Monday, September 20, 2010

Civility is also Advanced Citizenship

If you thought my last post was too sharp, you might want to pass on this one. If you liked it... This is the right place, drive on. (Oh, and this is a long post. But it’s my blog, so there you go.)
Dallin Oaks, one of the twelve apostles of the church, gave a speech on Constitution Day (Sep 17) about, ostensibly, the Constitution. It was more than that though. It also addressed "judicial activism"---a term I loathe because only people on the losing side of a matter before the court truly favor judicial passivity. Can we just stop using the term, please? It's meaningless, divisive and doesn't advance the interests of civil political discourse which was another major point of Oaks' talk. It's pretty clear that the chief underlying purpose of his speech was to deal with the fallout from the church's involvement in the firestorm over gay marriage. In my last post, I wrote about the need for dialogue between people of differing views. Here's a chance for me to contribute to that process, since Elder Oaks and I don't exactly see eye to eye.
From the conclusion of his speech: "If representative government is to function effectively under our constitutions, we must have civility in political discourse. We currently have an excess of ugliness and contentiousness in our communications on many political issues. I don’t need to give examples; we have all been exposed to it, and some of us have occasionally been part of it. We all bear some responsibility for the current political polarization and the stalemates that have resulted from it. We ought to tone it down. Meaningful debate and discussion about policies, programs, and procedures is essential to a democratic society. But contentiousness for the sake of division is bad for democracy. It is bad for law observance. It is bad for neighborly relations. And it is particularly destructive as an example for the rising generation, who, if not taught better, will perpetuate and magnify its ugliness and divisiveness for generations to come."
Call me an ungrateful malcontent, but Oaks' comments about civility are too little too late. He's trying to engage in the civil discussion that a true prophet, seer and revelator should have realized was needed many years ago. And exactly who is being contentious for the sake of division? Please don't misunderstand me. I've wanted for a long time, and still want, the discourse on all issues in the public sphere to be more civil, more rational, and more focused on our common humanity. But most people in the Western Hemisphere have moved on to sing a new tune about the place of gay people in human society. The church needs to catch up and recognize that if it continues to ignore daily life in the real world it risks becoming irrelevant.
I agree that we can tone it down. I think we can also turn down the volume. But here's the problem. What we really need is to play a new song. The same, tired strains aren't doing us any good. If gay marriage is a study in advanced citizenship as I suggested not long ago, civility in public discourse is a graduate-level course. For over a decade, the church has hidden behind "broad coalitions," violated election regulations, used vitriolic surrogates to engage in fear-mongering, distortion and misinformation and manipulated members into donating money and time to political campaigns by directly referencing the language of the temple covenant regarding the law of consecration. For far longer than that, the church has vilified gay people as dangerous, subversive and a threat to civilization. They're wrong. And I think they know it.
Perhaps the better angels of human nature have finally become a driving force in the minds and hearts of some within the hierarchy of the church. Maybe they are beginning to see the humanity of their gay family members and friends. But I can't help but think that the church's relative silence about the federal lawsuits involving Prop 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act and this public address by Oaks are due mostly to the fact that the church is paying a heavy price in the realm of public relations. If the church’s position on gay marriage was so divine, correct and unimpeachable, why didn't a single LDS lawyer offer his or her talents as an advocate to the cause of defending Prop 8 in a court of law? [Crickets chirping.] And were there no LDS expert witnesses on the matter who could testify, subject to the rules of evidence and the rigors of cross-examination? There certainly seemed to be a lot of experts during the Prop 8 campaign and the similar campaigns that preceded it. [More crickets chirping, even more audibly.]

