...that I'm deeply disappointed in the First Presidency today.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
*nod* *sigh*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Why?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
It sort of feels like cheating - that the presidency has apparently decided that it has failed in its efforts to teach the principles which they would expect to compel people to act politically in ways that supports their political goals, so now they'll just tell them how to vote, using authority rather than persuasion as their instrument.
It seems to go against the sentiment of Joseph Smith: "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves".
I also am disappointed that any group with power would attempt to control what people outside that group may do when there is no demonstrable benefit to exercising such control. This is particularly disappointing given the history of the LDS church and the persecution they once received for their peculiar marriage customs.
None of this speaks to the right of the church to advocate in the way they are doing. It's just a matter of personal disappointment.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I still can't tell what it is their doing you two don't like. What is "it" in "It sort of feels like cheating"?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I still can't tell what it is their doing you two don't like. What is "it" in "It sort of feels like cheating"?
Oh, sorry. They read a letter during services this morning at all of their California churches which supported the initiative to outlaw gay marriage.
I have twice written nice long posts and both got eaten. So, I'm giving up. Clearly the universe does not want me to post. Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
I don't see anything in that letter that states anything different than what has previously been stated. The Church was a supporter back in 2000 when the vote was first taken on this issue along the same lines as this most recent letter. No where does it state that every member in order to remain in good standing must vote for this initiative. The letter reaffirms the Church's long held stand on this issue and encourages members to do what they can to support it. If you don't feel you can support it you don't have to do anything.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
It's not just a reaffirmation, it's a call to action.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Obviously, Tom, they don't subscribe to the same brand of Mormonism that you do.
quote:the presidency has apparently decided that it has failed in its efforts to teach the principles which they would expect to compel people to act politically in ways that supports their political goals, so now they'll just tell them how to vote, using authority rather than persuasion as their instrument.
Among members of the Church, the persuasion occurs practically every week as we discuss with one another the doctrines of the Restored gospel.
This isn't political to members of the Church-- it's a moral problem that because of our beliefs we feel to have an inherent right to speak upon.
quote:It seems to go against the sentiment of Joseph Smith: "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves".
The first two paragraphs teach the principle.
I doubt there will be any official action to discover who voted in what way.
Given that the principle has been taught, and there will be no enforcement taken, this objection doesn't stand.
quote:I also am disappointed that any group with power would attempt to control what people outside that group may do when there is no demonstrable benefit to exercising such control.
Demonstrable to whom? The eternal consequences (within Mormon theology) of persistent homosexual behavior are deep.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:This isn't political to members of the Church-- it's a moral problem that because of our beliefs we feel to have an inherent right to speak upon.
In what way does that make it not political?
That said, I can't say I feel particularly disappointed. They are conservative religious people, what do you expect? The way to fix this isn't to go around registering disappointment and disapproval, it's to teach the religious people the actual truth and let them draw the consequences. And, as a temporary measure, to withdraw their tax-exempt status. (Not just the Mormons, all churches.) If people want to pay someone to preach at them every Sunday, that's their privilege, but I don't see why I should be forced to subsidise the activity.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I don't see why I should be forced to subsidise the activity.
I don't think you actually are.
Non-taxed entities do not necessarily receive taxes for their support.
Can you explain what you mean?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If people want to pay someone to preach at them every Sunday, that's their privilege, but I don't see why I should be forced to subsidise the activity.
Then why should I forced to subsidize midnight basketball, youth polo, housing for the homeless, physics post graduate education, or any of the hundreds of things that are tax exempt?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, obviously, if the government has decided that this year it wants X dollars for pre-emptively invading other countries with, and it raises those X dollars by taxing organisations A, B, and C, and C is tax-exempt, then A and B are going to end up paying more. Or in other words, if churches were taxed, then the overall tax rate could be lowered.
This problem got to be really serious in England before Henry VIII chopped the monasteries down to size. People would leave their land to a monastery to support someone to pray for their soul, and it got so that a third of the land in England was tax-exempt. Which, obviously, meant increasing the taxes on the other two-thirds by 50% to make up the shortfall, holding government expenditure constant.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Demonstrable to whom? The eternal consequences (within Mormon theology) of persistent homosexual behavior are deep.
Can they be presistently homosexual for most of their lives, and then have a deathbed conversion? I mean, haven't all fallen short?
In fact, by that standard, the eternal consequences of being a non-[insert religion here] would also be damnation. Should churches petition to make attendance of other churches illegal? Only in the best interests of other people's afterlife, of course.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:If people want to pay someone to preach at them every Sunday, that's their privilege, but I don't see why I should be forced to subsidise the activity.
Then why should I forced to subsidize midnight basketball, youth polo, housing for the homeless, physics post graduate education, or any of the hundreds of things that are tax exempt?
Because the majority in this here moderately democratic nation have the power to force you to do so, or leave. Which is why I work to convince people that tax-exempt status for churches is bad, rather than, say, refusing to pay my taxes.
Or, as Lisa would say, why indeed? I do note that I pay taxes on my stipend.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Because the majority in this here moderately democratic nation have the power to force you to do so, or leave. Which is why I work to convince people that tax-exempt status for churches is bad, rather than, say, refusing to pay my taxes.
I just want to be clear - are you objecting for any reason other than you find religion objectionable? In other words, are you making a statement about religion or about tax policy?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Obviously, Tom, they don't subscribe to the same brand of Mormonism that you do.
Regardless of their religion, I would have liked to see them act with dignity, decorum, and respect for the individuals within their congregation. Whatever the First Presidency's opinion of the legality of a specific sin, I can't help finding this particular strategy both clumsy and profoundly tacky. It stinks of all sorts of desperation, along the lines of those Catholic bishops who start denying Communion to leftist politicians every time election years roll around. Ergo my disappointment.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Regardless of their religion, I would have liked to see them act with dignity, decorum, and respect for the individuals within their congregation. Whatever the First Presidency's opinion of the legality of a specific sin, I can't help finding this particular strategy both clumsy and profoundly tacky. It stinks of all sorts of desperation, along the lines of those Catholic bishops who start denying Communion to leftist politicians every time election years roll around. Ergo my disappointment.
It seems a strange reason to be disappointed in an entity whose foundational beliefs you don't share. I've never understood why non-Catholics comment on Catholic beliefs about Communion, and I don't know why you even believe you're in a position to judge whether this letter is tacky, given the necessarily incomplete understanding of why they believe this necessary.
Obviously, I disagree with the contents of the letter. I can see posting a critique of their argument. But a thread to express your disappointment in an entity for taking a stand you already know they hold seems pretty pointless.
Edit: and I don't see where this lacks decorum, dignity, or respect.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It seems a strange reason to be disappointed in an entity whose foundational beliefs you don't share. I've never understood why non-Catholics comment on Catholic beliefs about Communion...
Because the use of faith as a political bludgeon -- and let's face it: any cynic sees the whole Communion thing as exactly that sort of mechanism -- is remarkably tasteless, for a number of reasons. People have fewer safeguards up when it comes to their religions; that's why some businesses still find it convenient to paste a little fish or a cross or whatever into their advertisements.
It's not that I'm disappointed that the leadership of the LDS church has come out and said "Hey, you know we still think homosexual behavior is a major frowny-face thing, right?" Rather, I think it's a shame that they think so little of their membership that they have concluded their followers can't be trusted to vote according to their conscience on a specific piece of legislation based purely upon their high-level objections to the morality of a largely unrelated sexual behavior.
From where I'm standing, it looks like a slap in the face to every Mormon who might contemplate the decriminalization of religious sins. And it makes me grateful that, for all I hear some people asserting otherwise, there is no organization out there reminding me to ignore my personal convictions when voting for fear of running afoul of, say, the memory of Charles Darwin or somebody.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I am making a statement about religion: It should not be tax-free. Additionally, there are any number of other things that could reasonably lose their current tax-exempt status, but I feel less strongly about them.
Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
If you believe in Mormonism, then it boils down to, is Thomas S. Monson the Prophet of the Lord with the authority to speak for the Lord on this Earth? If you believe such (I am not speaking to everyone else) then isn't it the Lord you're arguing against when you disagree with this statement?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I look forward to the Lord telling us which tax initiatives to support. That would arguably be more helpful, actually.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I remember starting a thread about a similar letter the first presidency submitted some time ago. I confess I do not understand why first presidency feels they should act in this manner. But they have, and I do not believe they made this decision lightly. I also understand that God's ways are not man's ways, whether you think that is a good or bad thing I leave to the individual to decide. I've made my choice.
I really wish I could make sense of this knot.
Tom: You can argue most anything. To be frank, a perfect understanding of homosexuality to me would be far more valuable than any tax initiative.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by happymann: If you believe in Mormonism, then it boils down to, is Thomas S. Monson the Prophet of the Lord with the authority to speak for the Lord on this Earth? If you believe such (I am not speaking to everyone else) then isn't it the Lord you're arguing against when you disagree with this statement?
Was it the Lord you were arguing with if you didn't approve of past statements made by church leaders that, for instance, one should not marry someone not of their own race?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Originally posted by happymann: If you believe in Mormonism, then it boils down to, is Thomas S. Monson the Prophet of the Lord with the authority to speak for the Lord on this Earth? If you believe such (I am not speaking to everyone else) then isn't it the Lord you're arguing against when you disagree with this statement?
Was it the Lord you were arguing with if you didn't approve of past statements made by church leaders that, for instance, one should not marry someone not of their own race?
Was that directive given to the church in the form of a command? From what I know, church literature has only said that members should try to marry within their own race but more importantly culture.
I have an aunt from Taiwan who was adopted by my grandparents as a baby. I am more Chinese than she is, and I seriously doubt any church official would ask her to find an Asian boy and settle down.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Was that directive given to the church in the form of a command?
The anti-miscegenation stuff was actually pretty darn harsh - as harsh as you can imagine really.
Brigham Young:
quote:Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.
Again, not a directive to the entire church, I'm very happy President Young had such strong opinions on myriad subjects.
I generally hate dissecting quotes, but that statement could easily mean, "Those of the chosen seed within the white race who mix with those who are of Cain within the black race shall be cut off from God."
Exactly identical to God's comments to a man in a garden on another occasion, "For on the day thou partaketh, thou shalt surely die."
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
In that quote he doesn't suggest that the seed of Cain is merely a subset of "the African race". I'm not going to further counter-dissect, but that quote is only one of many that address a strong antipathy amongst early church leaders to miscegenation.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: In that quote he doesn't suggest that the seed of Cain is merely a subset of "the African race". I'm not going to further counter-dissect, but that quote is only one of many that address a strong antipathy amongst early church leaders to miscegenation.
A shame since I think my latter argument was the better one.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:A shame since I think my latter argument was the better one.
Which argument? That it wasn't a formal statement addressed to the membership of the church? Isn't the First Presidency Letter a relatively modern phenomenon?
I'm not sure how far you want to go in defending the position of past church leaders on this point. The current leadership has already acknowledged these statements as being incorrect and have essentially said, of those who made them, that they didn't really know what they were talking about.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
No I was talking about the bit dealing with "death."
There are plenty of precedents where even in the Old Testament prophets directed their people to not intermarry with other races for fear they would be lead away into their heathen practices.
The "letter to the church" isn't that modern. Joseph Smith wrote many letters to the twelve with directives for the church, often these letters showed up in church newspapers. As early as 1890 we observe the Manifesto, being addressed to the church entire.
I'm not defending the opinion that interracial marriages are all bad, I just don't believe any prophet claimed to have an edict from God declaring them so in this dispensation. But I do understand where their might be a grain of truth to the idea historically speaking.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I just don't believe any prophet claimed to have an edict from God declaring them so in this dispensation.
As you know the prophets and apostles were a lot more loose-lipped in the old days. At the time, it was reasonable to assume that they spoke for God. It's only much more recently that some effort has been made to distinguish between official doctrine and the prophet speaking officially for God and the church as opposed to sharing his personal opinion.
Now we have the First Presidency Letters which, still, are a bit vague as to their authority. Are they saying that God want's this initiative to pass or that the Presidency does? Is there a distinction?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:To be frank, a perfect understanding of homosexuality to me would be far more valuable than any tax initiative.
And yet they have not presented their membership with a perfect understanding of homosexuality; presumably the Lord has not seen fit to provide them with one. Instead, we know only that the Lord apparently wants Mormons in California to work hard to defeat a specific ballot initiative that will affect a vanishingly small percentage of the people in the state. I can think of more than a handful of pressing issues -- like, say, whether global warming really is happening or not -- where the Lord's perspective would be considerably more useful to a far larger number of people.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Well, obviously, if the government has decided that this year it wants X dollars for pre-emptively invading other countries with, and it raises those X dollars by taxing organisations A, B, and C, and C is tax-exempt, then A and B are going to end up paying more. Or in other words, if churches were taxed, then the overall tax rate could be lowered.
This doesn't amount to a subsidy-- you're not actually paying for the preaching.
Assuming a finite supply of money, any time anyone earns any means there's a little less available for you.
quote:Whatever the First Presidency's opinion of the legality of a specific sin, I can't help finding this particular strategy both clumsy and profoundly tacky. It stinks of all sorts of desperation, along the lines of those Catholic bishops who start denying Communion to leftist politicians every time election years roll around. Ergo my disappointment.
