posted
Hello, I am new to this site, but am glad I found an outlet to ask a serious question on my mind. I am a faithful mormon in a quandary right now. I wonder if I should support gay marriage.
According to the standard works, the only reason we stopped polygamy was becuase of the laws of the land. In other words, the morality of the majority silenced the minority. In fact, as a mormon, most of our early persecution resulted from the moral majority forcing it's will on us.
Altho I consider homosexuality a sin, if I join in stopping homosexual (or polygamous) marriage, am I not using the same social justification that was used against the early church? What happens when/if the majority looks at our Church as an abomination (we already see an attack on Christianity), then the same argument I used against homosexuality could be used against me. I think we (homosexual and religious groups) should support each other. But if I think that, then I am going against the counsel of the church.
True, I have never heard a prophet tell me how to vote, but I can't deny that church money is being used against the homosexual agenda.
***Thoughts? If you are Mormon, how will you vote on anti-homosexual marriage acts? And what will be your justification?...I am still on the fence and really perplexed. Thanks.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a great question. There are many, many threads on this subject on the site currently. I'm sure people will answer, but you could try a search.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I am also a Mormon who is in a quandry about homosexual marriage. In my mind, I am torn between my religious beliefs (that those who I believe speak for God have said that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage is between a man and a woman) and my hesitancy to apply my personal (religiously-based) morality/beliefs to all of society - many of whom do not share my beliefs. I honestly don't know how I would vote, if I had to vote on such a thing.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, IIRC, a few years ago there was some sort of refferendum concerning gay marriage that came up in California. Again, IIRC, the LDS Church leaders spoke openly in oposition to it.
Does anybody know the details to this?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for your reponses. I have read Enders Game and Bean. I think I also read a collection of Horror Stories by card..come to mention it, I can't remember the author. I have been reading here for a while and love this site. I chose the word "homosexual agenda" intentionally because that is a word I hear often enough in church an my mormon society.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
You describe beautifully just how I feel about this issue. I feel that being against gay marriage makes me as "bad" as those who caused my ancestors to suffer. I am just not sure it is right. Thanks for being so brave.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must have phrased that poorly. Did a prophet denounce polygamy saying that God had told him to so? It's really not intended to sound bad.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Polygamy is sometimes necessary, sometimes not in certain dispensations.
When it became unecessary, God revealed to the prophet at the time to cease polygamous marriage. Was it influenced by the law of the land? Yes, I think there was some influence. However, I think it would have been renounced within that same generation even if the law had not pressured the prophets into asking God. Its purpose had been fulfilled. There were no more women being widowed by mobs or war, and there was no need to increase the population rapidly. It was turning into an unrighteous tradition, with people seeking to have their young daughters married to the older 'patriarchs' and men having many wives, more wives than they were called to have, because of infatuation rather than a righteous desire to make sure every woman had a husband to take care of her. Had it continued, it would have plagued us not only from a persecution standpoint, but also as a threat to the sanctity of marriage.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Welcome, Alexa! I'm with Bob in liking you already. That first crucial post took some cajones, though we have kind of been over this before. I'm not LDS, btw (though that should be apparent to all non-newbies ).
Anne Kate has a unique perspective on this issue, if she could be persuaded to share it again?
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Its purpose had been fulfilled. There were no more women being widowed by mobs or war, and there was no need to increase the population rapidly.
Is that truely why you think mormons delved into polygamy? To increase population and care for widows? There is a spiritual significance beyond that explanation, otherwise, men would still not be able to be sealed to multiple women in the temple whereas women can only be sealed to one man. I believe the D&C would also disagree with that post. However, I do agree it became more corrupt.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
As I have been reading these replies, I realized I need to define marriage before I could answer my own question...So here goes.
Marriage has essentially three functions.
#1 A legal system of responsibilities and rights. Spouses get access to health care, you have a right to certain properties in a divorce..et cetera.
#2 A Sign and ceremony of Commitment.
#3 Social status granted by society to said ceremony and and union.