This isn't just about gay marriage. It's about fear of gay people. But when the dust of Prop 8 settled and people began to see the base motives, the public relations tide began to turn against the church. Too many people have gay family members, friends, co-workers and neighbors who they love and respect. It takes time, and there is often a price to pay, but as the Mormon hymn says, "Though the mountains depart and the earth's fountains burst, truth, the sum of existence will weather the worst. Eternal, unchanged evermore." And the truth is, gay people are normal. The court didn't make it up, it didn't subvert the voice of the voters. It simply recognized the truth, just as are growing numbers of people.
My instinct is to view Oaks' words as PR damage control. However, if there is more talk like this in general conference in a couple of weeks, if church leaders foster a more open environment within the church (including the church's online presence, both official and unofficial), and if there are tangible initiatives by the church to engage in meaningful discourse with the GLBT community and with people of various opinions and viewpoints, then I'll begin to believe this isn't just about PR. A few talks and press releases about civil political discourse will not contain the firestorm the church has unleashed and stoked since the late 1990s. For now, I'll take Oaks at his word and hope for productive dialogue. But I'm going to take a "trust but verify" approach to this.
From sad personal experience and based on the church's checkered history in the political sphere, I'm pretty jaded about the motives of the hierarchy of the church regarding issues of public importance. Not that you could tell that from my blog. It’s also possible that Oaks fancies himself as an elder of Israel rescuing the U.S. Constitution as it hangs by a thread. (I’ve been to the National Archives and seen with my own eyes that the Constitution is written on paper, not on a piece of Captain Moroni’s coat. Ergo, no threads to hang from.) I have to give Elder Oaks credit: he delivered his words from the bully pulpit of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. Well played.
Here’s a thought: if it was good enough for Brigham Young to hold debates in the Tabernacle, let’s do it again. The church may not like gambling, but they’re all in on this one. If the leaders of the church at the highest level are serious about open discourse about political matters in a civil society, then they have to be serious about doing so in a public forum, subject to alternative points of view in real time. That’s how we do things in the real America. You know, the one founded on the rule of law. As one of the historical centers of public gatherings in Salt Lake City, the Tabernacle would be the perfect place for such a discussion. We could all pause with awe to listen to a pin drop when someone makes a particularly salient or compelling point. And the economy of the Salt Lake Valley would get a boost from all the people who would want to attend such an event. It's a win-win.
So, for what little my small voice might be worth, I call on the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to host a public debate on the role of gay people in society in the Tabernacle within one year’s time. With enough notice, I’m sure Ted Olson and David Boies could be persuaded to present. Maybe we can get someone from the Family Research Council to show up as well (with or without a “luggage assistant”). The church can designate whoever it wants to present its perspective. 
Interestingly, Oaks quotes an eloquent statement about patriotism from Adlai Stevenson: "What do we mean by patriotism in the context of our times? . . . A patriotism that puts country ahead of self; a patriotism which is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime." I wholeheartedly agree. Stevenson is perhaps one of the most underestimated and under-appreciated statesman in the history of the United States. 
I think some more of Stevenson’s eloquent insights can help us better understand the topics at hand. First: "I believe that if we really want human brotherhood to spread and increase until it makes life safe and sane, we must also be certain that there is no one true faith or path by which it may spread." So, brethren, maybe you can tone down the "we're right and you're wrong because we’re the one true church" rhetoric, and allow for the possibility that a marriage between two men or two women isn't going to doom the earth to a fiery end. (Note: Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont haven’t been destroyed by plagues, deluges or locusts. Neither have Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. Just something to keep in mind.) It sounds trite, but it’s true: If you don’t like gay marriage, then don’t get one.
Second: "I believe in the forgiveness of sin and the redemption of ignorance." I can forgive the church's missteps and horrific treatment of the sons and daughters of God who are gay. The related issue is whether the church is willing to be redeemed of its ignorance regarding the realities of life for gay people. Newsflash for the Brethren: Gay people don’t need to be healed from their “affliction,” “burden” or “problem.” Please back off the sad, tired notion that “gay” isn’t a legitimate word for self-identification. Maybe some people don’t want to use it. Fine. They don’t have to. But if you get to use the words “saint,” “apostle” or “prophet” for your identity, I think you might wish to consider, just maybe, pretty please with sugar on top, allowing me privilege of using the word GAY to describe myself.
And a final quote from Stevenson: "Man is a strange animal. He generally cannot read the handwriting on the wall until his back is up against it." Acceptance of gay people as full, normal, valuable members of society--just the way we are---is the handwriting on the wall. If those sustained by many Mormons as prophets, seers and revelators can come down to earth for just a moment to associate with us mere mortals, perhaps they can more clearly read what is so clearly and painstakingly written on the wall. Having eyes, see ye not, brethren? Please open your eyes, your ears, your minds, your hearts. Stop backing yourselves against the wall. Lead your people to stop backing themselves against the wall. Let us reason together. We're waiting, but we can't wait forever.
(Oh, and Elder Oaks, next time you might want to look into what Adlai Stevenson stood for before you quote him to lend credibility to a thesis he would use his last breath to oppose. He’s way out of your league.)

26 comments:

  1. I find it very interesting that in support of your call for civility you engage in libelous ad hominem attacks against the Church and its leadership. If we can't even engage in civil discourse when calling for civil discourse, what hope is there?