There's no mechanism set up within the Mormon church to delve into most members' political leanings. Even when a sin is known by local leadership-- say, adultery-- it largely falls to the individuals involved in the affair to stay within the boundaries that the leadership has ascribed.
So, for example-- say there's a guy who committed adultery. He confesses to the local leaders and his wife, and is told to refrain from taking the sacrament and wearing his temple clothing. There is no mechanism in place, beyond interviewing the dude and trusting his honesty, to really enforce these requests.
As far as I know, the Church is not saying that taking an active role in this will determine one's worthiness to attend the temple or take the sacrament, or whatever. As far as I know, there will be no additional question in the temple interview process, requesting one account for one's devotion to the constitutional amendment.
Obviously, I don't see the situations as analogous. I don't really know how Catholics manage to do what you've maintained they do; somehow I think that its not quite as simple as what you've laid out.
quote:it looks like a slap in the face to every Mormon who might contemplate the decriminalization of religious sins.
It's possible that one of the intents of the letter is to reinforce the Church's position on homosexual marriage to the membership.
I don't see it as a problem, or a disappointment-- prophets aren't necessarily supposed to be nice. They're supposed to be good, and to teach God's word.
Within the context of Mormon doctrine, they are acting well within reason.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:And yet they have not presented their membership with a perfect understanding of homosexuality; presumably the Lord has not seen fit to provide them with one. Instead, we know only that the Lord apparently wants Mormons in California to work hard to defeat a specific ballot initiative that will affect a vanishingly small percentage of the people in the state.
I think the idea capital going into the legalization of homosexual marriage is a bit more expansive than this.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I have twice written nice long posts and both got eaten. So, I'm giving up. Clearly the universe does not want me to post.
Whenever I write a post that's longer than a few lines, I select-all and copy before hitting "Add Reply". That way, if it gets eaten, I can resend it without having to rewrite it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't really know how Catholics manage to do what you've maintained they do...
Well, the big issue around here is Catholic bishops denying communion to liberal politicians, who are presumably on record as supporting abortion and/or birth control measures. I'd imagine a Mormon politician in California who supported same-sex marriage would be equally as visible to church leadership.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:To be frank, a perfect understanding of homosexuality to me would be far more valuable than any tax initiative.
And yet they have not presented their membership with a perfect understanding of homosexuality; presumably the Lord has not seen fit to provide them with one. Instead, we know only that the Lord apparently wants Mormons in California to work hard to defeat a specific ballot initiative that will affect a vanishingly small percentage of the people in the state. I can think of more than a handful of pressing issues -- like, say, whether global warming really is happening or not -- where the Lord's perspective would be considerably more useful to a far larger number of people.
I should think it's rather obvious that ballots dealing with gay marriage affect far more people than just the current population of homosexuals.
I also think that the issue of homosexuality in a democracy has proven to be much more difficult to contemplate than being a good steward over the environment, but YMMV.
I can't write a good response to many of your words I just don't have much time this morning, I'll try to get to it later.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Well, obviously, if the government has decided that this year it wants X dollars for pre-emptively invading other countries with, and it raises those X dollars by taxing organisations A, B, and C, and C is tax-exempt, then A and B are going to end up paying more. Or in other words, if churches were taxed, then the overall tax rate could be lowered.
This doesn't amount to a subsidy-- you're not actually paying for the preaching.
Assuming a finite supply of money, any time anyone earns any means there's a little less available for you.
The supply of money is not finite, or more accurately, we are nowhere near its limits. And in fact I am paying for the preaching. If churches were taxed, its members would have to work a bit extra to support their preacher by donations, or else go without. That work which they are not doing is instead being shared out over the entire population, including me.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I'd imagine a Mormon politician in California who supported same-sex marriage would be equally as visible to church leadership.
How about Harry Reid in Nevada, who apparently criticized the Church's public stance against SSM (in Massachussets), and who had no (as far as I know) disciplinary action taken against him?
quote:And in fact I am paying for the preaching. If churches were taxed, its members would have to work a bit extra to support their preacher by donations, or else go without. That work which they are not doing is instead being shared out over the entire population, including me.
That's a bit of a stretch.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It is basic economic theory.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If the tax rate on foreign students was doubled, you would have to get a job or bring in outside money to make ends meet. That work or contributions of outside money is instead being shared across the entire population.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I know I should do my own homework here, but what was the original justification for making religions tax exempt? Was it because of their historical association with charity work, or was it to support religious organizations for their own sake? Or is tax exemption applied broadly to non-profits and religions just fall under that umbrella?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: If the tax rate on foreign students was doubled, you would have to get a job or bring in outside money to make ends meet. That work or contributions of outside money is instead being shared across the entire population.
Which would lead instantly to the loss of a huge number of foreign graduate students, and within a few years to the loss of the US's pre-eminent position in the sciences. But apart from this pragmatic consideration: We can certainly discuss what the tax rate ought to be, but it is unjust for it to be zero for some activities and not for other, extremely similar ones. I am willing to pay the same taxes as everyone else; I object when other people get a free ride on taxes that I have to pay. I understand that the events of 1776 happened because some radical enthusiasts felt similarly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:We can certainly discuss what the tax rate ought to be, but it is unjust for it to be zero for some activities and not for other, extremely similar ones.
Which extremely similar activities aren't eligible for the tax exemption that churches get?
[ June 30, 2008, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I'm disappointed too, because the doctrine really is unequivocal on the morality of gay marriage (and gay sex). I would think the leaders would trust the church members to apply what they've been taught without being told to go into political action on a specific initiative.
But then, the doctrine on the legislation of morality is less clear, at least to me. Perhaps that's where they thought the members needed some clarification: it really is OK to have the government enforce your religious rules, as long as they are supporting the right beliefs.
It's still deeply ironic, considering the church history of a little more than a century ago, that the church would support the government explicitly denying the right to marry to a small minority group. If anything the church should remember it might be better for the government to stay a little more disinterested when it comes to spiritual matters.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:I really wish I could make sense of this knot.
I can't begin to tell you how good it feels to not have to resolve issues like this. I never knew how taxing mental gymnastics was on me physically and emotionally until I was able to let go and accept I didn't believe.
Of all the emotions I expected to feel when I left the church, relief was not one of them. Now I can read what the church is doing with mild amusement instead of deep disagreements where I have to twist the doctrine or my feelings to make it mesh.
It is true you don't know how heavy a burden is until you feel its' absence.
*note: I don't think my experience is unique to leaving the LDS church. I speak in more global terms of trying to live something you truly don't believe, whether it be a career you never wanted, a homosexual trying to make heterosexuality work, or belonging to a religion that felt less and less true as you age and start having kids.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If you accept the premise that even divinely inspired human beings sometimes get it wrong, it is entirely possible to have faith without the gymnastics.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:If you accept the premise that even divinely inspired human beings sometimes get it wrong,
Unfortunately many people don't seem to accept that premise. (see: "arguing with the Lord" above) There's also the issue where the LDS church has certain contexts where the leaders cannot get it wrong. It's a doctrinal thing - the prophet speaking during General Conference is speaking for God. The First Presidency Letters I'm not so clear on. As official proclamations from the leaders of the church they seem to imply they are inerrant statements of doctrine, but I don't know if that's been made explicit or if it is left intentionally vague to allow for changing positions in the future.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that one of the worst things that the Catholic Church ever did was to foster the idea that we, as a church, can't make mistakes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I should think it's rather obvious that ballots dealing with gay marriage affect far more people than just the current population of homosexuals.
By "affect," do you mean "are of interest to" or actually "have an effect on?"
quote:How about Harry Reid in Nevada, who apparently criticized the Church's public stance against SSM (in Massachussets), and who had no (as far as I know) disciplinary action taken against him?
Since you've just said that members don't really have any way of knowing whether disciplinary action has been taken against another member, I'm not sure how to reply.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I think what's sad is that there are many people I knew in my old ward that would change their minds (or at least immediately dismiss any debate on the subject) on the vote because of such a letter. I know California Wards tend to be a little different from Utah Wards, but it still makes me worry.
The problem I see with letters like this from the First Presidency is twofold. One: it contradicts their periodic letters regarding the church's stance of political neutrality, and two: that it implies that voting against such an amendment is a sin (presuming going against God's word is a sin, and also that the First Presidency's word is the word of God.) Even if they don't come right out and say it, I feel making that implication is not going to help some members make wise, neutral choices in other elections.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem: I can't begin to tell you how good it feels to not have to resolve issues like this. I never knew how taxing mental gymnastics was on me physically and emotionally until I was able to let go and accept I didn't believe.
I agree with you 100%. In fact, this issue was one of the handful of reasons that I left the church.
When I was young, one of the things I most admired about the church was that they always told you to pray about the issues, and involve yourself in politics in whatever way you felt that the spirit and your conscience directed you. I remember many times being admonished by church leaders to take an active role in the democratic process. But every time this was said, the person saying it pointedly refused to tell us specifically how to vote on any issue.
Then the church's war on gay marriage entered the scene, and suddenly my conscience and the answers to my prayers weren't good enough. True, they weren't going to revoke my temple recommend for supporting gay rights. But they were making it very clear that in doing so I was going against the wishes of the church leadership.
According to Mormon doctrine, eternal salvation depends on much more than keeping a temple recommend and not being disfellowshipped. The requirements to enter the Celestial Kingdom are far more extensive than the temple interview, and although the bishop will never audit my ballot, God knows every choice I make. These types of proclamations take the choice out of my hands, and make it very clear whom I'm offending if I find it morally necessary to check the wrong box in the voting booth.
For the first time I found myself in a situation in which my conscience and the answers to my prayers were in direct opposition to an official church directive. If I voted my conscience, as I was always directed to do, I was going against the will of the prophets.
I tried and tried to justify voting in a way that went against all my Christian values. In the end I just couldn't make myself feel right about doing it. This isn't the sole reason that I left the church. But when I did leave the church, and was able to face this issue without pitting my conscience against my religion, it was a massive relief.
Reading this proclamation today made me feel like I'd been discharged from the military just before the government declared an unjust war. As much as I still love elements of this church, it's a great load off to be able to read this statement without having to justify supporting it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Since you've just said that members don't really have any way of knowing whether disciplinary action has been taken against another member, I'm not sure how to reply.
I said that I don't think there's any real way to enforce disciplinary measures on most members.
If Harry Reid were disciplined for his viewpoint or for his politics, I'd expect to hear about it in the national media.
quote:The problem I see with letters like this from the First Presidency is twofold. One: it contradicts their periodic letters regarding the church's stance of political neutrality
That neutrality extends to politicians, not necessarily to topics. The Church is not neutral, for example, when a state puts the legalization of gambling up for a legislative vote.
Again, from the Church's standpoint, this is a moral affair, and not a strictly political one.
quote: and two: that it implies that voting against such an amendment is a sin (presuming going against God's word is a sin, and also that the First Presidency's word is the word of God.) Even if they don't come right out and say it, I feel making that implication is not going to help some members make wise, neutral choices in other elections.
One CAN'T be neutral when going in to vote; one can be unbiased but that's completely different.
Neutrality defeats the purpose of voting, since voting at all presumes that one candidate/party/idea is favored over another.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:We can certainly discuss what the tax rate ought to be, but it is unjust for it to be zero for some activities and not for other, extremely similar ones.
Which extremely similar activities aren't eligible for the tax exemption that churches get?
I'm going to start a lecture club. The lecture club will consist of me, giving a talk every Sunday morning on some subject that interests me; and a bunch of members, who will support me by paying as much as they think the lecture was worth. Do you think I would get a tax exemption for this?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If you accept the premise that even divinely inspired human beings sometimes get it wrong, it is entirely possible to have faith without the gymnastics.
In that case, why have faith at all? Because now you are considering the tenets of your faith against your own judgement every time, and then you may as well just drop the religion and consider the tenets separately, including the tenets of other ideologies.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm going to start a lecture club. The lecture club will consist of me, giving a talk every Sunday morning on some subject that interests me; and a bunch of members, who will support me by paying as much as they think the lecture was worth. Do you think I would get a tax exemption for this?
Yes. Quite easily, assuming you're not violating the rules that other tax exempt organizations, including churches, have to follow.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In that case, why have faith at all?
Because faith is about more than belief.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
quote:That neutrality extends to politicians, not necessarily to topics. The Church is not neutral, for example, when a state puts the legalization of gambling up for a legislative vote.
Gambling is a straw man in this case. There's a whole bunch of other issues that come up when a State discusses legalized gambling that I don't see in a discussion about gay marriage.
The letters about political neutrality also include a clause that encourages members to vote their conscience. I don't recall any sentence in that letter that excludes the propositions or amendments on the ballot.
quote:Again, from the Church's standpoint, this is a moral affair, and not a strictly political one.
I would think that if not for the last paragraph of the letter where they encourage members to involve themselves in getting the amendment to pass. It is one thing to take the moral stance as a church as being against gay-marriage, and not performing them within your religion. It's another thing entirely to take that stance and encourage your members to vote as a block to impose the churches moral stance on others.
