I have a question
Warning: there is some NSFW language herein, and some of it is spoken by me. In addition, there is an actual Gay Man, and I love him like my other brother. And we talk like brothers. It ... isn't always pretty. Those of you who are not regularly a part of the discussions held by the community formed around MasterNinja.com may want to bypass this
( Read more... )
Did you know that in the 70s when the responsibilities of the priesthood were extended to all worthy male members of the church (meaning black men), there were members of this church who rejected the idea, some who left the church over it? Just because something is difficult for me to understand does not mean it is wrong.
I ask for your opinion because it is more rational and reasoned than my own.
But I'm left balancing your opinion against my faith. And frankly that means I'm essentially left balancing my opinion against my faith. And I am not always right.
I guess Kalikloud's response left me feeling somewhat justified in my belief. He still loves me, even though I would vote against his right to marry the man he chooses. Frankly that may be the most confusing part of the whole thing ... But he and I have a sort of an understanding, perhaps similar to the "agree to disagree" that I share with my atheist brother.
There is more going on in this world than rationality and reason. I am unable to find any evidence to convince me that everything that can be known, we know. And so I take some things on faith: I take it as an issue of faith that there is a reason for this. Some of it is spelled out in the The Family: A Proclamation to the World. But that just talks about why we believe marriage and family is so important.
The reason why it is so important to actually ban homosexual marriage is the part that escapes me. As Thaeryn said, we haven't owned marriage is some little while.
The thing I've come to realize since I posted this is that you see the world one way. President Hinkley and many of the people I go to church with see it an entirely other way, a way as foreign to you as enjoying Elvis is to me. I am sitting here in the middle trying to reconcile the two viewpoints, as much as possible, and finding it an impossible task.
Reply
Reply
I guess I just don't understand why you ask for my opinion which you believe to be rational and reasoned even if the fact that it is rational and reasoned doesn't actually move you to consider it.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the statement about the extension of the priesthood to blacks. Are you trying to say that the reason the people who left the church over blacks being allowed full membership were wrong BECAUSE they questioned the decision of the church, and thus you shouldn't question the decision of the church because hey they obviously know best; just look at that thing with teh blacks? (This is the only thing I can come up with that you might be saying. I really don't know if that's at all what you're saying, though.)
It's not really a news flash that different people see the world in different ways. However, just because two people believe two different things does not mean that said things actually have equal likelihood of being true, useful, fair, or loving.
Reply
Now I am being told that gays ARE different, to a degree more than they were. This is a challenge to my faith. But just because I believe that this new twist on an ongoing doctrine is wrong, doesn't make it wrong. Maybe I will understand someday. So I'm not willing to leave the church out of hand because of this thing that is confounding to me. (and I do not think that a time is going to come when "everyone" believes that homosexuality is wrong, so this is another one of my shitty examples)
Perhaps I owe you an apology.
I have my faith, yet I try to find places to integrate the wisdom of other people, because you people tend to be very smart. I want to be more than just a blind servant to my faith. But it seems that there are some instances I have to chose between blind servitude and no servitude.
As a result, I seek and seek and seek - but I don't know what I'm seeking. I hope that all of This will result in some kind of answer.
Because I don't believe that a debate can be held by a bunch of people who agree on the topic at hand, I ask questions of you, Chuck, etc. I'm frankly startled by the breadth of discourse I've gotten from this post. I expected pretty much everyone but Ruth and Kalikloud to say essentially what you said. Ruth would of course agree with me in some way, and Kalikloud and I would dissolve the whole thread in anal rape, as we are wont to do.
And so I say without irony, that I am sorry for bothering you. I do appreciate your time and thoughts. They provide a balance for whatever this is that I'm trying to do. Thank you, and I'm sorry.
Reply
Of course just because they believed it was wrong didn't make it wrong. What made THEM wrong was the fact that they were wrong, acting unfairly, acting without love and reason, acting with prejudice and bigotry, not the fact that they questioned the teachings of the church.
It's not like the church is reversing its teachings right now. It's not like they used to say that gay marriage was fine and now have gotten a new revelation from God saying that actually, no, gay marriage is bad.
What about the elders of the church that said that it wasn't ok for blacks to have the full rights of the priesthood? Did you believe that they, too, literally spoke with God? Would you have thought it wrong to question the exclusion of blacks then, because these men that talked to God said it was right?
Was it that back in the day, blacks really were inferior, and that fundamentally changed, so then God revealed to the new leaders that actually blacks are (now) fine, so it happened that both the old and the new leaders were right? Or did it happen that religious men with the use of compassion and reason came to the conclusion that there was no reason to exclude blacks and thus used this compassion-informed reason to change their beliefs on what God would really want?
But aye from ruined faiths and old
That droop and die, fall bruised seeds;
And when new flowers and faiths unfold
They're lovelier flowers, they're kindlier creeds.
Reply
There are a lot of things that I cannot answer.
Blacks and the priesthood is one that continues to baffle me. As you've suggested, what changed? I can tell you that, according to his account, the President who reversed the whole thing had got to wondering himself why black men couldn't have the priesthood. There is, again, a lot of off-pulpit speculation, but no canonical answer.
Joseph Smith very often indicated that most of the revelation he received was in answer to a question. The implication is that the Lord doesn't always provide answers until we know what to ask. Chuck's statements on this topic have been particularly relevant to me - it seems to me that I have been asking the wrong question.
What you've said about love is interesting to me. To love is better than to obey. Samuel said that obedience is better than sacrifice. Of course, this is a very specific circumstance, and not one that maps easily to love and obey, but it is the first thing that sprung to mind when you said that to dear, sweet, misguided elfritzo.
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart might mind and strength, and the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as theyself.
Love == obedience? :)
I dunno.
One of the things that frustrates me is the lack of separation between religious marriage and secular marriage. A lot has been said by other people on that topic, in this thread and elsewhere.
I need to go find precisely what President Hinkley said about gay marriage amendments, and when he said them. I need to read that again. It strikes me as sort of like the caffeine thing: a lot of Mormons still drink pop with caffeine, because it seems like it was a statement thrown out rather casually compared to a lot of things.
That is what I shall do, and in fact I shall do the same for the caffeine statement.
Reply
Leave a comment