    ReplyDelete
  2. To Anonymous, Civility ain't 100% support of church positions. You're welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brilliantly said! Yet again an anonymous zealous church member wants to give the church carte blanche and not hold them accountable for their actions. Admitting responsibility for the consequences is part of the reparation process. If the church collectively cannot acknowledge the atrocities it continues to commit on the corporate and individual member levels there will be no changes made and the church will return to the dust from whence it came. Perhaps it does deserve to be dismantled.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks BLB and Sean. And thanks again to Rob for the kind words and reference on his blog to my post.

    Here's some additional general information that might clarify things a bit.

    Libel: An intentionally false communication made in writing, pictures or signs that injures another's reputation or good name. Truth is a defense.

    Group libel: The holding up of a group to ridicule, scorn or contempt to a respectable and considerable part of the community.

    Ad hominem: (Lat. "to the person") An attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. It is a classic logical fallacy. However, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue. Use for those purposes is not fallacious.

    Civility: Formal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech.

    Sarcasm: A sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark.

    Snark: Biting humor or wit, commonly used to verbally attack someone or something.

    So, in summary:

    1) Please show me any actionable libelous statements in my post. Remember: statement of opinion is not a statement of fact; and truth is a defense.

    2) The church leaders and members should consider the possibility they have engaged and continue to engage in group libel (cf. The Miracle of Forgiveness, Mormon Doctrine, et al.) and group slander (over the pulpit, in the Bloggernacle, via social media).

    3) Any ad hominem in the above post falls under the exceptions noted. The validity of Elder Oaks' premise is intimately tied to his beliefs and his characteristic. And, obviously, I have questions about his motives. If they are pure, so be it. But the question is legitimate.

    4) Being formally polite doesn’t mean any of us, whatever our perspective, can’t be sharp and pointed with our comments. Doing so gets to the heart of the matter and lets others openly and honestly respond to criticism and correct misconceptions.

    5) The leaders of the church are big boys. They should be able to take some harsh criticism and have their public statements evaluated. If they can’t, then the church needs stronger leaders.

    6) I warned y'all about the sarcasm and snark.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "For far longer than that, the church has vilified gay people as dangerous, subversive and a threat to civilization. "

    This is absolutely false, and libelous. Personal opinion is not a defense. It is true that the Church has taught that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, but, as you pointed out, truth is a defense.

    I would genuinely like to discuss this issue - civilly. If I sound condescending in my comment it is unintentional. However, I do have to point out that your Wikipedia(?) (Hey, I use it, too) definition of "ad hominem" is (deliberately?) incomplete. Even Wikipedia notes that attacks on character are only relevant sometimes, like when character is at issue (negligent entrustment, etc.). You attacked Elder Oaks' character and motivations, but did not attack his arguments against same-sex marriage with anything other than your conclusory statements that it isn't immoral. If you want the merits of the argument addressed, then address them, and avoid the personal attacks.

    As you are undoubtedly aware, your post does not adequately address the issues presented by same-sex marriage. The idea that states and countries permitting SSM haven't been destroyed by fire and brimstone, ergo SSM is good, is one of the weakest and tiresome arguments from your side. The same could have been said by inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah the day before Lot came to visit.

    What will the exact consequences of SSM be? We really don't know. But, in Canada, for example, religious leaders can be charged with hate speech for teaching that homosexual behavior is immoral.

    Which brings me to my final point. I believe that SSM has very little to do with marriage. It has to do with silencing any individual - or institution - that dares to tell us our behavior is wrong. Marriage is just a step. I believe that the ultimate goal is to create laws that punish any person or institution that believes and teaches that homosexual behavior is immoral. If that time were to come, I doubt that "Pablo said this wouldn't happen" would be an effective defense to infringement of religion and freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Did my second comment get erased?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I haven't deleted any comments to this post. I received an e-mail notification that "Anonymous" had posted a comment and was curious as to why the comment didn't show up. Re-post it if you wish.

    I just ask that anyone leaving a comment recognize and respect the fact that this is my blog, that a commenter is a guest, and that the primary purpose of my blog is to work through my feelings and experiences growing up Mormon and gay.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous, if you are still reading these comments, I challenge you to de-cloak and have the courage to state your opinions without the mask. Man up. Your church praises the pursuit of truth and its leaders have repeatedly stated that "only error needs to fear freedom of expression" (Pres. Hugh B. Brown). If what you say is true, you should have no fear attaching your own name to your arguments for it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well dang it. That was a really good comment and I don't remember everything that was in it. I don't know if I have the energy to try to recreate it.

    Rob,

    I've actually tried commenting on your blog before, but I don't want to go through the whole process of setting up an account since I don't blog. And I reject your suggestion that commenting anonymously evidences a lack of "man-ness." The truth is that I usually comment as anonymous if possible because it's easier, not because I'm going to sling mud. However, since you asked, my name is Ryan.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Ryan:

    Good for you. But setting up an account to identify yourself in blog comments takes only a moment or two, so you'll forgive my skeptical opinion of your reasons for staying "anonymous."