It is a moral affair, but IMO the Church, is extending their moral beliefs into the political sphere by supporting laws and amendments that impose their morality on others.
quote:One CAN'T be neutral when going in to vote; one can be unbiased but that's completely different.
Neutrality defeats the purpose of voting, since voting at all presumes that one candidate/party/idea is favored over another.
Neutral was a poor choice of words on my part. My point was that many members, if they perceive a certain set of topics to be the will of God will always vote for the candidate that says he supports/opposes such topics without looking at the candidate as a whole.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:We can certainly discuss what the tax rate ought to be, but it is unjust for it to be zero for some activities and not for other, extremely similar ones.
Which extremely similar activities aren't eligible for the tax exemption that churches get?
I'm going to start a lecture club. The lecture club will consist of me, giving a talk every Sunday morning on some subject that interests me; and a bunch of members, who will support me by paying as much as they think the lecture was worth. Do you think I would get a tax exemption for this?
Here is the federal regulation for tax exempt status. It is sufficiently broad to include the case you cited.
Also, I believe the tax exemption applies to the holdings of the club, not to the salary of the lecturer (or pastor). Thus your earlier assertion that as a graduate student you pay taxes is immaterial: employees of other tax-exempt non-profits pay taxes on salaries as well.
<edit> And here is an IRS document that tells you more than you should ever want to know about the interplay between tax-exempt, charitable organizations (an umbrella term that applies to churches, educational institutions, community groups and more) and election year political advocacy.</edit>
[ June 30, 2008, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
BTW, this is why a change to the tax laws that only removed the exemption for religious organizations would be discriminatory. I haven't analyzed it from a constitutional perspective, but denial of a significant government benefit to a lecture club simply because of the content of the lectures certainly raises significant issues.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If you accept the premise that even divinely inspired human beings sometimes get it wrong, it is entirely possible to have faith without the gymnastics.
In that case, why have faith at all? Because now you are considering the tenets of your faith against your own judgement every time, and then you may as well just drop the religion and consider the tenets separately, including the tenets of other ideologies.
You think that I don't consider the tenets of other ideologies? Why? And do you really think that a person or group of people must be infallible in order to have anything to teach? Belonging to a faith community, for me, is not really about being told what to think.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: Gambling is a straw man in this case. There's a whole bunch of other issues that come up when a State discusses legalized gambling that I don't see in a discussion about gay marriage.
It's not a straw man-- it may not be applicable to this argument, but it's not a straw man.
The Church decries legislation allowing gambling for the same purposes it decries legislation legitimizing homosexual relationships-- on a moral basis.
quote:Again, from the Church's standpoint, this is a moral affair, and not a strictly political one.
I would think that if not for the last paragraph of the letter where they encourage members to involve themselves in getting the amendment to pass. It is one thing to take the moral stance as a church as being against gay-marriage, and not performing them within your religion. It's another thing entirely to take that stance and encourage your members to vote as a block to impose the churches moral stance on others.
It is a moral affair, but IMO the Church, is extending their moral beliefs into the political sphere by supporting laws and amendments that impose their morality on others.[/quote]
All laws are based on some morality somewhere. As members of the community church members have the right to speak for what laws are enacted.
Like other organizations, the Church has the right to encourage people to take part in that conversation in a way that will help further the Church's purposes.
quote:My point was that many members, if they perceive a certain set of topics to be the will of God will always vote for the candidate that says he supports/opposes such topics without looking at the candidate as a whole.
This is one of my worries too. But I blame stupid members for this, not the leadership.
The First Presidency is acting correctly, according to their calling.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: BTW, this is why a change to the tax laws that only removed the exemption for religious organizations would be discriminatory. I haven't analyzed it from a constitutional perspective, but denial of a significant government benefit to a lecture club simply because of the content of the lectures certainly raises significant issues.
Ok, fair enough. I'm willing to be consistent: I believe that taxing churches is sufficiently important that lecture clubs should also be taxed.
quote:You think that I don't consider the tenets of other ideologies? Why?
You appear to have gone from my generic 'you' to a singular. But in fact, I don't think you have considered all the available evidence properly, because if you had, you'd reach a different conclusion.
quote:And do you really think that a person or group of people must be infallible in order to have anything to teach?
Obviously not. However, they do have to be infallible if their teachings are to be taken on faith.
quote:Belonging to a faith community, for me, is not really about being told what to think.
Well, just what the devil is it about? You have never to my knowledge articulated this except to say what it isn't.
Further, you are extremely atypical.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:All laws are based on some morality somewhere.
I don't think this is true. Laws against murder and theft, for example, are based on simple self-preservation. i think it's a bit of a stretch to call that morality.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Ok, fair enough. I'm willing to be consistent: I believe that taxing churches is sufficiently important that lecture clubs should also be taxed.
So are you moving away from what seemed to be your justification for taxing churches: "it is unjust for [the tax rate] to be zero for some activities and not for other, extremely similar ones"?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: BTW, this is why a change to the tax laws that only removed the exemption for religious organizations would be discriminatory. I haven't analyzed it from a constitutional perspective, but denial of a significant government benefit to a lecture club simply because of the content of the lectures certainly raises significant issues.
Ok, fair enough. I'm willing to be consistent: I believe that taxing churches is sufficiently important that lecture clubs should also be taxed.
How about universities?
quote:
quote:Belonging to a faith community, for me, is not really about being told what to think.
Well, just what the devil is it about? You have never to my knowledge articulated this except to say what it isn't.
Further, you are extremely atypical.
Being part of a faith community is about a lot of different things including:
Coming to gether to do good works Being sustained and supported Learning from each other about things that are important Being reminded of the things that are important Being a part of something bigger Worship and gratitude
For a start. And I am more typical that you think I am.
ETA: One of the most important reasons for me, as a Catholic, is sacrament. But that is a more involved discussion than I think you are willing/able to have about religion, so I'll stick with the more generic ones to start.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes. New justification: Religion causes harm and should therefore be taxed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Excellent. There's no chance that rationale will lead to change in this country, so I can safely ignore it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Coming together to do good works Being sustained and supported Learning from each other about things that are important Being reminded of the things that are important Being a part of something bigger
These things do not seem to require faith, as such. Any community might have as much.
quote:Worship and gratitude
And why do you want to worship anything? One may reasonably be happy to exist, but why insist that the cause is a divine being who can be the target of gratitude? I also point out that gratitude is worth its weight in gold. What have you done for your god lately? More to the point, perhaps, what have you done for your [i]parents[i/] lately? Surely that's a much closer place to look, if you wish to show gratitude.
quote:How about universities?
I am willing to tax universities. I think a case could be made for a compelling state interest in education, because it has a bunch of positive externalities. On the other hand, it does seem to me that the tax-free status of universities has led mainly to an increase in the number of social-science graduates, and not to the intended increase in engineering and science graduates. So I'm neutral on the subject - tax them or not, as you please.
Edit: In any case, universities don't seem to be listed on Dag's link, nor are they necessarily nonprofit organisations.
[ June 30, 2008, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Excellent. There's no chance that rationale will lead to change in this country, so I can safely ignore it.
Actually, now I think about it, "has no positive externalities" might have been better. You are no doubt correct about the political realities, but that is not what we were discussing.
Out of curiosity, suppose I came up with some reasoning that did have a chance of passing taxation on churches; we can assume that this is because it is fairly persuasive. What would be your reaction?
On the subject of tactics, how about "Taxing churches (and other charitable nonprofits) will allow us more money to fund Medicare and Social Security"? That might conceivably fly.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:All laws are based on some morality somewhere.
I don't think this is true. Laws against murder and theft, for example, are based on simple self-preservation. i think it's a bit of a stretch to call that morality.
Laws against murder and theft <edit> in the US </edit> were originally enacted based on a Judeo-Christian understanding of the ten commandments.
They have thus far been preserved because of the appeal to self-preservation. Which is the lowest common denominator of the set of morality systems our society currently finds acceptable.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Laws against murder and theft were originally enacted based on a Judeo-Christian understanding of the ten commandments.
Are you seriously intending to claim that Hammurabi (ca 1700 BCE) was a Christian? Because those are the earliest known laws against murder and theft.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Even then you are wrong. The US had <edit> laws against </edit> murder and theft because there had always been laws against murder and theft. The US states borrowed their laws from those of England, which got them from the Saxons, who had them from their pre-Christian ancestors.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Laws against murder and theft were originally enacted based on a Judeo-Christian understanding of the ten commandments.
Huh? Do you really think that indiscriminate theft and murder were the norm prior to Judaism?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Even then you are wrong. The US had murder and theft because there had always been laws against murder and theft. The US states borrowed their laws from those of England, which got them from the Saxons, who had them from their pre-Christian ancestors.
I'm unaware of there being a significant recognized pre-Christian law base in England. Could you point me to a reference?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Coming together to do good works Being sustained and supported Learning from each other about things that are important Being reminded of the things that are important Being a part of something bigger
These things do not seem to require faith, as such. Any community might have as much.
Except that the "something bigger" is pretty specifically about God.
quote:
quote: Worship and gratitude
And why do you want to worship anything? One may reasonably be happy to exist, but why insist that the cause is a divine being who can be the target of gratitude? I also point out that gratitude is worth its weight in gold. What have you done for your god lately? More to the point, perhaps, what have you done for your [i]parents[i/] lately? Surely that's a much closer place to look, if you wish to show gratitude.
I can't be grateful to more than one?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Laws against murder and theft <edit> in the US </edit> were originally enacted based on a Judeo-Christian understanding of the ten commandments.
There is a lot of literature, contemporary to the drafting of our constitution, much of it written by those who drafted the constitution. You'll be hard pressed to find much mention of the 10 commandments. They don't get a single mention in the Federalist Papers, though other historic systems of law are discussed.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Even then you are wrong. The US had murder and theft because there had always been laws against murder and theft. The US states borrowed their laws from those of England, which got them from the Saxons, who had them from their pre-Christian ancestors.
I'm unaware of there being a significant recognized pre-Christian law base in England. Could you point me to a reference?
I assume you are not asking for a reference for the existence of laws against murder in pre-Christian England. Rather, you want evidence that this base of (probably oral) law influenced the later common law that was written down. Right? For this, take a look here .
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Except that the "something bigger" is pretty specifically about God.
Presumably, you would not get the same feeling of belonging to something larger than yourself if you knew that the larger entity had been invented precisely for that purpose. So why your insistence that you don't need evidence? I don't see how you can maintain on the one hand that you want to belong to something larger than yourself, and on the other that this justifies your belief in that entity.
quote:I can't be grateful to more than one?
Certainly, but why the insistence on a divine creator to be grateful to, for which you have no evidence? Why make up additional entities to express gratitude to? Are you so addicted to the feeling? Also, you didn't answer my question about the worship.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It seems that you are now moving from the "why belong to such a community" question to why believe in God. I have no wish to try to convince you to believe in God.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I had the impression that is what we were discussing all along. I am quite aware of why people want to belong to communities. What I'm asking is why they define communities around gods.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I am quite aware of why people want to belong to communities. What I'm asking is why they define communities around gods.
Good question. I think that's a historical question though. As to why people join religions for community now, it's because that's where the communities are.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In any case, universities don't seem to be listed on Dag's link, nor are they necessarily nonprofit organisations.
They are educational organizations, listed right there in the list.
quote:Out of curiosity, suppose I came up with some reasoning that did have a chance of passing taxation on churches; we can assume that this is because it is fairly persuasive. What would be your reaction?
The same thing I would do whenever someone comes up with a policy argument on an issue I care about: evaluate it and form my own opinion on it.
quote:On the subject of tactics, how about "Taxing churches (and other charitable nonprofits) will allow us more money to fund Medicare and Social Security"? That might conceivably fly.
So would dropping the payroll tax cap for FICA. Since there are an infinite number of ways to change the tax code to provide more money, you'd need something more to gain traction with this argument.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
KoM and Matt-
I read both the Anglo-Saxon page and the common law page. Perhaps it's not a subject sufficiently summarized by wikipedia, but to my reading neither provided evidence for a non-Christian basis for laws regarding theft and murder. The anglo-saxon article made a point to say
quote:Very few law codes exist from the Anglo-Saxon period, giving insight into legal culture
And those that do exist come from a time after the introduction of Christianity.
The common law is traced to a system "developed under the inquisitorial system in England during the 12th and 13th centuries" in which judicial decisions based on "tradition, custom, and precedent" were used. Where those traditions came from is not explored in the wikipedia article. Presumably, much of that precedent was set by pre-Norman county courts, which were presided over by a Bishop and Sherriff and which exercised both ecclesiastical and civil jurisdiction. So, by my reading, the precedence for common law was set by Bishops, acting in their capacity as interpreters of the Biblical law.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Edit: This is in response to MattP. I ahve to do some work now and won't be posting for a while. If you see me posting in the next three hours, please don't encourage my laziness by responding.
Ok, good point. But you could presumably join for the community aspects without accepting the faith - Unitarian churches, for example, are explicitly set up to allow this. So, let me rephrase the question with some recap of ancient forum history from my viewpoint.
1. Kmb has never presented any evidence for the existence of her god. 2. She has asserted that evidence is not relevant, that she simply "chooses to believe". 3. The reasons given for this choice to believe are, apparently, the ones listed above.