I was reading Beverly's new post on this topic and was intrigued. I am now on the conclusion that we SHOULD NOT deny access to all the lagalities of marriage, as that would be discrimination. We never have a say on committment, because frankly, you don't need a ceremony to be committed. Commitment is expressed in behavior of the individuals involved in a relationship.
That leaves social status. I am uncomfortable having the law dicate to me what is socially acceptable. I can make up my own mind. As a democray, I think we need to guarantee certain rights to all members of society.
I think that homosexual marriage is more about status then rights. Here is why. I think we should have "unionages" as a option to have the ceremony and legalities of marriage granted to homosexual unions. That will grant the same legat status as marriage but for those like me who see marriage as more sacred then that, the status of marriage is preserved.
If homosexual groups want the same status for "unionages" as marriages, then they can convince heterosexual couple to get "unionaged" instead of married, and if society ever places more value on that type of union, versus a strictly heterosexual union, well, that is societies will and no one has to have the status of their marriage feel under attack by the law.
This would never fly tho, because it is a matter of symantics, which will upset the pro family groups, and it still does not make homosxuality appear immediatly acceptable, which will upset many homosexual movements.
Any thoughts, besides my reliance on run on sentences?
What do you think?
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's nothing we can do to stop gay people from doing what they do, and we probably can't prevent women from getting abortions, but we can sure as heck prevent the government from subsidizing things we don't believe in with our tax dollars.
We are using tax dollars to pay public servants to process every gay couple that goes in that courthouse.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
You are right, there are laws that God no longer requires us to follow because WE are too unrighteous. I can only think of two tho--The Law of Conscration and Polygamy. All other laws I can think of that we no longer practice were FULFILLED.
Can you think of other laws that we wern't ready for....oh, I can think of one other time. Moses and the original commandments. Not having more recinded commandments still makes me feel a little weird about polygamy and consecration.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I like your response. I use that argument in favor of capital punishment. If someone killed my wife, it would bother me till my death that my tax dollars were feeding the murderer. Even if capital punishment is more expensive then serving life in jail, at least I know I am not financing someones life that took away (hypothetically) my loved ones life.
However, correct me if I am wrong, but I think it cost around $25 dollars when I got married. I am sure the employee made less then $25 an hour and it took only 15 minutes. I also don't see a major influx of public employees being needed to handle all the new potential marriages. At my local office, I was 1 of 2 people getting a marriage license--I just can't imagine a run to hire new eemployees.
Therefor, I am forced to conclude I would not be subsidizing gay marriage with my tax dollars--unless you take into consideration how a legal union would affect financial institutions like Social Security and insurance companies. But that brings us back to granting same legal privlages to all citizens.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alexa very thoughtful thread. I like watching the way you think and reason things out.
(does that make me a scary stalker ) AJ
----
OSC-fan:
quote: We should just vote like any other citizen, otherwise I would dare everybody who is religious to speak of religion (and pray) in school, which I have never been afraid to do anyway but other people are.
How very interesting, now you appear to be in a public school that is high school or lower. You said you were an older middle aged woman.
The rate of divorce among those who have been sealed in the temple would suggest to me that as a people we aren't even keeping the commandments we have been given now. Luckily for me, enough people take it seriously so that this ordinance is not being removed.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
I'd like to clarify two things on polygamy. It was not ended only because it was against the law. It was ended when the federal government was going to extinguish the church's existence if we didn't comply. I think there is a difference. That said, if it were to become legal, it would not automatically be a recommended lifestyle for LDS folks. After all, adultery is "legal".
I'm afraid I'm made suspicious of your intentions when you say that the system "became more corrupt." This is at variance with your initial post, of polygamy being a right that should have continued were it not for the law interfering.
The church donated to the cause of defining marriage as a man and a woman in California. Because if we allow our children to be taught something that brings them to sin, it's on our heads. For me it still comes back to the argument of whether or not Homoseuxality is inborn or learned. I think that there are some for whome it is more a psycho-cultural phenomenon that is learned.