    Now let's get to the merits. Pablo has refuted your accusations of ad hominem attacks. It's up to you now to show why he is wrong.

    FWIW, his description of how the Church has vilified, etc. gay people in the past is quite true. Anybody who's read Spencer Kimball's Miracle of Forgiveness will see Exhibit A in support. And there is much more.

    As an attorney myself who has thoroughly reviewed and researched not only Dallin Oaks' statements and claims (none of which are new) but also Pablo's responses, I believe Pablo is correct. I urge you to set aside your obviously unquestioned assumption that whatever an apostle says MUST be right, and examine the substance of Oaks' remarks solely on their merits as if someone else had stated them. "If we have the truth, nothing can harm it. If we have not the truth, then [what we have] ought to be harmed." - Pres. J. Reuben Clark.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Pablo,

    This statement is libelous:

    "For far longer than that, the church has vilified gay people as dangerous, subversive and a threat to civilization."

    This is an untrue statement. Personal opinion is not a defense to libel. The Church may teach that homosexual behavior is immoral, but that isn't the same thing.

    And, I'm assuming you got your definition of "ad hominem" from Wikipedia. Hey I use it, too. But you left out the part that character attacks are only sometimes relevant, like when the character of an individual is an issue that directly relates to the merits of a case (negligent entrustment, etc.) In the SGM context, character is not directly at issue, so ad hominem attacks (in addition to being counterproductive) are irrelevant and fallacious.

    Also, I think that your argument that Mass., Iowa, etc., still exist even though they have permitted SGM is one of the tired, old arguments you reference in your post. Sodom and Gomorrah could've said the same thing the day before Lot came to visit.

    What will the full scope of consequences of gay marriage entail? The truth is, we're not exactly sure. However, you have to admit that Mormons, and other churches that teach homosexual behavior is immoral, will be seen as bigoted and hateful. They are seen that way now by some. The difference is if SGM is permitted, the law will be against the free practice of religion. In fact, in Canada, under certain circumstances religious leaders can be charged with hate speech for preaching that homosexual behavior is immoral.

    Which brings me to my final point: I think that SGM has very little to do with marriage. I believe it is a stepping stone in the larger effort to silence any individual, or institution, that dares to teach that homosexual behavior is immoral. Am I wrong about that? I hope so. I really do. But when you look at facts (i.e., doctor in CA being sued for not performing artificial insemination for female couple), it seems clear that marriage isn't the issue - the real issue is the idea that homosexual behavior is immoral.

    Am I wrong?

    Ryan

    ReplyDelete
  12. Rob,

    As an attorney who has read the Miracle of Forgiveness, I can unequivocally state that it in no way villifies people who are attracted to members of the same sex. And, while you are entitled to believe Pablo is correct, would you really claim that you have no biases on the issue?

    Ryan

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ryan:

    With all due respect, you are a troll. Your arguments are incomplete, inconsistent and shot through with fallacies, as shown below. I will summarize each of your points by number and then will respond seriatim.

    Ryan's Claim #1. It is untrue to say that "For far longer than that, the church has vilified gay people as dangerous, subversive and a threat to civilization." Personal opinion is not a defense to libel. Miracle of Forgiveness "in no way vilifies people who are attracted to members of the same sex."

    Response: Opinion is not a defense, but truth is. Per dictionary.com, "to vilify: speak ill of; to revile with abusive or defamatory language; malign." The Church HAS vilified gay people as dangerous, subversive and a threat to civilization, and does so today. Deseret Book continues to publish Spencer Kimball's The Miracle of Forgiveness and countless bishops continue to distribute that book as part of official "repentance" processes. It does every one of those things you say it doesn't:

    "Homosexuality is an ugly sin, repugnant . . . embarrassing and unpleasant as a subject for discussion . . . [a] grievous sin . . . sin against nature . . . . . . [the belief that homosexual orientation is innate] is a "malicious and destructive lie" . . .[a] revolting practice . . . [a] perversion . . . wretched wickedness . . . certain conditions make it easier for one to become a pervert . . . degenerate . . . a sin of the ages. It was present in Israel's wandering days as well as after and before. It was tolerated by the Greeks. It was prevalent in decaying Rome. The ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are symbols of wretched wickedness more especially related to this perversion, as the incident of Lot's visitors indicates. So degenerate had Sodom become that not ten righteous people could be found, and the Lord had to destroy it. As far back as Henry the Eighth this vice was referred to as 'the abominable and detestable crime against nature'. Some of our own statutes have followed that apt and descriptive wording."