Of these, we have agreed that some are just community-related, no faith required. The rest, it seems to me, depend on having a god to feel part of, worship, or be grateful to. But surely the desire for these activities - which I also don't understand, but each to her own - cannot form the basis for a belief that the god in question exists! It appears to me that kmb is saying
1. I want to worship something. 2. Therefore, something exists which I can worship. 3. Therefore I choose to believe in that something, so I may worship it.
I cannot fathom how she is able to live with this. How can you worship something that you apparently invented for the explicit purpose of worshipping it? Knowing that you personally invented it, how can you feel it is larger than yourself? I don't believe an intelligent person can believe anything of this sort, but I also don't see what else kmb is advancing as her reason to believe - especially in light of her assertion that evidence doesn't matter.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The issue I have with the statement is it assumes morality is a reason to vote in favor of a certain law. I think that is a huge assumption to make and a lot of people here seem to agree with me on that. I think that the statement would have done better if it had straight out addressed that issue.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Your (first) #3 at least is incorrect.
I was only giving a partial answer to this particular question:
quote:
quote:Belonging to a faith community, for me, is not really about being told what to think.
Well, just what the devil is it about? You have never to my knowledge articulated this except to say what it isn't.
edit to add: "Belonging to a faith community is not the same thing as "having faith".
[ June 30, 2008, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I have twice written nice long posts and both got eaten. So, I'm giving up. Clearly the universe does not want me to post.
Whenever I write a post that's longer than a few lines, I select-all and copy before hitting "Add Reply". That way, if it gets eaten, I can resend it without having to rewrite it.
I have learned the same lesson, actually. Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I have twice written nice long posts and both got eaten. So, I'm giving up. Clearly the universe does not want me to post.
Whenever I write a post that's longer than a few lines, I select-all and copy before hitting "Add Reply". That way, if it gets eaten, I can resend it without having to rewrite it.
ok, eaten wasn't quite the right word. More like baby came over just before I hit add reply and restarted my computer. And then the second time, I got up to get baby and tripped over the cord, pulling it out, which cut off the power before the computer had time to load stuff. So, perhaps baby was more the force stopping me.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
KoM, I don't see any problem with believing in God but still understanding science as it relates to the world around us.
That fact that you do says more about yourself than it does about religion. I don't mean that in a bad way, either.
Why would you avoid a community just because they believe in something you don't. let alone constantly and consistently go out or your way to insult and belittle them because of it?
Because you do, you know. On Hatrack you do it all the time....or at least you did in the past.
Science, to me, is about how things work. Religion is about why things matter. I can't point to a thought, but I realize they exist. I can't put my finger on an emotion, yet I feel them.
And please don't day that we "know" those exist because we have felt them or experienced them ourselves...one of the first rules of scientific experimentation is observer bias. Our perceptions filter everything we experience.
Just because you haven't experienced something yourself doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I see God...AND science...all around me every day, and I wonder how you do not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If Harry Reid were disciplined for his viewpoint or for his politics, I'd expect to hear about it in the national media.
Why? Do you think he or his bishop would share that information?
quote: Like other organizations, the Church has the right to encourage people to take part in that conversation in a way that will help further the Church's purposes.
I think it's heartbreaking that the First Presidency thinks that this issue is apparently worth praying about and reaching a firm political conclusion on, but not the wars in the Middle East, the fuel crisis, etc. Disappointing a few homosexuals is apparently more important to God than, say, taking a firm stand against mass murder or something. There are so many ways in which someone able to ask God about the viability of certain political measures might be able to do some good; this is not one that I'd put on the top of my list, either way.
---------------
quote:Science, to me, is about how things work. Religion is about why things matter. I can't point to a thought, but I realize they exist. I can't put my finger on an emotion, yet I feel them.
And please don't day that we "know" those exist because we have felt them or experienced them ourselves...
But that is precisely how we know they exist. And they only exist -- and I'm speaking here as a materialist, mind you -- in that we perceive them. Emotions and thoughts are given existence by our awareness of them. An emotion that is unperceived is an emotion that never existed.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think it's heartbreaking that the First Presidency thinks that this issue is apparently worth praying about and reaching a firm political conclusion on, but not the wars in the Middle East, the fuel crisis, etc. Disappointing a few homosexuals is apparently more important to God than, say, taking a firm stand against mass murder or something. There are so many ways in which someone able to ask God about the viability of certain political measures might be able to do some good; this is not one that I'd put on the top of my list, either way.
I agree wholeheartedly, except to add (probably unnecessarily) that this is not unique to LDS authority. It is far too true of public religious expression, especially in this country*. Hopefully, there is a movement among faith communities to "take back" religious/political discourse. We are hearing more and more voices addressing issues of poverty, war, social justice, and environmental stewardship from a faithful perspective.
edit to add: this has not always been true. Abolition, workers' rights, poverty, war, civil rights were all examples of the confluence of political action and religious expression.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Science, to me, is about how things work. Religion is about why things matter. I can't point to a thought, but I realize they exist. I can't put my finger on an emotion, yet I feel them.
And please don't day that we "know" those exist because we have felt them or experienced them ourselves...
But that is precisely how we know they exist. And they only exist -- and I'm speaking here as a materialist, mind you -- in that we perceive them. Emotions and thoughts are given existence by our awareness of them. An emotion that is unperceived is an emotion that never existed.
Which is why science will never replace religion in my world view, Tom.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Churches can (and do) lose their tax exempt status for certain forms of political speech. I'm not 100% sure on where the line is, but I'm pretty sure that supporting (or arguing against) a particular law change is well inside the lines.
Supporting a particular candidate from the pulpit is another matter entirely. That's I believe, where some formerly tax exempt organizations lost their privileges.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: edit to add: "Belonging to a faith community is not the same thing as "having faith".
It seems to me that there are two parts. First part: Belonging to a community. We all understand the benefits of this; they're in your first four points. Second part: Having faith. If you don't have faith, it's not a faith community, right? So, the reason you are part of a faith community, as opposed to some other community, must be very strongly connected with the reasons you have faith in the first place.
quote:KoM, I don't see any problem with believing in God but still understanding science as it relates to the world around us.
Well, if you are willing to live with
a) Having a reliable way to find out how things work b) Not applying that method to huge tracts of your life
then sure, there's no problem. I prefer to be consistent over all parts of my beliefs.
quote:Religion is about why things matter.
Really? Suppose I were able to flick a switch and turn off your belief in your god. Would you commit suicide through having nothing to live for?
quote:Just because you haven't experienced something yourself doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Just because you have experienced something doesn't mean it exists.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:KoM, I don't see any problem with believing in God but still understanding science as it relates to the world around us.
Well, if you are willing to live with
a) Having a reliable way to find out how things work b) Not applying that method to huge tracts of your life
then sure, there's no problem. I prefer to be consistent over all parts of my beliefs.
I am quite willing to live with that. Different kinds of questions have different kinds of answers and different methods for finding those answers. I see no reason to treat every type of experience the same way or to think that there is only one way to think about those experiences. I think that having only the one "tool" (even a very reliable one) for understanding is a bit narrow and limiting.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Different kinds of questions have different kinds of answers and different methods for finding those answers.
The question "Is there a god" is an empirical one, on the same order as "Are there stars outside our galaxy" or "How many planets are there". For this kind of question we use science.
Edit: That is, I do. You don't.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The question "Is there a god" is an empirical one, on the same order as "Are there stars outside our galaxy" or "How many planets are there". For this kind of question we use science.
Not for empirical questions about phenomenon outside the natural world.
If you want to say, "then 'Is there a God?' is not an empirical question" then I'm fine with that, too.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
In what way is your god outside the natural world? Does it, for example, have no effect on the world? In that case, I do not see how you can assert its existence.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's old ground, KoM, gone over ad nauseum to our mutual dissatisfaction.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Perhaps a better question is not whether God exists or not, but if God produces measurable effects in the natural world. I'm much more inclined to accept the fact that there exists a Supreme Being, but that he simply does not interact with the world in any measurable way, and as such is entirely unknowable.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't understand what it means to believe in such a god. What would you do differently, or what would you expect to be different about the world, if you didn't believe in it?
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Is the infinite measurable?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I think it's heartbreaking that the First Presidency thinks that this issue is apparently worth praying about and reaching a firm political conclusion on, but not the wars in the Middle East, the fuel crisis, etc. Disappointing a few homosexuals is apparently more important to God than, say, taking a firm stand against mass murder or something. There are so many ways in which someone able to ask God about the viability of certain political measures might be able to do some good; this is not one that I'd put on the top of my list, either way.
I don't think there's a scale; this issue is what is getting attention right now because it's a huge moral delta.
Yes-- the moral change to social acceptance of homosexuality is larger than the moral change to acceptance of America's role in the wars in the middle east.
I hope your heart finds comfort in the fact that you're an American citizen, and thus you have the right to speak out for whatever you feel is just.
I think that the reasons for the doctrine underlying this letter have been discussed fairly extensively here; they shouldn't be a mystery to anyone.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: Is the infinite measurable?
No. But you haven't even shown that there is anything to measure, much less that it is infinite.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, while the infinite may not be measurable, when measuring it you will at least get the answer "very large". Your god, on the other hand, is very consistently returning an answer of "zero".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, He's not.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
After subtracting effects known to be internal to the human mind, that is.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, He's not.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Eh. I can see we are not going to agree on the point. In any case, I am more interested in kmb's internal justifications than the actual existence of her god. I know perfectly well she is wrong; what I want to know is how she reconciles the statements I mentioned earlier.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: No, He's not.
I typed up about four responses to King of Men's post, then refreshed the page and found that you've used one of my considerations already. I applaud your wisdom.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Different kinds of questions have different kinds of answers and different methods for finding those answers. I see no reason to treat every type of experience the same way or to think that there is only one way to think about those experiences. I think that having only the one "tool" (even a very reliable one) for understanding is a bit narrow and limiting.
QFT
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: No, He's not.
That's certainly a compelling argument. I've just converted.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Yes-- the moral change to social acceptance of homosexuality is larger than the moral change to acceptance of America's role in the wars in the middle east.
The idea that one's soul is imperiled more easily by permitting other people to marry the person they wish than by endorsing or committing the wrongful murder of thousands of people is one that I consider to be an excellent example of the "harms" of religion.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The idea that one's soul is imperiled more easily by permitting other people to marry the person they wish than by endorsing or committing the wrongful murder of thousands of people is one that I consider to be an excellent example of the "harms" of religion.
Good thing no one's arguing this.
EDIT: Church leaders are certainly not "endorsing or committing murder" via NOT making public statements against the war. (Though I've noticed that many more talks in General Conference seem to reference dissatisfaction with the way things are being handled on the world stage; might be my own prejudices.)
Incidentally, do you believe that the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are committing murder right now in their fight against insurgents?
Maybe a different thread topic...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Good thing no one's arguing this.
Sure they are. Because at any time, God could have the Mormons weigh in on either side of the global warming debate, or our wars in the Middle East, or the Tibet or Burma or Zimbabwe situations, or the fuel crisis, or any other actually important issue. These are political issues which hinge on open questions: we don't know for a certainty what the best thing to do is, and it'd sure be helpful to have God weigh in (even if just in proxy, through the votes of a couple hundred million Mormons).
On the other hand, we have gay marriage. And presumably the consequences of gay marriage are somehow so horrible that all these other open questions are going to be answered later, if ever. It seems odd to me for God to provide input only on those topics which are meaningless matters of opinion, but YMMV.
quote:Incidentally, do you believe that the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are committing murder right now in their fight against insurgents?
I believe that some of them are. And I believe that their presence is also causing additional murders to be committed by other parties. Moreover, our involvement in the Middle East is not the only situation in which our general uncertainty about the "right" decision is causing confusion and great harm; it would be very handy to have God formulate an opinion on some other things, too.
[ July 01, 2008, 07:54 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That's certainly a compelling argument. I've just converted.
No comment on KoM;s bald assertions?
It's interesting you chose to comment on only one side of an exchange in which both parties chose to simply assert opposite conclusions without making argument or citing supporting evidence.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:couple hundred millions Mormons
Currently, about 12-13 million Mormons worldwide.
Why doesn't God say something about all the wars, and genocides and so forth?
Well-- He has. And there's no real question among the people who claim to listen to him (of any religious stripe), and no real question among those who are in power (in the West anyway) about what He thinks.
God's opinion about those things isn't really where the challenge is-- it's in our actions toward stopping those things.
The Church has taken the position that the best platform for improving the world is through forming families that live according to God's will. Thus, the missionary effort. Thus, the emphasis on stable marriages. Thus, practically all the programs of the Church.
There is currently a question about what sexual behavior is acceptable. The letter from the First Presidency informs people what the Church's position is (and presumably, God's position).
quote:And presumably the consequences of gay marriage are somehow so horrible that all these other open questions are going to be answered later, if ever.
Like I said, the reasons for the Mormon position on why homosexuality is a sin have been explored on this site before. In depth.
Are you looking for this information, Tom?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And there's no real question among the people who claim to listen to him (of any religious stripe), and no real question among those who are in power (in the West anyway) about what He thinks.