Also, whether folks want to date their same sex is their business. But same sex marriage kind of implies that they are explicitly unattracted to the opposite sex. I don't think it is right to institutionalize prejudice in this way. This is my only post in this thread, so I'll add that of course I think divorce is a bigger ill than committed couples. But I think confused young people see both as potential solutions to their search for happiness. I don't think happiness comes from a legal institution.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got a question, looking in from outside on the LDS doctrine.
Was talking to an LDS jatraquero recently, and asked whether if you were getting married, why couldn't you do "sealing" (in a Temple)as a second step (partially to accommodate non-LDS relatives in the prospective marriage.) He said you could but it just isn't "as good" as doing it all at once.
Is this really true? I mean once you are sealed your Heavenly status is determined. I'm assuming you can't get unsealed even if you do get divorced.
I also seem to remember that sealing can be done post-humously, as someone was joking with an element of truth about the number of women who have sealed themselves to Elvis.
So why do it all at the time the marriage is initiated? Why not implement say a 10 year waiting period so that people don't make rash choices about their Heavenly status.
Like I said I'm an outsider looking in so I apologize if this seems preposterous to practicing LDS.
quote:Was talking to an LDS jatraquero recently, and asked whether if you were getting married, why couldn't you do "sealing" as a second step. He said you could but it just isn't "as good" as doing it all at once.
Is this really true? I mean once you are sealed your Heavenly status is determined. I'm assuming you can't get unsealed even if you do get divorced.
I'm not at all sure what you mean by "your Heavenly status is determined". Sealing is a bonding of a family (or the start of a family, as is the case when a couple is married/sealed in the temple) as an eternal unit - that family can remain a family regardless of death. Now, whether that family actually will be an "eternal family" depends entirely on the actions of the family members. The sealing is a covenant between spouses and God (they promise to do certain things - like be obedients to God's commandments - and God promises to do certain things - like have their family remain a family for eternity). Being sealed is a requirement for people to obtain the highest degree of "glory" (and live with God), but does not guarantee it, only your individual faithfulness can do that.
quote:I also seem to remember that sealing can be done post-humously, as someone was joking with an element of truth about the number of women who have sealed themselves to Elvis.
So why do it all at the time the marriage is initiated? Why not implement say a 10 year waiting period so that people don't make rash choices about their Heavenly status.
If a couple is married civilly, they must wait 1 year before being sealed in temple. I think there is a general assumption that if you are not married in the temple, it is because you are not currently living the way you should in order to do so. So, in a roundabout way, getting married in the temple, from the start, ensures that you are both following certain basic commandments, which is probably a better way to start off a marriage.
For me personally, I thought that it was important to start my marriage with the understanding that it was an eternal committment, not just something to "try out" first for a couple years before making that committment. This meant that slacker and I waited a few extra months to get married (since an adult must be a member of the church for at least a year before going to the temple, and he was a recent convert to the church), but I think it was worth doing. I have had friends that have not chosen to do so and I respect their decision.
posted
Welcome to Hatrack , Alexa ! I'm very sorry to do that, but I promised I would do it with the next person who would start a "gay wedding" thread. A WITCH ! A WITCH !
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That helps clarify. So sealing is totally conditional on how faithful the parties are to the agreement.
So you can in effect unseal yourself from someone by your own behavior.
Exactly. Any type of covenant between God and man is conditional on our behavior. There is a scripture (D&C 130:20-21) that says: "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated — And when we obtain any a blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated", meaning that certain blessings (including the blessings of being sealed as a family) are attached to obedience to certain commandments. If you are not keeping God's commandments (and being faithful to the promises you have made Him), you cannot receive the blessings God promises in return for keeping the commandments. Another scripture (D&C 82:10), one of my favorites, says: "I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise." So, when we do what we have been commanded to do, God will (and is required to) bless us, and, conversely, we can't expect blessings if we aren't doing what we should.
You can request an annullment of your temple sealing (which is sometimes done in case of divorce), but I've been told it is a difficult process and not something that is normally done.
quote:Can you then get your act back together and asked to be sealed to someone else?