    That is just one LDS leader, in one book which is still widely distributed. There are more such leaders and remarks. Miracle of Forgiveness directly blames gay people for destroying civilizations with their wretched perverse wickedness and praises civil laws which punish homosexual activity as "abominable and detestable." Yet you "as an attorney unequivocally state that it in no way villifies [sic] people who are attracted to members of the same sex." Do you not see how you've damaged your own credibility with such a statement when the evidence is so clearly otherwise?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ryan's Claim #2. The argument that Mass., Iowa, etc., still exist even though they have permitted same-sex marriage is one of the tired, old arguments you reference in your post. Sodom and Gomorrah could've said the same thing the day before Lot came to visit.

    Response: Clearly you don't even have the basic facts of the Sodom story right, so I will take everything else you say with not just a grain but a pillar of salt.

    You refer to Massachusetts, Iowa, etc. but offer no facts whatsoever to show that their societies or citizens are harmed by marriage equality. Yet you call the reference a "tired old argument" without a syllable of substantive rebuttal. That is an ad hominem attack, and makes you a hypocrite for accusing Pablo of doing the same. Further, your reference to Sodom & Gomorrah is nothing but guilt by association. You give not a shred of evidence or analysis showing why these two groups of political entities are or should be connected.

    Ryan's Claim #3: We don't know effects of gay marriage but they will include the Mormons being seen as bigoted and hateful by teaching that homosexual behavior is immoral, and the law will be against the free practice of religion.

    Mormons are already seen as bigoted and hateful not because they teach a religious belief that homosexual behavior is immoral, but because they have sought successfully to write their religiously-based idea of marriage into secular civil law which applies to everyone regardless of religious belief, thus codifying discriminatory treatment. In so doing, they have taken away the religious freedom of those who disagree with the Mormons and want the right to perform same-sex marriages in their churches, believing in good faith that God does not object thereto. They have done this based solely on two reasons, which underlay every objection to homosexuality ever made: (a) God said so, and (b) the "ick" factor. These are not rational or acceptable bases for legislation in our secular civil system.

    The First Amendment already protects the Mormons' freedom to teach that homosexuality is immoral. The Church has never been sued to force open temple doors for marriages by those without recommends, not even before 1978. Marriage equality laws won't change that. The "threat to religious freedom" argument is a red herring.

    Ryan's Claim #4: in Canada, under certain circumstances religious leaders can be charged with hate speech for preaching that homosexual behavior is immoral.

    Response: As a lawyer you should know that being "charged" means nothing. Show me a conviction. To the best of my knowledge there was one case in which a single pastor was cited by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for writing of the "wicked homosexual agenda" and describing gay people as pedophiles and drug dealers, hardly just "homosexual behavior is immoral." Most gay marriage opponents who love to cite this Canadian precedent conveniently omit the fact that a Canadian court subsequently overturned that citation and found the pastor had violated no law. If you know of another case in Canada where an actual conviction was reached and upheld, let me know.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ryan's Claim #5: Gay marriage is not about marriage, it's a a stepping stone in the larger effort to silence any individual, or institution, that dares to teach that homosexual behavior is immoral.

    Until you cite credible evidence for this claim, it will stand only as a frankly paranoid theory deserving of no further attention.

    Ryan's Claim #6: when you look at facts (i.e., doctor in CA being sued for not performing artificial insemination for female couple), it seems clear that marriage isn't the issue - the real issue is the idea that homosexual behavior is immoral.

    Response: Shame on you counselor, either for not doing your research or for deliberately misrepresenting the facts. The "doctor in CA being sued for not performing artificial insemination for a female couple" was actually a medical clinic that refused to perform the procedure for one of the women because she was a lesbian. California's broad anti-discrimination laws specifically ban any kind of discrimination by any business that offers "accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services" to the public. These laws apply to straight people, married people, gay people, domestic partners, everyone. The clinic could have assigned the case to another doctor who wouldn't object to performing the procedure in compliance with those laws. It didn't. This case had nothing to do with gay marriage nor did the legal violation and it's dishonest of you to claim otherwise, or that there was any broader issue at stake here.

    Ryan's Last Question: "Am I wrong?"

    Response: Yes you are wrong. Utterly and completely. You are also dishonest for setting up a straw man argument about me personally, insinuating that I've claimed no bias or support of either side in this debate and then accusing me of the bias you suggest I've disclaimed. In fact my support for marriage equality has always been clear, and I think Pablo's analysis of Dallin Oaks' remarks is accurate.