I'm not talking about the question of whether wrongful killing is sinful; that's as useless a question as whether homosexuality is sinful. I'm talking about the question of whether Mormons should be supporting a specific instance of legislation that might have as a side effect some wrongful killing. God could provide some helpful information to His flock in those cases, but He'd apparently rather weigh in about whether gay people can call their contracts "marriage" or not.
quote:There is currently a question about what sexual behavior is acceptable.
Ah. But the question is not whether this sexual behavior is acceptable; the church long ago made its position on that one clear. The question is whether certain forms of recognition of couples that might be reasonably assumed to engage in this unacceptable sexual behavior should be legal in a given state.
Interestingly, God has an opinion on that issue. And yet I think whether the war in Iraq is a good idea or not is also an open question, and arguably one that's of more immediate (and lasting) importance to not only our country but several other ones. No one has died from gay marriage yet.
quote:Like I said, the reasons for the Mormon position on why homosexuality is a sin have been explored on this site before. In depth. Are you looking for this information, Tom?
The question is not why Mormons think homosexuality is a sin, or whether they are right to do so. Mormons think drinking coffee is a sin.
The question is why the First Presidency thinks God cares more about looking the other way when two homosexuals hold hands than about looking the other way when -- as a random example -- a genocide is occurring in another country. Like I said, there are lots of things we could use God's input on; how to react to homosexuals is hardly at the top of the list of things that will actually matter. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The question is not why Mormons think homosexuality is a sin....
The question is why the First Presidency thinks God cares more about looking the other way when two homosexuals hold hands than about looking the other way when -- as a random example -- a genocide is occurring in another country. Like I said, there are lots of things we could use God's input on; how to react to homosexuals is hardly at the top of the list of things that will actually matter.
The answer is to your question is wrapped up in the doctrine that you just discounted.
So, how exactly did you want me to answer you?
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
If marriage didn't invovle children, I honestly don't think the first presidency would bother to make it a political issue. But they see themselves as acting for children--it says right in the letter that the reason for the legislation is that a child has the right to be raised is by a mother and a father.
There's no hate mongering, no "because of the pernicious evil that homosexuality represents," none of that. It's just them seeing themselves as serving children who otherwise wouldn't have a say.
I realize that some people find this idea at best quaint and at worst offensive. And I'm not putting it out there to persuade, but more to help the Presidency be understood.
I realize the implication would probably be taken as that homosexual people are inherently less capable of raising children--that's not it at all. The church never would say any individual homosexual person was a bad parent. They simply feel that the ideal situation for the child is to have another parent of the opposite gender.
The same would be true of me. If I were to be in a situation where I was raising my children alone, the church would believe it would be good for my child to have a mother. If my brother were to move in with me and help me raise the kids, nobody would ever dream of saying, "Boy those brothers sure are bad parents." They'd know we loved the kids and were trying hard. But they'd still feel bad for the kids for not having a mother's influence.
So it's not about the homosexual--it's about the child. I hope that even if you don't agree with that (and I don't expect a lot of you to) you can at least see how it doesn't neccessarily imply that a homosexual is inherently a bad parent, and why the issue of marriage is one they speak out on.
They are not advocating illegalizing homosexuality in any way. They are simply acting to preserve a right they feel children have that children cannot act to preserve themselves.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The question is why the First Presidency thinks God cares more about looking the other way when two homosexuals hold hands than about looking the other way when -- as a random example -- a genocide is occurring in another country.
Tom this is incredibly dishonest of you. It's clear that the First Presidency doesn't think that what God cares about is two homosexuals holding hands.
This is your old trick - restating what other's believe to "refute" it. It's tiresome.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's clear that the First Presidency doesn't think that what God cares about is two homosexuals holding hands.
Yes, this is clear. It's clear enough, in fact, that I felt obvious hyperbole would make the point in a semi-humorous fashion.
The gist of my point is this: that the public acceptance of homosexuality is seen as something deserving of the authoritative input of a divinely omniscient being and yet the avoidance of mass slaughter is not is something that is a clear and obvious harm of religion. Every single man-hour spent working on this ballot initiative is a Mormon man-hour spent not working on, say, world peace or saving other people from starvation or, well, basically anything actually worthwhile.
--------
quote:But they see themselves as acting for children--it says right in the letter that the reason for the legislation is that a child has the right to be raised is by a mother and a father.
And that's a line of b***, of course, unless the First Presidency is also out there urging the illegality of divorce and insisting that single individuals be prevented from using adoption agencies. Heck, one might wonder where all the children we're saving from same-sex parents are coming from in the first place.
quote:They simply feel that the ideal situation for the child is to have another parent of the opposite gender.
Sure. And of course, any situation but the ideal must actually be discouraged by state law.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The gist of my point is this: that the public acceptance of homosexuality is seen as something deserving of the authoritative input of a divinely omniscient being and yet the avoidance of mass slaughter is not is something that is a clear and obvious harm of religion. Every single man-hour spent working on this ballot initiative is a Mormon man-hour spent not working on, say, world peace or saving other people from starvation or, well, basically anything actually worthwhile.
I've actually already answered this objection, Tom.
It's okay that you don't believe my answer.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: If my brother were to move in with me and help me raise the kids, nobody would ever dream of saying, "Boy those brothers sure are bad parents." They'd know we loved the kids and were trying hard. But they'd still feel bad for the kids for not having a mother's influence.
So it's not about the homosexual--it's about the child. I hope that even if you don't agree with that (and I don't expect a lot of you to) you can at least see how it doesn't neccessarily imply that a homosexual is inherently a bad parent, and why the issue of marriage is one they speak out on.
I think if is obviously false that the Church looks at homosexuals raising kids in a MUCH different light then two brothers raising kids.
If setting up and condoning a sinful environment where one of the most egregious sins (sexual sins) is accepted is not an inherently bad parent in the church's eye, I am not sure what is bad.
Sex sins tend to fall below murder and above everything else.
It very much is about the sinfulness of homosexuality and the destructiveness on the family of accepting homosexuality--ergo bad parenthood.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I've actually already answered this objection, Tom.
Oh, I know. Your answer was that it is more important to God that homosexuals not get married than we not make horrible policy mistakes that kill people.
I believe you believe this. And, like I said, I believe this belief is an obvious and demonstrable harm caused by religion.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I didn't say that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Can you explain to me the distinction between what you said and what I'm saying you said? I don't see one.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The Church has taken the position that the best platform for improving the world is through forming families that live according to God's will.
In all of human history, I wonder if there has ever been a more popular moral justification for committing religious atrocities than this one.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I didn't assign value to one or the other options.
I said that the reason the First Presidency is issuing this letter right now is because there is a cultural shift occurring that is out of the norm.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Just because someone distorts something good for evil ends doesn't mean that the original wasn't good in the first place. "Though all things foul should wear the brow of grace, grace must still look so."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Oh, I know. Your answer was that it is more important to God that homosexuals not get married than we not make horrible policy mistakes that kill people.
I believe you believe this. And, like I said, I believe this belief is an obvious and demonstrable harm caused by religion.
Tom, are you kidding? Did you really believe that Scott believed it was more important to God that homosexual marriage be stopped than wars and such?
You're either lying about believing Scott believed that, or so far removed from anything near the things you're criticizing that one wonders how you get the nerve to do so in the first place.
I wouldn't normally accuse you of lying like that, but your statement is just baffling and offensive.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I said that the reason the First Presidency is issuing this letter right now is because there is a cultural shift occurring that is out of the norm.
Yes. Is it not your opinion that a similar letter at the beginning of a major war, or prior to the worst of a genocide, or before an oil crisis, etc. would be as useful? Is this cultural shift really more important than all those other political issues of which God could presumably warn us?
quote:Did you really believe that Scott believed it was more important to God that homosexual marriage be stopped than wars and such?
I believe that Scott has failed to fully examine the pecularities of the situation. It is also possible that he underestimates the good millions of Mormon voters could do if organized on the divinely-correct side of a difficult political issue.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I believe that Scott has failed to fully examine the pecularities of the situation.
Yeah, he's always struck me as a thoughtless, sloppy person when it comes to personal beliefs and convictions and such. Fortunately for him, you're there to examine his discipline, find it wanting (as opposed to seeking an alternative explanation), and instruct him on how best to correct it.
How thoughtful!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Is this cultural shift really more important than all those other political issues of which God could presumably warn us?
He HAS warned us about those-- repeatedly. And there's no cultural shift saying "War is GRAND! Genocide is A-OK! Oil Crisis-shmisis-- consume more!"
quote:I believe that Scott has failed to fully examine the pecularities of the situation. It is also possible that he underestimates the good millions of Mormon voters could do if organized on the divinely-correct side of a difficult political issue.
I believe the First Presidency is on the correct path right now, inasmuch as I understand Mormon doctrine.
So, if the thousands of Mormon voters in CA align their efforts with the First Presidency's letter, I think they'll be doing what is right.
(Not necessarily what is legal, from a Constitutional standpoint)
As for my examination of the peculiarities of the situation-- It's sweet you're concerned, Tom. But I've got this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Interestingly, you are doing to me here exactly what Scott is saying I'm doing to him. And with considerably less accuracy.
I am not saying Scott is thoughtless or sloppy; these are not necessary conclusions drawn from what I have said. I am saying that the fact that God has apparently seen fit to instruct the First Presidency on this issue and not on any other political issue of interest can be assumed to reflect the priorities of either God or the First Presidency.
-------
quote:He HAS warned us about those-- repeatedly. And there's no cultural shift saying "War is GRAND! Genocide is A-OK! Oil Crisis-shmisis-- consume more!"
I think we've identified the point of disagreement, then. I do see just such a "cultural shift," although really it's more of a cultural tendency. I see Mormons urged to produce large families; I see Mormons voting overwhelmingly for leaders rushing us into war and ignoring genocides elsewhere. I do not see Mormons sitting around going, "Gee, looking at all these gay people getting married makes me wonder whether family is really very important."
Mormon leadership has chosen not to provide guidance on the issue of, for example, whether global warming really is something people should take seriously, but rather on whether the people of California should be able to marry other people of the same sex. This despite the fact that there is no pressing demand among Mormons to suddenly start throwing their families away and living like libertines, while there is substantial dispute among Mormons about whether or not we should have signed the Kyoto Protocol.
(Note: I'm using Mormons here only as an example of a group who could presumably fill their ballot out according to the will of God but clearly do not, not because I think they're particularly prone to mistakes or evil or anything.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I am saying that the fact that God has apparently seen fit to instruct the First Presidency on this issue and not on any other political issue of interest can be assumed to reflect the priorities of either God or the First Presidency.
And your mistake is in assuming that priorities are set only by the desirability of the outcome of the action decided upon.
There are many other factors - such as the expected efficacy of a particular action, to take just one example - that factor into such a decision.
It's very possible that someone who thinks X is worse than Y will take a particular action against Y and not take that particular action against X. There are many reasons why this might be so.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: The church never would say any individual homosexual person was a bad parent. They simply feel that the ideal situation for the child is to have another parent of the opposite gender.
The same would be true of me. If I were to be in a situation where I was raising my children alone, the church would believe it would be good for my child to have a mother. If my brother were to move in with me and help me raise the kids, nobody would ever dream of saying, "Boy those brothers sure are bad parents." They'd know we loved the kids and were trying hard. But they'd still feel bad for the kids for not having a mother's influence.
The problem, for me, is the massive difference between the way the church deals with single-parent issues and gay marriage issues.
I think we can say without too much controversy that, all other things being equal, single parents are at a decided disadvantage when raising children compared to double-parent households. Even the single parents themselves would probably agree with this statement.
And yet, when children are put in such an unambiguously disadvantageous position, the church does not try to outlaw single-parent households.
On the contrary, I've heard many prophets and apostles state in general conference that, although this situation presents a disadvantage to both parent and child, the church admires them for undertaking such a difficult and vital task, and offers these families the full support of the church and its members.
This is a beautiful and admirable example of the good that organized religion can accomplish. I'm not the product of a single-parent household, but I know people that were, and I know that this support was invaluable to them. Whenever I heard anyone say this in conference, it would bring a tear to my eye, and I'd thank God that I was a member.
I don't personally think that any two-parent household has an advantage over another based solely upon the sexual relationship of the parents. But the church does, and that (in itself) is fine.
Once the church has made that decision, though, I expected them to show the same beautiful gesture of love and support to gay parents/guardians and their dependents that they did to single parents. At first it surprised me that they chose a completely opposite strategy in dealing with them.
Not only do they not support gay parents, not only do they not allow members of their own church to gain those benefits from membership, but they actively try to outlaw marriage to any gay couples, Mormon or not, children or not.
It would seem to me that, even if being raised by gay parents is a disadvantage, it would be in the best interests of the children if those disadvantaged family units were allowed as much stability as possible, starting with marriage [edit: legal, secular marriage, not necessarily church or temple marriage], and continuing with the full support of community and church. The church doesn't have to approve of homosexuality, any more than it has to ignore the disadvantages of single-parent child rearing. But it seems pretty clear that the child's interests would be best served by as much support from church and community as possible in their disadvantaged situation.
In fact, if the church is trying to discourage homosexual relationships, they may very well have better results from loving, supportive persuasion than by trying to outlaw it.