Yes, you can have your previous sealing annulled and be sealed to someone else (but this is not the ideal thing to do - the hope is that we "get it right" the first time ).
quote:Since it is a family unit are parents sealed to children as well?
Yes. Children of couples who have already been sealed to each other are considered "born in the covenant", meaning that the children essentially born "sealed" to their parents (and vice versa). Couples who are sealed after having children (or adopt children) have their children sealed to them (and the children are sealed to their parents).
quote:Can the children seal their divorced parents post mortem?
If the parents haven't got sealed to their new spouses?
I would think so, although if they had gotten divorced I don't know why their children would want to.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure it can be done, if someone wants to do it. If it were my parents, I probably wouldn't (if they didn't like being married to each other while they were alive, why would they want to be married to each other for eternity?).
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure what the 'rule' is on that OSC-fan.
Widespread divorce is a relatively new social phenomena-- we are only beginning to see the effects of it on society. I don't know that the LDS church has even considered your particular question yet.
quote: Was talking to an LDS jatraquero recently, and asked whether if you were getting married, why couldn't you do "sealing" (in a Temple)as a second step (partially to accommodate non-LDS relatives in the prospective marriage.) He said you could but it just isn't "as good" as doing it all at once.
Let me elaborate some more on this. To someone who believes that marriage is supposed to be an eternal covenant between man, woman, and God, getting married civilly is certainly a lesser commitment. It means that either you don't belive that eternal marriage is all that important, or something else (like having non-member family members attend) is more important than following God's desires.
I am not saying this to be judgmental, but just to explain why it is felt that it is better to get married in the temple instead of getting married civilly and later being sealed.
Also, temple sealings can be "un-sealed" (I don't know what the real term is), but it *is* very difficult. My understanding is that permission has to come from the First Presidency of the church, and that it rarely does.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, you cannot seal people after death who were not married (at the time of death) in life. If they were divorced when they died, they cannot be sealed.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I mean, maybe somewhere some temple workers got distracted and some went through (in which it needs to be sorted out), but yes, proxy sealings are only for those who were married in life.
posted
I sealed my divorced parents to each other after their death because that was the only way I could be sealed to them. I also sealed my divorced grandparents to each other, so I could seal my mother to them.
I had some misgivings about both of those proxy sealings, but trust that all will be sorted out eventually.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
There is no clarification on my gender, as I hope to keep it ananymous. Farmgirl demonstrated wonderfully when *she* said, "Alexa is a guy? Shifts imagery in head."
One wonderful thing about forums is an ability to discuss without superficial impressions. It is no mistake that my name is Alexa or that I said my husband. My gender is one of three. If it is important to know, you can ask.
POOKA! I like your style. Did you get your name from BoF?
I think there is LITTLE difference if we stopped polygamy because it was illegal or if the government was going to confiscate church property. The point is: an external source of our religion dictated our behavior, and we coinsider that interference wrong.
I am glad someone caught "became more corrupt." You are right, I am suspicious of polygamy. But everyone has their issues or unique justification for their faith that make them sound ridiculous if they ever voice it. If you don't believe me, write down your justification for polygamy, dinasours, cave men, et cetera. Faith is primarily designed to shape character and find happiness, not explain life.
My issue results from not thinking polygamy satisfies my use for religion. I am glad it is gone. But back to my original post. If it is true, as is claimed, then the justification for the governement to force it's removal is wrong. In short, the government of the people should never impose it's collective morality on the citizenship. If so, the time may/will come when christianity looses the culture war and is deemed hateful and the "moral majority" would have precedent to discrimanate religious practices.
As a religion, I believe we should support gay marriage. Not out of moral concern, but out of protection or granting of rights. The same rights I expect them to support for my religion.
If we should as a religion stop gay marriage out of moral concern, then MAYBE the goverment was right to threaten confiscation of property for practicing polygamy--which would seriously tip me over the edge on my testimony. I am in a catch 22. That is why I am grateful to see everyones response--as it helps me settle my own beliefs.