    Now it is your turn to show, with credible evidence, why Pablo's statements above are incorrect. Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Clarification:
    Two comments to this post (one from Anonymous/Ryan and one from Rob) were kept in limbo by the Blogger spam filter. I've let the comments through so they can be seen. I'll check the spam folder periodically to make sure the legitimate comments aren't being filtered.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Rob,

    Your anger and misrepresentations are disturbing, but not surprising.

    You should be ashamed of yourself for deliberately misrepresenting the Church's teachings regarding homosexual behavior. Do not confuse "homosexual behavior" with individuals who are attracted to members of the same gender. The behavior is wrong. The attraction does not make someone a bad person in any way. That is what the Church teaches now, and what it has always taught. You know this to be true. And because it is true, Pablo's statement to the contrary is libelous, and your failure to accurately represent the Church's teachings is telling.

    You were saying something about hypocrisy. I did not, and will not, attack Pablo as an individual. As you are well aware, I opposed his argument(s) as tired and worn out, not him as a person. And calling me a troll is a very predictable, and hypocritical, ad hominem attack.

    My point regarding the Benitez case was that the right at issue in that case, artificial insemination, had nothing to do with the case. The plaintiff could have obtained what she sought from several doctors and in fact the defendant Christian doctors were willing to refer her to other physicians. But it was the fact that someone dared to oppose the procedure on the grounds of freedom of religion that was at the root of the case. Religious rights have been infringed in Mass. as well. You know this, but choose not to acknowledge it. I can't help you there.

    Back to my original point: if we cannot be civil in calling for civil discourse, how can we expect to achieve civility? I believe that any individual who honestly viewed the situation would acknowledge that the Church teaches (and has always taught) that those attracted to members of the same gender are loved by God, and by the Church and its leaders, and members. And yet, you insist on claiming that the Church is hateful and vilifies those who are attracted to members of the same gender. Can you not see how this prevents civil discourse? And how if you really wanted civil discourse, you would not misrepresent the Church or its teachings?

    I don't flatter myself into thinking that anything I've said will change your mind, or Pablo's, in any degree. But, I would hope that next time you are tempted to hurl hateful, and hurtful, epithets at a Church whose members and leaders have only love for you, you might at least think twice.

    Ryan

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Ryan:

    Ryan's Statement #1: You are deliberately misrepresenting the Church's teachings regarding homosexual behavior. Do not confuse "homosexual behavior" with individuals who are attracted to members of the same gender. The behavior is wrong. The attraction does not make someone a bad person in any way. That is what the Church teaches now, and what it has always taught. You know this to be true. And because it is true, Pablo's statement to the contrary is libelous, and your failure to accurately represent the Church's teachings is telling.

    I don't know what alternate reality you see, Ryan, but this is simply not true. How can you possibly read Pres. Kimball's words in MoF and still claim the church has never taught that homosexuals are bad people? There are other examples that the Church has not "always taught" what you claim and that it has not "always taught" that gay Mormons are "loved by God."

    Brigham Young wrote in 1864 that Utah had no anti-sodomy law because ""our legislators, never having contemplated the possibility of such a crime being committed in our borders[,] had made no provision for its punishment."

    In October 1897 General Conference, George Q. Cannon, First Counselor in the First Presidency, spoke about homosexuality in terms that clearly contradict your claim that the Church has "always taught" that gay Mormons are "loved by God": "a most abominable crime - a crime for which under the old law the penalty was death; a crime which was practiced by the nations of old, and caused God to command their destruction and extirpation. . . The same sin that caused the utter destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah! This and other abominable crimes are being practiced. How will these be stopped? Only by the destruction of those who practice them. Why, if a little nest of them were left that were guilty of these things, they would soon corrupt others, as some are being corrupted among us. In coming to these mountains we hoped to find a place where we could live secluded from the abominations of Babylon. But here in this secluded place wickedness intrudes itself, and is practiced in this land which we have dedicated to the Lord as a land of Zion! How can this be stopped? Not while those who have knowledge of these filthy crimes exist. The only way, according to all that I can understand as the word of God, is for the Lord to wipe them out, that there will be none left to perpetuate the knowledge of these dreadful practices among the children of men. And God will do it, as sure as He has spoken by the mouths of His prophets. He will destroy the wicked, and those who will be left will be like the Nephites after the wicked were all killed off; they were righteous men and women who lived for over two hundred years according to the law of heaven." Not much love there from this prophet, seer & revelator, who wants all the gays killed and is confident God will do it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. In 1890 First Presidency Counselor Joseph F. Smith was confronted with case involving homosexuality of several young young Mormon men in south-central Utah. He instructed the Richfield Stake Presidency to "Get the names of all of them & cut them off the church" for "obscene, filthy & horrible practices". Pres. Smith also here referred to a group of Saints who had engaged in "this monstrous iniquity, for which Sodom & Gomorrah were burned with fire sent down from heaven."