In other words, President Monson may learn something valuable if he puts down the Book of Mormon long enough to skim through some Aesop
[ July 01, 2008, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Speed ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There are many other factors - such as the expected efficacy of a particular action, to take just one example - that factor into such a decision.
I earlier commented that another possibility was that Scott was underestimating the potential for good inherent in millions of mobilized Mormon voters -- much less the potential available to, say, Mormon climatologists, who would surely like the First Presidency to send them a letter suggesting useful lines of research.
quote:It's very possible that someone who thinks X is worse than Y will take a particular action against Y and not take that particular action against X.
Which is why I didn't say that God clearly thought gay marriage was worse than wrongful war. I noted merely that God apparently thought gay marriage was a higher priority and more deserving of the action and attentions of His flock.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I earlier commented that another possibility was that Scott was underestimating the potential for good inherent in millions of mobilized Mormon voters -- much less the potential available to, say, Mormon climatologists, who would surely like the First Presidency to send them a letter suggesting useful lines of research.
Perhaps, though, God isn't underestimating the potential for good inherent in such actions.
quote:Which is why I didn't say that God clearly thought gay marriage was worse than wrongful war. I noted merely that God apparently thought gay marriage was a higher priority and more deserving of the action and attentions of His flock.
No, you "noted" much more than that:
quote:The question is why the First Presidency thinks God cares more about looking the other way when two homosexuals hold hands than about looking the other way when -- as a random example -- a genocide is occurring in another country.
Even adjusting for you "hyperbole," you explicitly state that God cares more about looking the other way on the gay marriage issue than genocide in another country.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Let me make this perfectly clear:
If the Church observed a radical political change that led to government endorsement of murder, genocide, adultery, or whatever, there will be just as much outrage. Here are the reasons that homosexuality is a big deal in the Church:
1. A lot of people think it's okay, even righteous. 2. It's happening right at home. 3. It may well lead to more-than-necessary government instruction of the Church.
I don't agree with homosexuality being made into such a big deal (on either side of the issue), regardless of these reasons. But let's be clear that it has nothing to do with priorities in religious doctrine; much more about political fervor.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:you explicitly state that God cares more about looking the other way on the gay marriage issue than genocide in another country
Yes, that would be part of the hyperbole. I'm not seriously asserting that the Christian God doesn't care about genocide; I'm seriously asserting that some of humans are wrong about the actionable priorities we're ascribing to the Christian God.
quote:If the Church observed a radical political change that led to government endorsement of murder, genocide, adultery, or whatever, there will be just as much outrage.
I disagree. I think the last eight years are ample proof of the falseness of this claim; the idea that gay marriage is a hot-button issue now in a way that the invasion of Iraq was not is one that I simply can't grant. But maybe you're right about adultery; we don't have any measure there to compare it to.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
The obvious response is that the invasion of Iraq is not perceived as genocide or cold-blooded murder by many members of the Church, rather it is our (America's) attempt to stand against genocide and cold-blooded murder.
And let me tell you that there is much effort and outspokenness about Darfur and Sudan and, yes, Bush's apparent deception, using crummy intelligence to justify the war in Iraq, in the Christian community, especially where I live. There is a majority of those who oppose the war, and a majority of Christians. That means, statistically, that there is overlap. Your problem seems to be more with fanatical Republicans than fanatical Christians, groups than only overlap because the former has been patronizing the latter for a generation.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: And let me tell you that there is much effort and outspokenness about Darfur and Sudan and, yes, Bush's apparent deception, using crummy intelligence to justify the war in Iraq, in the Christian community, especially where I live.
I've got to agree with Tom on this one. Presumably, God wasn't fooled by Bush's crummy intelligence. Presumably, He knew that many members of His church would have made a decision about whether to support this war that they wouldn't have made if they had all the correct information.
If God had a mouthpiece on Earth that was able to give several million American citizens (and a few federal legislators) relevant data that would have helped them make an informed decision about whether to support a war in Iraq, it seems like that would have been at least as good a time to read a short message in sacrament meeting as last weekend was.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Your problem seems to be more with fanatical Republicans than fanatical Christians...
I've hit some liberal talking points, but really I'm not trying to be partisan, here. If God does indeed have valuable information that He could share with people about vitally important political issues, that the First Presidency chooses only to share information about His opinion of gay marriage in California is baffling to me.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
A side question--would you believe it was God's word any more than you do now if he had gone ahead and gave us some good intel about avoiding the war?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I certainly would not have started a thread expressing my disappointment in the First Presidency, since at the very least they'd be meddling in the important things. Whether I believed the intel actually came from God or not would depend on a number of other factors.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Your problem seems to be more with fanatical Republicans than fanatical Christians...
I've hit some liberal talking points, but really I'm not trying to be partisan, here. If God does indeed have valuable information that He could share with people about vitally important political issues, that the First Presidency chooses only to share information about His opinion of gay marriage in California is baffling to me.
While I don't know the specifics of First Presidency doctrine, the God's voice that is used to justify the rallying called by the First Presidency probably has a different source than a hypothetical voice of God flat out telling Congress that the Executive Branch is making a mistake. The Bible doesn't say much about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I was under the impression that when the First Presidency -- or any Mormon with priesthood authority -- communed with God, they did so in a more direct way than Biblical interpretation.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It's interesting you chose to comment on only one side of an exchange in which both parties chose to simply assert opposite conclusions without making argument or citing supporting evidence.
That's because KoM put forth the assertion that God consistently returns a result of "zero" when his presence or influence is tested for.
Clearly KoM cannot prove this point with 100% certainty, as he cannot show EVERY single example of where such a test has taken place.
Your side of the exchange, could have been clearly and conclusively demonstrated with just a single, solid piece of evidence showing that God does, for a fact, exist. Yet your response was simply, "No."
Surely you can see that saying, "No, you're wrong" is no argument, especially when it should be trivially easy to show some undeniable evidence for the existence of an omnipresent, omnipotent, immortal being.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Surely you can see that saying, "No, you're wrong" is no argumen
Considering I just said - in the sentence you quoted - that neither one of us made an argument, I'm not sure why you posted this in response to me.
Did you think I was under the impression I had made an argument? My whole point was I didn't, because KoM's post doesn't deserve one.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Your problem seems to be more with fanatical Republicans than fanatical Christians...
I've hit some liberal talking points, but really I'm not trying to be partisan, here. If God does indeed have valuable information that He could share with people about vitally important political issues, that the First Presidency chooses only to share information about His opinion of gay marriage in California is baffling to me.
And from a unbeliever's (no offense intended) stand point, it could have been equally baffling to wonder why God went through epics lengths to smuggle one family out of Jerusalem, just prior to a war, and sail them to the Americas. And this, knowing full well that their descendants would just end up killing each other and all ties with God would be lost. But the effort was nonetheless important. From where I'm standing it may have been the most important thing ever done save Jesus' atonement.
Would you agree Tom that the question of homosexuality and gender roles is far less charted than whether we ought to fight wars, or fiscal responsibility? I don't know anybody who says with complete ignorance, "I sure wish I understood why people get involved in pointless conflicts." But I know MANY people who do not know what to think about homosexuality and it's rise to prominence in American society.
As I've confessed before I myself have alot of difficulty considering this subject. I really wish I could speak with one of the members of the first presidency, or that they would write a sermon outlining their thinking on this matter. The fact they have issued this directive already makes me wonder if there is something about this issue I don't understand.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But the effort was nonetheless important.
Don't get me started on the many, many ways in which an omnipotent or semi-omnipotent God fails to live up to His potential.
quote:Would you agree Tom that the question of homosexuality and gender roles is far less charted than whether we ought to fight wars, or fiscal responsibility?
No, I wouldn't. We all claim to be fans of fiscal responsibility and enemies of war, but rarely demonstrate either in practice; there is always a justification for the alternative.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Dag: I was under the impression that you were "interested in my choice", as you said you were, so I explained it for you. I'm sorry if I misunderstood that part too.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
I'm not sure if I'm an unbeliever Maybe asking too many darn questions.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ...and it's rise to prominence in American society.
What if it's more or less the same ratio of folks that it's always been throughout the history of the human race?
It's not just American society. It's all around the world, and it's been with the human race for a very long time.
It seems to me the only reason it is perceived as having "risen" is due to the fact that only in the last century or so have we truly begun to examine ourselves as human beings, and try and figure out how we tick using the sciences. It's more noticeable now because there are more eyes and ears.
And yet in all these last hundred years has the ratio of alternative sexualities-to-overall population fluctuated that much? Is there a larger percentage, or just a larger population? I'm honestly not sure, this would be intriguing to look into.
Rest assured though, if it's human nature, it's been going on for a long time. The only difference is before it was under the table, and not as "prominently" visible, except in certain ancient societies. The Hite Report on Male Sexuality is very enlightening on just how much goes on when the church or parents aren't looking.
It could be nature's built in population controller and there's too many of us so there's "more" homosexuality. But where did that come from? Hmm, not much on that theory so far.
I've heard it's due to a breakdown between the parent of the same-sex due to a variety of environmental factors as well as the temperament of the child and the parent of the same sex. That study however did say, it isn't a choice. I'm not sure it also accounts for the thousands of other children who have cruddy relationships with their parents, and are straight.
In some cases I've heard it's child abuse that causes it but that doesn't explain the thousands of other children who are abused and while traumatized, are not homosexual.
Death of the father as a cause, perhaps, but again, our fathers are dying everywhere, why are such a small percentage homosexual?
It seems to me like there's something more going on, that isn't nefarious, but just isn't understood yet. Obviously in nature, 100% homosexuality wouldn't have worked or we wouldn't be here. However, what if 5% performs a certain function? A social or biological function?
I think it goes back to genes, personality, temperament, and the womb for the homosexual preclusion. Hence, why, if you ask just about every gay man, he will say "yes, I did feel different from other boys". However, trying to share such things is like trying to share how wonderful it is when you're touched by God et al. So "believers" and "unbelievers" both crook an eyebrow at each other in disbelief. "It's some other reason!"
quote: Originally posted by docmagik: So it's not about the homosexual--it's about the child. I hope that even if you don't agree with that (and I don't expect a lot of you to) you can at least see how it doesn't neccessarily imply that a homosexual is inherently a bad parent, and why the issue of marriage is one they speak out on.
Seeing how my parents present lives are affected by their parents' terrible addictions, neuroses, and poor relationships with their children, I still perceive that if it were about the child, two loving fathers would be preferable to inexperienced, immature, and/or incapable parents who just happen to have the required plumbing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag: I was under the impression that you were "interested in my choice", as you said you were, so I explained it for you. I'm sorry if I misunderstood that part too.
The part I commented on wasn't about your choice to respond initially, but a question that seemed to indicate you hadn't read my previous post.
[ July 02, 2008, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom:
quote:Don't get me started on the many, many ways in which an omnipotent or semi-omnipotent God fails to live up to His potential.
Alright I won't ask a mere human being what kind of a job he/she thinks God is doing. I'm sure God gets bad report cards from his creation all the time. Miles, and Moccasins, and all that.
quote:No, I wouldn't. We all claim to be fans of fiscal responsibility and enemies of war, but rarely demonstrate either in practice; there is always a justification for the alternative.
Fair enough, but that does not mean we KNOW better when it comes to homosexuality. The fact we can't seem to peg down lessons as old as humanity seems to demonstrate why greater clarity on other subjects is not available.
There is also a snag in this whole God being actively involved in telling us what he thinks on almost everything, all the time. Let's say he started doing it now, we'd complain that he didn't do it in previous years when we could have also used it, Vietnam War, Great Depression, Black Plague, WWII. If he had done so all along, we'd still have wars and contentions, only now it would be people doing it knowing full well they are in open rebellion with God, or the Satan complex. Besides that, we wouldn't really be living, we'd just be working out God's agenda constantly without any real freedom to decide what we would want to do with our time on earth.
Earendil18: I'm condensing your thoughts,
quote:What if it's more or less the same ratio of folks that it's always been throughout the history of the human race?
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't? I've considered many if not all of those ideas before. What if sexuality isn't 100% hetero or 100% homo? What if there is a choice in many if not most cases? What if the reason we are seeing more and more homosexuality is because as it becomes more the norm more teenagers feel safe selecting it as their own? Folks who could go either way just happen to find as males or females they bond more readily to others of their own sex as that is how their friendships have been growing up.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM, your being able to understand why my belief in God makes sense to me would require a fundamental shift in how you think of God. Or rather, a fundamental shift in how you think I think of God. I don't think you particularly want to make that shift and I don't feel any particular need to try and make you.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:It could be nature's built in population controller and there's too many of us so there's "more" homosexuality.
This could not happen without the intervention of an external designer. There is no way for evolution to produce an effect which disadvantages the individual carrier of the behaviour in question. There is also no way for evolution to prepare for a condition (huge world populations) which has never happened yet. If you are able to demonstrate such an effect, it would be the first good evidence for intelligent design.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, your being able to understand why my belief in God makes sense to me would require a fundamental shift in how you think of God. Or rather, a fundamental shift in how you think I think of God. I don't think you particularly want to make that shift and I don't feel any particular need to try and make you.