Pooka..I do not see how same sex marriage implies explicit unattraction to the opposite sex.
As far as allowing our children to be taught something that brings them into sin..well, isn't that the parents job? We teach adultry is legal but immoral.
I see no double standard. The law's morality is focused on "consent." I don't consent to be stolen from or killed. I don't consent to be cheated in business. I don't consent to many things that are morally wrong. Adultry is consentual and legal. Homomsexuality is consentual and should homosexual marriage be legal? I now think NO (see previous post), but a legal means for them to get same legal or governmental benefits as a marriage shoudl exist. Hence my "Unionage" idea.
Abortion should not be talked about in the same breath as homosexuality, as ther eis question whether a fetus has the right to consent or if it doesn't count as life...that is the true debat--not the morality from the mothers perspective.
quote:I sealed my divorced parents to each other after their death because that was the only way I could be sealed to them. I also sealed my divorced grandparents to each other, so I could seal my mother to them.
I had some misgivings about both of those proxy sealings, but trust that all will be sorted out eventually.
I stand corrected then. *confused* I don't know how it works.
My step-mom was unsealed to her ex-husband in order to be sealed to my dad. I don't know what happened to the sealing with her children then.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Was talking to an LDS jatraquero recently, and asked whether if you were getting married, why couldn't you do "sealing" (in a Temple)as a second step (partially to accommodate non-LDS relatives in the prospective marriage.) He said you could but it just isn't "as good" as doing it all at once.
This is actually what happens in several European countries, where it is only legal to get married in the registry office. Couples there get married in the office, and then go on to get sealed in the temple. That is an accomodation to the law.
Where the law does not have to be considered, however, there are several reasons why it isn't allowed. One that hasn't been mentioned, I think (and this is my opinion only), is that people are far too prone to want an Elaborate Wedding. Temple sealings are very simple, and it is appropriate to have a simple wedding dress and so on. I would bet that if it became usual to have a civil ceremony before the sealing, an awful lot of people would start treating the Wedding as more important than the sealing.
We do have ring ceremonies after sealings sometimes to include family members (temple sealings do not include rings), but they aren't allowed to look like weddings, partly because people can get so worked up about them and forget the important part, which takes place in the temple.
Posts: 335 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I first read about the whole Sealing to Elvis here at hatrack, hadn't been aware of even sealing before that. I thought the person was serious at the time, though it was a long time ago when I was relatively new. I guess it was actually the equivalent of an LDS "in" joke, that not being in I didn't get!
quote:We do have ring ceremonies after sealings sometimes to include family members (temple sealings do not include rings), but they aren't allowed to look like weddings, partly because people can get so worked up about them and forget the important part, which takes place in the temple.
*nods* I'm going to a ring ceremony and dinner reception next month for Chad and Connie. She joined the church last year, and she's the only member in her family. The ring ceremony is for her parents. I've never been to one before - I'm interested to see how it goes. The event - ceremony and reception - does take place in a restaurant, so it can't be too elaborate.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
When I was getting my patriarchal (sp?) blessing, My patriarch and I had long discussions. I never GOT sealings. I mean, since marriage is personal commitment and legal benefits or responsibilities, then what is eternal marriage? I can't say to myself I am commited in the after-life and chose to call myself married?
"What does marriage add?" I asked my Patriarch.
His response (paraphrased):
"When you get sealed, you are not being sealed to eachother, you are being sealed into the celestial kingdom. It is the final ordinance you must recieve to qualify for entry into the Celestial kingdom."
That made sense to me. It is like the whole being married to christ thing in the New Testiment.
If you work with that perception of Eternal Marriage, then it makes sense that if someone is unfaithful and leaves the church, the spouse or children who are left behind still qualify for eternal salvation to the highest degree. They (sigle but sealed spouse and kids) will have all opportunities faithful married members have in the Celestial Kingdom.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Thanks for being so brave.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
).![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
)![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