    In 1954 Pres. J. Reuben Clark issued a warning to the priesthood to avoid "that filthy crime of homosexuality." While some LDS leaders in more recent years have claimed to be acting out of love, those claims are belied by other words, their actions, and the bigotry they've allowed to flourish within the Church up to the present. The distinction between orientation and behavior which you claim has "always" been made is in fact a recent innovation in the Church. For decades countless Church leaders and publications have characterized gay people as "perverts," "abnormal," "deviant," mentally ill," "pitiable," as "weak, fettered victims", "in abject bondage, . . . compelled to do the will of [their] master the devil," and other similar terms (many of these are quotes from Spencer W. Kimball's 1970 pamphlet New Horizons for Homosexuals), without ever distinguishing between condition and actions. Certainly you know of the barbaric electroshock experiments BYU inflicted on some of its gay students in an effort to make them straight. If only the behavior were at issue, why would the Church have sanctioned such "experiments"? Thanks to the efforts of Spencer Kimball and Mark Peterson, for a while merely coming out was enough to warrant excommunication. I personally know someone to whom this happened. He was punished not for any action but just for who he is. So it's not true that only the "actions" have been considered problematic. The Church has objected to and has punished the mere existence of homosexuality and has tried to find ways to eradicate it.

    So when you claim that the Church has "always" loved its gay members, I think the history proves you wrong. What you think has "always" been the case is in fact a recent innovation. When you call for "civil discourse," you must accept that the Church has a long history of discourse on this topic that is anything but civil. And until the Church formally repudiates that history and all those uncivil remarks, until it apologizes for the reputations and lives it has ruined, the suicides resulting from its actions, and the bigotry and hatred it has allowed to flourish within its membership, your protests of love and concern will not be believed, and your calls for "civil discourse" will ring hollow. Because the Church's history and its actions speak far louder.

    Robert F. Kennedy said "For when you teach a man to hate and to fear his brother, when you teach that he is a lesser man because of his color, or his beliefs or the policies that he pursues, when you teach that those who differ from you threaten your freedom or your job or your home or your family [ALL of which the Church claimed during the Prop 8 campaign], then you also learn to confront others not as fellow citizens, but as enemies. To be met not with cooperation but with conquest, to be subjugated, and to be mastered." That, Ryan, is the legacy of the Church's treatment of gay people. I welcome all of its efforts to change that approach. But you mustn't try to deny that for most of its history, the Church has not been nearly as conciliatory as now when its back is to the wall on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ryan's Statement #2: My point regarding the Benitez case was . . . someone dared to oppose the procedure on the grounds of freedom of religion [and] that was at the root of the case. Religious rights have been infringed in Mass. as well. You know this, but choose not to acknowledge it. I can't help you there.

    Response: And the religously-based opposition to the procedure was deemed insufficient by the California Supreme Court. They cited "the United States Supreme Court's most recent holdings [which confirmed that] a religious objector has no federal constitutional right to an exemption from a neutral and valid law of general applicability [such as the California Unruh Civil Rights Act] on the ground that compliance with that law is contrary to the objector's religious beliefs" and held that the medical clinic had "no affirmative defense, based on the free exercise of religion clauses of the federal and state Constitutions, against plaintiffs' Unruh Civil Rights Act claims of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation." This had NOTHING to do with gay marriage.

    If you think religious right have been infringed in Massachusetts, please explain why.

    Ryan's Statement #3: if we cannot be civil in calling for civil discourse, how can we expect to achieve civility? any individual who honestly viewed the situation would acknowledge that the Church teaches (and has always taught) that those attracted to members of the same gender are loved by God, and by the Church and its leaders, and members. And yet, you insist on claiming that the Church is hateful and vilifies those who are attracted to members of the same gender.

    See Response to Statement #1 above.

    Ryan's Statement #4: next time you are tempted to hurl hateful, and hurtful, epithets at a Church whose members and leaders have only love for you, you might at least think twice.

    I've thought more than twice, Ryan. I've thought countless times, for years. While there are certainly exceptions and truly Christian, loving people amongst the Saints, as an organization the Church's history, words and actions contradict what you say.