Well then, why are we even having this conversation?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It wouldn't happen in the way described, but evolution certainly can produce effects that disadvantage the individual carrier of the behavior in question. This has been abundantly studied. First, all that is required for evolutionary pressures to work is for the genes of an individual to be furthered. The (relatively unique) genes of an individual are also carried by its closest relatives.
This is a good evolutionary explanation for communal parenting in some animal species, and possibly for homosexuality. An excellent example is worker individuals in many insect species, that can never, ever pass on their genes directly, and who are significantly disadvantaged versus their sexed relatives in many ways. They do, however, significantly increase the likelihood of their genes carrying on.
There could even be a situation vaguely like the mechanism described. It wouldn't be a trigger based on 'too many of us', but it could simply be that in larger populations there is a higher proportion of homosexuality due to simple interactions of the probabilities of that gene complex and heterosexual ones. I suspect that is not the case, however, and the increased notice of homosexuality is almost entirely due to shifts in social norms.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, you shifted our conversation. It was about the purpose of faith communities. I don't feel the need to convince you of anything, but I do like to clean up the misconceptions you toss out there. Sort of "spot cleaning."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Let's say he started doing it now, we'd complain that he didn't do it in previous years when we could have also used it...
Yes. You're exactly right. Why don't you complain about it? Or do you really believe that the homosexuality thing is a more useful piece of info than, say, the causes of the Black Death?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: There is no way for evolution to produce an effect which disadvantages the individual carrier of the behaviour in question.
Heterozygote advantage (think sickle cell, cyctic fibrosis).
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Why don't you complain about it? Or do you really believe that the homosexuality thing is a more useful piece of info than, say, the causes of the Black Death?
You have to address this issue in terms of internal consistency rather than external consistency. It's common sense to say that saving countless lives is objectively more important, but the LDS church (as well as many others) has a whole other domain of "eternal" consequences to be considered. It may very well be less important that a lot of people are dying prematurely than normalizing a "non traditional" marriage relationship which may (somehow - don't ask me how) discourage the development of properly configured families which can execute God's plan and ensure that the maximum number of individuals can reach the highest levels of exaltation. In the grand eternal scheme of things, mortal death and human suffering are just not as important as they are to you and I.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's common sense to say that saving countless lives is objectively more important, but the LDS church (as well as many others) has a whole other domain of "eternal" consequences to be considered.
*nod* Which is what I said is the demonstrable harm done by religion.
And, of course, if the argument is that preventing homosexual marriage in California is more vital to God's long-term plan than preventing millions from dying of the Black Death (because death after all is just a temporary thing), then it is not incorrect to say that God's priorities lie with the former.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: There is no way for evolution to produce an effect which disadvantages the individual carrier of the behaviour in question.
I rephrase. "Causes a net disadvantage to the set of individuals carrying that gene". Sickle-cell anemia is a disadvantage for the 1% that get two copies, but a strongish advantage for the 9% that get only one copy, so on net the carriers are advantaged. The same for the kin selection that fugu was talking about.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Dicty sacrifice for the sake of the community. Though this is not a genetic thing, it's a chemical response to environmental stimulus. There is some evidence that in utero environment is tied to male homosexual behavior- specifically, a later son is more likely to be gay then the first son. This kinda fits with population control (except that modern days families tend to be smaller so then you would expect to see less homosexual behavior then in the past). Of course, I am not convinced that we have more gay people now then in the past. From stories about ancient Rome and China, I think it is entirely possible that there is less homosexual behavior now then in those times (though I don't know enough about that time period).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think it is pretty tricky to try to compare historical numbers of homosexuals beyond the last century or so. Romantic relationships of any kind were viewed differently during different times and in different cultures. Would a greek soldier who had a wife and children and sex with boys self-identify as gay today?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think that the big difference now is actually our view of marriage. We see it as about love, whereas in the past marriage was more of a business arrangement for the production of children. It didn't matter if you loved or desired your spouse, you did your duty. Now though, we want more in our marital relationships- we want love and desire and romance.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Dicty? Is that a species of animal? I need a bit more information if I'm to respond meaningfully.
As for marriage, I think perhaps this reflects our increasing wealth. Love, in some sense, is a luxury; being fantastically wealthy by every historical standard, we can afford more of every luxury including this one.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:In fact, if the church is trying to discourage homosexual relationships, they may very well have better results from loving, supportive persuasion than by trying to outlaw it.
In my estimation the LDS can do nothing overall to discourage America from slowly evolving into a society that is tolerant of homosexuals.
But they can definitely make themselves look bad trying.
imo i think the most important thing to do now is make a betting pool guessing how many years from now the lds has a Sudden Revelation from God that Suddenly Reveals that homosexuality is now totally okay with God.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Don't hold your breath.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Dicty is a shortening for a uni/multi cellular organism which I am too lazy to try to spell properly right now. When the unicellular version runs out of food, it sends out signals and the dicty around it respond by creating fruiting bodies. Some dicty get stuck on the bottom, some on the top. The ones on the top get to become the fruiting body and potentially get to new food. The ones on the bottom are dead. I don't study dicty, but I think they are pretty cool. Some of my fellow grad students were doing research on how they know the right number of dicty to make a good sized stalk. If you have it too short, they won't make it to a new food source, but if it is too tall, it will topple over and they all die. Signaling pathways are obviously very important to them.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
<edit>
quote:Don't hold your breath.
Who needs to? Just set an interest rate for the payouts. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i am holding my breath. right now! if I can only hold out for about thirty years.
here is the closest approximation to a holding-breath-smiley available! Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hmm. How would you define the payoff conditions for such a pool? It seems to me that there are several possible such revelations:
1. Practising homosexuals need not be disfellowshipped. 2. Practising homosexuals (PH for short) may hold the priesthood. (Maybe this is the same as number 1? Not sure about the internal details of the LDS, here.) 3. PH may have temple recommends. 4. PH may become bishops, hold position X in the wards, and otherwise rise in the hierarchy. (I would guess that this is strongly correlated with 1.) 5. The LDS church will solemnise (seal?) gay marriages. Probably this is the strongest possible form of recognition. I would not bet on this happening for a good fifty years, where number 1 might occur within a decade or two.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Don't hold your breath.
There was a time when one might have said the same thing about ending polygamy or giving blacks the priesthood.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Dicty is a shortening for a uni/multi cellular organism which I am too lazy to try to spell properly right now. When the unicellular version runs out of food, it sends out signals and the dicty around it respond by creating fruiting bodies. Some dicty get stuck on the bottom, some on the top. The ones on the top get to become the fruiting body and potentially get to new food. The ones on the bottom are dead. I don't study dicty, but I think they are pretty cool. Some of my fellow grad students were doing research on how they know the right number of dicty to make a good sized stalk. If you have it too short, they won't make it to a new food source, but if it is too tall, it will topple over and they all die. Signaling pathways are obviously very important to them.
Ah - slime molds? Or a different organism with a similar behaviour? At any rate I don't think this contradicts my reformulation of my initial statement, in that the set of individuals with the genes for this is clearly advantaged by having them, compared to individuals that don't. Those individuals that don't join the stalk have a 100% chance (or maybe it's 95%) of dying, as opposed to a 90% chance (or whatever it is) within the stalk. So there is no sacrifice to benefit the community, rather there is forming a community to better your personal odds, even if they don't become all that good. If the odds didn't get better from joining the stalk, then evolution could not produce that behaviour.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:5. The LDS church will solemnise (seal?) gay marriages. Probably this is the strongest possible form of recognition. I would not bet on this happening for a good fifty years, where number 1 might occur within a decade or two.
I think this is actually least likely. They believe that spirits are gendered and that opposite genders will be required to create worlds and what not in the Celestial Kingdom. It's much more likely that the sinful nature of homosexuality would be revoked and that gays would be allowed to hold the priesthood (something every adult male in good standing can do) than that temple marriages would be performed for gay people as temple marriages are considered to be eternal marriages of spirit (where gender matters) not just extra fancy marriages of physical bodies.
A likely earlier step than either of these is that active gays will be treated the way that blacks were a few decades ago - welcomed as members of the church but not able to hold the priesthood.
[ July 02, 2008, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
I agree with MattP.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
That's a perfect example of a post I made a few days ago, explaining why supernaturally-based beliefs are so frustrating to me. The LDS church is physically unable to ever accept gay marriage, no matter how many of the members decide that it's probably not so bad, because there's a supernatural law which makes it impossible.
I imagine it's probably frustrating to the members of the Church who kind of wish it would change too.
I suppose God can always decide at some point in the future that the rules can change... somehow. Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Dicty sacrifice for the sake of the community. Though this is not a genetic thing, it's a chemical response to environmental stimulus. There is some evidence that in utero environment is tied to male homosexual behavior- specifically, a later son is more likely to be gay then the first son. This kinda fits with population control (except that modern days families tend to be smaller so then you would expect to see less homosexual behavior then in the past). Of course, I am not convinced that we have more gay people now then in the past. From stories about ancient Rome and China, I think it is entirely possible that there is less homosexual behavior now then in those times (though I don't know enough about that time period).
There's also been studies citing higher fertility in the females of families with at least one gay male in that generation.
I think we cite the historical aspects because of all the "it's unnatural" arguments thrown around. I could be wrong though.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Dicty are slime molds. But the idea is that homosexual activity is triggered by some external stimulus (such as overpopulation). If you assume a chemical response instead of a genetic, this is somewhat analogous to slime molds. Population is too high, some signal goes out which some percent of the population detects. They respond by not mating. This increases everyone's chance of survival and the odds of you being the one who does not mate could be less then the odds of you dying in the overpopulation mess. Not having enough supplies for survival is not an unusual situation in nature so developing an evolutionary response is not that surprising either. Of course, I don't actually think this explains homosexuality, but I don't think it would be an impossible situation to arise using natural laws.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't think the situations are analogous. In the case of the slime molds, the unit doing the response doesn't know whether or not it will survive, but it knows it is improving its personal odds. But in the case of homosexuality, the unit knows that it will not survive. For this to improve the odds of your genes is quite difficult! Not impossible, kin selection and all that, but difficult. What's more, there seems to be an obvious advantage to cheating, in this case, that didn't exist for the slime molds. A slime mold which cheats is just going to be sitting in its resource-poor area; this is not an improvement. A potential homosexual who cheats, on the other hand, will have extra children, even if they are perhaps poorly fed. A starving child is a vast improvement over no child!
Still, the hypothesis seems testable. Homosexuality develops during teenage years. Are there more homosexuals among people who grew up in cities, compared to those who grew up in rural areas? Of course you need to control for the cultural factor, here - you can't just look at where the population of gays is highest at the moment, that just tells you about self-selection.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote: In my estimation the LDS can do nothing overall to discourage America from slowly evolving into a society that is tolerant of homosexuals.
From a statistical point of view, observing current data, I must agree. -------------------------------------- One year after MASS legalized gay marriage, 62% of polled residents supported gay marriage (this was back in 2005). After one year of gay marriage being legalized, 84% of folks in MASS believed that gay marriage had a positive or neutral effect on the quality of life. 82% felt that gay marriage had a positive or neutral effect on traditional heterosexual marriage.
Looking at positions on gay marriage in CA, there is a clear trend that support of gay marriage is inversely proportional to age. According to the Field Poll, as of May 28, 2008, 68% of Californians age 18-29 support gay marriage; 58% of those age 30-39 support it; and 51% of folks 40-49 support it. Thus, even should an amendment prohibiting gay marriage pass now in 2008, it appears nearly inevitable that it will only be overturned or replaced with a new amendment legalizing gay marriage within a decade. (In my opinion, much less than a decade.)
Even more likely, by my estimation, is that CA will NOT succeed in passing an amendment prohibiting gay marriage at the ballot box in November. According to the same Field Poll, an estimated 51% of Californians support gay marriage, with only 42% opposing, and 7% undecided. Those numbers are for personal feelings. With regard to political positions, an even higher 54% of Californians are AGAINST and amendment prohibiting gay marriage, and only 40% support it, with 6% undecided. The only way I see such an amendment passing is if proponents of the amendment do a better job at rallying supporters to the ballot boxes.
If I were to have to wager on the outcome in November, I would bet that no matter the efforts of amendment supporters, it will not pass.
But my point is not to show that the hypothesis is correct, merely that it does not violate natural laws. What other critters are aware of their potential to survive? This hypothetical system is going to have evolved in lower level species (most likely). So, while we might cheat, the system would be a remnant from those creatures that would not know enough to cheat (who ran into low nutrient situations).
I personally think this hypothesis is wrong and the known data supports a gender advantage. Having the mutation made girls have lots of babies, the boys gay. Far simpler explanation.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Antnie? Antnie! I called you but just got a busy signal. Call me on my old cell number.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:But my point is not to show that the hypothesis is correct, merely that it does not violate natural laws. What other critters are aware of their potential to survive? This hypothetical system is going to have evolved in lower level species (most likely). So, while we might cheat, the system would be a remnant from those creatures that would not know enough to cheat (who ran into low nutrient situations).
