move on to another congregation. Same with Islam, Buddhism, and other faiths.

[convert1992]

I lean more politically conservative/libertarian, and I am not a supporter of same-sex marriage, so I actually don’t think this is surprising from a conservative point of view. What he is basically saying is that progressives misunderstand the purpose of the Constitution, because they think its purpose is to promote a value system. His point about the Constitution being devoid of value judgments is a fundamental tenet of conservatism, which holds that the purpose of the Constitution is to protect the people from the tyranny of central government. Sorry!

[convert1992]

I think the Second Coming is perhaps the scariest topic to teach about in church to contemporary Latter-Day Saints who are products of late 20th century American civilization. It really separates the hard-core TBMs from the moderate TBMs and everyone else. It has everything a figurative believer recoils against: a wrathful God, end of the world, Biblical literalism, and (for us) BOM literalism.

[convert1992]

I agree. It’s nice to have a forum with the same kind of friendly, nonadversarial atmosphere that we have in our Sunday School, priesthood, and RS meetings. Where we can respectfully disagree and learn from one another.

[convert1992]

Not to get off topic–this question is related to the trend of leadership and not the issue itself–but it puzzles me how there was a consensus (or was there?) of the apostles to mount the Prop 8 campaign. The older ones can be forgiven for thinking that it’s still the 1970s and that the ERA fight would be replicated. After the debacle, I remember Elder Ballard getting up in GC and commenting on the pain it caused some members. That made me wonder whose idea it was. As a priesthood holder in my ward pointed out, it just made the gay rights movement more determined and probably hastened gay marriage. And then as we found out during the presidential election, it really didn’t buy us any loyalty or gratitude among the hard-core Christian right who still hate Mormonism.

Are we underestimating the social conservatism of the apostles, or did Prop 8 reflect the influence of the Old Guard whereas a younger generation would’ve understood American society better?

[convert1992]

DarkJedi wrote:

(On edit I have decided to point out here that it doesn’t necessarily matter to me because I think they generally lack revelation anyway – I don’t believe any of the presidents since Joseph Smith have actually had a revelation.

I have to agree with DarkJedi on this one. When people have had extraordinary spiritual events, it’s hard to keep it a secret even if you are not shouting it from the rooftops or divulging the details (and there are many good reasons for not divulging details)–because it is so transformational and life-altering. D&C entries give us plenty of evidence JS experienced a lot and probably more than is commonly understood. With contemporary leaders, they don’t even say they experienced something but can’t talk about it. It’s always limited to a generic discussion of the small still voice (remember Bednar’s talk). Anything else is too sacred to even mention, which naturally leads one to ask whether it even exists (eg, Lord appearing in the Holy of Holies) or if they don’t have it and don’t want people to know.

[convert1992]

Thanks to all of you for your comments. I read every one and I see lots of merit in each of them. It certainly feels good to know that there are people like 84 and DarkJedi who served missions and care a lot about investigators/converts while at the same time being able to question things. And I agree with Curtis–I too want them found. And then after they’re found, hopefully the bishop and other leaders will be sensitive to the feelings that Forgotten Charity brought up.

[convert1992]

On Own Now wrote:

convert1992 wrote:

not everyone in the Church actually understands the Gospel, but the apostles do

Did you hear Elder Bednar’s talk in GC about tithing? He didn’t seem to understand the scriptures he was quoting. I believe that the 12 are excellent practitioners, but, I don’t think of any of them as very knowledgeable on any theological level.

My apologies for not being more clear. We are talking about two different things. I meant that there is a certain construct that is referred to in our Church as “the Gospel” and the intention is for LDS leaders to understand this construct. Many bishops do (but many don’t), most SP’s do, most Patriarchs do, and nearly all GA’s. It is a construct that has certain elements that are uniquely Mormon, and therefore many converts don’t get it.

What you are talking about is a broader understanding of the meaning of Biblical concepts taken correctly in context. Mormonism has taken the Bible and used it to justify its own peculiar theological system that–regardless of how inspired it is, and I do think it is–can be said to be largely a creation of JS’s mind.

[convert1992]

Thanks for posting this, Daeruin. I actually googled this and read the whole thing. While reading it, I thought of the fact that in another context, doubt is used to protect people. The criminal justice system has as its fundamental goal the protection of the innocent. It achieves this goal by requiring a jury to overcome reasonable doubt before depriving someone of life or liberty, and each and every of those jurors must personally overcome that doubt. The lack of ability to overcome that doubt (plus the overburdened system) in turn results in the government dropping or allowing plea bargains for most charges.

In spiritual things, doubt keeps us searching for answers. It keeps us checking and double-checking ourselves. So you’ve deconstructed the BOM (speaking rhetorically here; I am not talking to you, Daeruin). You are pretty sure it is not an actual historical record, but are you sure there are not strands of inspiration throughout the book that would prove it was not just “made up” the way that an author might sit down one day and write a fine yarn. I think there are matters in which there is now overwhelmingly evidence but the whole picture of what the Church is, what it’s based on, and what its future importance is, depend on faith counterbalanced against doubt. That is, the good doubt–the type that makes you continuously re-evaluate assumptions that may be incorrect and lead you down the road to apostacy.

[Author]

Posts