No, no, I'm using 'knows' in the anthropomorphising sense here. No sentience is required! It's just more convenient to explain in terms of intelligent plans than to say "slime mold units who had genes for cheating had no advantage over those who didn't, while in your hypothesised gay responders to chemicals, there is an overwhelming advantage to cheaters, and those who didn't respond to the signal are therefore at an advantage over those who do."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Don't hold your breath.
There was a time when one might have said the same thing about ending polygamy or giving blacks the priesthood.
Ending polygamy I'll grant you, blacks and the priesthood not so much. Barring a complete confession that the apostle Paul's epistles dealing with homosexuality are mistranslated, I simply cannot see the LDS church softening it's stance on homosexuality. How they could explain the passages in the D&C dealing with heterosexuality is also something I cannot see them revising.
I would seriously consider leaving the church if they modified their stance on homosexuality to the point they openly embraced it. Not because I have anything against homosexuality per se but because that topic is not something I see as negotiable as far as Mormon doctrine is concerned.
Tom: Were God to suddenly at an unprecedented level direct the affairs of human kind of course I'd wonder why now. You say it is demonstrably harmful that religion does not think death is the worst thing that can happen to somebody, but surely you believe that same thing. Do you really think death is worse than a I life lead enduring perpetual chronic abuse? Or take yourself, if you could chose to die as a child or live a life spent committing horrible atrocities that torment millions of people would you chose to live? I wouldn't personally.
But beyond that, I can see how one might suppose that because we believe in an afterlife than human life must not be as valuable to us as to an atheist. But couldn't we also then argue that placing an severely extraflated (yes I made that word up) value on human life also causes demonstrable harm? Are there no things more valuable than mere living?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
But the dicty that make the fruiting body get a signal that tells them they are going to be stalks so they "know" that they will not be reproducing either. To be a stalk requires changes in protein expression, so one might cheat by receiving the signal to be a stalk and ignoring it and trying to climb up to the top and be a fruiting body or perhaps by sitting around, hoping to survive long enough to eat the dead stalk.
ETA- but home from work now so no more genetics for me. So, I probably won't reply to anything in this thread until work tomorrow.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I would seriously consider leaving the church if they modified their stance on homosexuality to the point they openly embraced it. Not because I have anything against homosexuality per se but because that topic is not something I see as negotiable as far as Mormon doctrine is concerned.
There an infinite number of explanations for any given set of data. Should the church wish to change in this way (whether it's really God or mere men doing the changing), then some way can be found to justify it. There are already refutations available for Paul's writings based on nuances of language and cultural context. They aren't convincing to people who disagree with them, but how is that different from any of the interpretations of scripture which are unique to Mormonism?
People leave the church for apparent contradictions all the time. I imagine there was a bump in that activity recently over this gay marriage issue.
I don't think Celestial marriage is likely to ever happen, but I don't think it's a stretch that some day the church may recognize civil marriages "for time" between gays the same way it now recognizes civil marriages between heterosexuals. It would certainly strengthen families and improve the situation for the children of those unions if the resource of the church were available to them.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But couldn't we also then argue that placing an severely extraflated (yes I made that word up) value on human life also causes demonstrable harm?
The argument is about demonstrable harm, not about the primacy of human life. There is more demonstrable harm to taking a life than allowing two men to share their bedroom, a medical plan, and a tax form, yet there seems to be an inordinate focus on the latter for some religious groups based on objectively unverifiable claims of eternal consequences.
Yes, I can imagine fates worse than death, but I'd generally put it to the individual which they'd prefer rather than decide for them. I'm happy to put the choice to any gay couple whether they'd rather be shot in the head than get married.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Or take yourself, if you could chose to die as a child or live a life spent committing horrible atrocities that torment millions of people would you chose to live?
Is it your opinion that everyone permitted by God to untimely die does so in order to avoid a worse fate for themselves or others?
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Thoughts:
Extending sealings (ie, solemnizations of marriage in a LDS temple) to include same sex marriage is a much deeper theological deal than extending the priesthood to African Americans, and even more so than ending polygamy, though the latter is closer than the former.
Extending the priesthood to all races was 1)practiced under Joseph Smith, and 2)acknowledged as possible throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It required very little transformation of already existing theology, to the point that many Mormon theologians can describe it as a 'policy' rather than a doctrine.
Ending polygamy required a serious shakeup of theology, because to that point exaltation - the highest degree of salvation - was understood to be conditional upon participation within it. However, Mormon thinkers were able to reapply its sacramental language (the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, celestial marriage) to monogamous marriages while still preserving the notions about eternal increase and spirit children that most basically defined marriage theologically.
For such extension to same-sex marriages, then, the Mormon theological definition of marriage would have to drift away from reproduction and toward individual fulfillment. This is happening to a degree, but nowhere near to the extent required.
Secondly, a whole host of other theological notions about the genders and their roles together would have to change.
All of this is theoretically possible (as are most things) but it would mark an astounding theological shift.
What could happen, I think, and probably should, is the cultivation of a respected and permanent place for single celibate adults in the church. Currently, due to the theological premium placed on marriage, such a place does not exist; twenty-two year old married people are generally treated more like adults than single thirty year olds, because being single is rather like being incomplete, and is the sort of thing that's vaguely embarrassing to admit at parties. There's a good reason for this - theologically, it _is_ incomplete, because exaltation is something that happens to married couples.
Anyhow, there are precedents for this; the Genesis Group, a special ministry to African Americans, was organized in an official capacity; singles wards (congregations) of course are another example, but currently exist to destroy themselves. Perhaps another organization, rather like the monastics in Catholicism, plus a fairly hefty rhetorical change is in order.
(The last, I would note, is well underway; there's been a distinct shift in official discourse on homosexuality in my lifetime; it's light years more inclusive than it used to be, and I think that really means something.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Matt, are adopted children "spirit children" of their adoptive or their biological parents?
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Neither. Spirit children are those beings who populate the pre-existence of a cosmos, and who are born into bodies on earth. They are, according to current Mormon theology, the children of an exalted couple.
Given this theology, all of us on this earth have two sets of parents, earthly and heavenly; we are thus literally spirit siblings.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. Sorry. To which set of parents are they sealed, rather?
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Adoptive children are sealed to adoptive parents; however, the sealings between children and parents are in some sense (and the theology is fuzzy here, but understood) qualitatively different from those between spouses.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Ah. Sorry. To which set of parents are they sealed, rather?
Depends. Typically children that are adopted at birth or whose biological parents were not LDS will be sealed to their adoptive parents. Older children whose biological parents were LDS may very well have already been sealed to their biological parents.
I think there is authority to cancel the first sealing in order for them to be sealed to another, but that would be so unusual that I'm not even sure it's ever been done. That's the sort of thing I'd expect the First Presidency to have to sign off on.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:Ending polygamy required a serious shakeup of theology
That is not entirely true. The church never repudiated the theology of polygamy, just the practice. It was suspended for legal reasons, but it is still very much eternally practiced if a widower remarries in the temple.
To accept Homosexual eternal unions would require a major theological shakeup. I don't think it will happen. However, there may come a day they accept homosexual couples to adopt children from the church adoption program--tho I see that as only a little more likely then homosexual unions--maybe a .01 percent chance of being accepted.
quote:however, the sealings between children and parents are in some sense (and the theology is fuzzy here, but understood) qualitatively different from those between spouses.
I think it is too fuzzy to say one is qualitatively different from the other. The person who gave my patriarchal blessing (Hugh B Brown's son), told me that sealings were only important because the ordinance sealed you into the celestial kingdom. That is why it doesn't matter if someone who is sealed in marriage has their spouse cheat and get a divorce. The "pure spouse" is already/still sealed.
EDIT: to add second quote.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote: The church never repudiated the theology of polygamy, just the practice. It was suspended for legal reasons, but it is still very much eternally practiced if a widower remarries in the temple.
The last clause is true; the rest is, I think, subject to interpretation. I'd also point out that the massive theological re-invention of monogamous marriage that followed the first and second manifestos in and of itself constitutes a great theological shift. And though polygamous sealings are still performed, the theology surrounding them is much more shaky than it was a hundred years ago; nobody in a position of authority is claiming today that polygamy is essential to attain exaltation; indeed, they are actively claiming that it is not. That seems a rejection of a great portion of such theology to me.
As to the second, I'd say sections 131 and 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants make clear that it is the marriage sealing which is associated with exaltation. No statements with such authority exist for children. In any case, deification theology clearly is about heavenly couples propagating spiritual children; resurrected children don't seem to pop up in such narratives, for presumably they are adult and off being exalted on their own. Anyhow, we both, I think, agree that there's some fuzziness around the edges.
Posted by baduffer (Member # 10469) on :
It seems telling to me that a concern about allowing SSM is that it fosters acceptance of homosexuality in society and would make it easier for someone to feel safe about making that choice. Christianity makes a big deal about one choosing to accept Jesus as their savior and choosing to live a life reflective of his values (as defined by them). Yet great effort is exerted by the church to limit a person's choices; as if when presented with different choices they will not actually make the correct choice as defined by the church. It appears that the church doesn't really have the courage of their convictions. It seems they think it is better to foster discrimination against those who choose differently; let's make their lives as miserable and unfulfilled as possible (because it seems the choice by itself will not be so obviously bad without external help). Does it matter that a extra few confused teens take their lives, end up with emotional issues, learn to live a lie always hiding their true selves, and be generally miserable the rest of their lives?
Of course, this is all assuming that sexual attraction to the same sex is just a choice. How much time and thought did you (the general you) put into whether you found a certain person attractive or not. Do you think that if there was an equal playing field you would have felt differently? Yet with all the advantages of being (acting) heterosexual and all the obstacles to being (acting) homosexual there are still a significant number of people that identify as homosexual. Then there are all the people that try to force themselves to conform to the accepted norms yet know that it is all false. Are they happy, is this a great environment for children, do they cheat (and fulfill their sexual desires on the side), is the incident of divorce higher? How many loving homosexual couples do you know (I know quite a few), with children (I know quite a few)? How many married couples do you know where one or the other is secretly homosexual? You probably don't know that you know some. I was surprised to discover that there are quite a few (just look at gay cruise sites and count how many times the identifier “married man” shows up). How many homosexuals do you personally know? If the answer to these is few or none then you really don't understand.
Do you believe there shouldn't be a true choice, that the options should be limited to what you find acceptable, that people are incapable of determining their own happiness and must to told? Do you have the courage of your convictions that someone will choose your path because it was right and just or because it was the only one or the easier (safer) one?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: But the dicty that make the fruiting body get a signal that tells them they are going to be stalks so they "know" that they will not be reproducing either. To be a stalk requires changes in protein expression, so one might cheat by receiving the signal to be a stalk and ignoring it and trying to climb up to the top and be a fruiting body or perhaps by sitting around, hoping to survive long enough to eat the dead stalk.
In that case, I would expect to see some cheating; has anyone checked? I'm going to need to think about how this works to not produce an orgy of cheating that destroys the whole behaviour, though. There seem to be three gene complexes we might consider:
1. Genes for gathering in a body. 2. Genes for becoming a stalk. 3. Genes for becoming a fruiting body.
The question is, why is (1+3, cheating) not an advantage over (1+2+3, playing straight)? One possibility is that they are correlated - you can't actually have 1 without 2, or perhaps 3 without 2. There is no simple way to check this, of course. A simpler possibility is that cheaters do have an advantage in the short term, but in the long term they run out of stalks to take advantage of, and die out. In a similar vein, cancer cells in the human body multiply like crazy to start with, but sooner or later kill off their host.
Or we might give complex 1 slightly more credit for brains. Perhaps the behaviour is actually "Form a body if the density of protein X is high enough", and protein X is a reliable signal of possessing complex 2. That way, the stalks can't be taken advantage of - they will only gather if everyone around them (or at least a largish percentage) will also form a stalk if unlucky. In this manner you would expect to see some equilibrium population of cheaters. If there are more than X% cheaters, bodies do not form. But these densities do vary with space; if you are only just above X%, you will get some local regions where the cheater density drops, and a body forms. But in that case the stalks are contributing a higher percentage to the body, so they get a better chance at passing their genes on. So you are going to drop back towards the equilibrium. Conversely if the cheater percentage is a bit below X%, bodies will form in lots of places, the cheaters will take advantage, and you get a higher percentage in the next generation.
At least two testable hypotheses here:
1. Do cheaters exist? 2. Does protein X exist?
A splendid project for a PhD thesis, no doubt. Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Responding to baduffer:
I was thinking about how the LDS church might make a secular argument against gay marriage (or any "active" homosexuality). And as I was thinking about it, I realized that any negative social consequences they might point to are pretty much a result of society/church forbidding and punishing the behavior, rather than the behavior itself (excluding things like STDs which people can avoid by behaving safely and are anyway inherent to any kind of sex, not just the homo kind).
I think you're on the right track, in other words. The misery of the choice (however much there is) might be created by the stigma, and not the other way around.
Easing up on this might even permit people to experiment with homosexuality without it becoming a self-defining trait - not all gay people, but some, I believe, cement their identity as gay as a defense against the pressure from society to deny any homosexual impulse.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It is almost certainly true that if you decrease the cost of being homosexual, more people will become homosexual. :shrug: Since the people making it costly in the first place are the only ones who think it a bad thing, well then.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)