    You still haven't actually responded to the substance of Pablo's analysis of Dallin Oaks' remarks.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Rob,

    You clearly have a very negative agenda and are unable, or unwilling to fairly represent the Church's teachings. It's called creating a "straw man," in which you misrepresent your opponents position so you can easily knock it down without having to address the true merits of the opposing side's arguments. You pretend that the Church hates those who are attracted to members of the same sex so that you can paint the Church as hateful and bigoted. You are unwilling to admit it is only homosexual behavior, not the individual, that is prohibited in the Church. Your argument is essentially, "The Church teaches that homosexual behavior is wrong. I am attracted to members of the same gender. Therefore, the Church hates me." This is a fundamental misinterpretation of the Church's position on the issue of homosexual behavior, and I believe that you know this. Neither the Church, nor the Lord, hates individuals because they are attracted to members of the same sex. And the Church very clearly teaches that even those who engage in homosexual behavior are not hated, but rather are loved, by the Lord and the Church.

    I never took a position regarding Pablo's comments about Elder Oaks. I was simply pointing out that belittling Elder Oaks, and the Church, is probably not the best way to call for civil discourse. I agree with what Elder Oaks said. I'm guessing you do not.

    I know your mind won't change based on our conversations. But, I also know that no one is so perfect they have no room for improvement. I can honestly say I have very intently tried to learn a bit about what it means to struggle with attraction to the same gender, since I have had some very close friends and family members who have faced this issue. And, I can honestly say my view of the issue has changed. I did not have a very good understanding of it and when some good friends and family members admitted that they struggled with SGA, I did not know how to react. As I've looked at the issue, though, I've come to realize just because someone struggles with SGA does not mean there is anything, at all, wrong with them. Like any other temptation, the behavior itself, not the attraction, is the sin. I also know without a doubt that God, and the leaders of the Church, love those who struggle with SGA. If you choose not to believe that, I'm not sure what I could really say to you that would help. I could only hope that you'll take at face value my statements that the Lord, and the Church, love those who face this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ryan:

    I appreciate your conciliatory tone and would be a jerk if I didn't respond in kind.

    I don't think the Church hates me. I think in the past it hated my predecessors out of ignorance. I am very glad this approach has changed. I agree with you that at no time has the Lord ever hated His gay children. In fact I believe He made us this way and does not share the Church's opinions about it. I have never doubted God's love for any of us and believe He has been very sad at many of the things LDS leaders have said about his gay children.

    When the Church shifts on any given issue, it tends not to acknowledge that prior statements were incorrect or incomplete. It simply doesn't talk about them. This can create misperceptions as to the Church's history on the issue. Its treatment of homosexuality is but one of many examples. I welcome its recent progress toward a more inclusive stance. But I think we must acknowledge that in the past it has been much more harsh. That's all I'm saying. I'm sure the Church believes it's trying to love gay people. I also think its doctrine will force it to act in ways that most gay people in and out of the Church will interpret as not very loving.

    That's probably one of the reasons my bishop recently told me this is the single most difficult issue the Church faces right now, and the Church has no answers for it. He said gay Mormons have three choices: (1) remain celibate and lonely all their lives, which is unrealistic; (2) marry someone of the opposite sex and try to make it successful, which he also acknowledged is a very bad idea and the Church itself now counsels against this; (3) leave the Church and find their spiritual path elsewhere because at present, LDS teachings are fundamentally incompatible with homosexuality. I think he is correct, and I respect him for his honesty.

    ReplyDelete
  24. There is no place in LDS theology for gay people, you see, Ryan. We just don't fit anywhere in the plan. The Church has no explanation for why we exist or what our destiny may be. Some LDS leaders speculate (and that's all it is, because there's no scriptural basis for it) that we will be changed to be straight in the next life. In my experience, few gay Mormons want that. We can't imagine being straight or wanting to be. We consider being gay a wonderful blessing, part of who we are intrinsically, eternally, and don't ever want it changed. You speak of those who "struggle" with or "face this issue," and that's understandable if one starts from the premises you espouse. But I and many others don't consider it a struggle. It comes quite naturally to us, just like breathing. It doesn't feel like a burden, but like a blessing. It's only a "burden" when an outside force, like the Church, tries to tell us it is. And that message just doesn't match what so many of us feel and believe the Spirit has told us.

    I respect very much your efforts to find out more about homosexuality and your good faith recognition that being gay is not in and of itself sinful. I wish more were like you but even a brief read through comments to any Deseret News story about gay issues confirms that the tolerance and understanding you espouse is still far from universal in the Church. I hope that will continue to improve.

    I believe the Church's knowledge on this subject is incomplete. I've studied the scriptural bases for the Church's position and believe sound scholarship supports a conclusion that they do not mean what they're popularly supposed to. And since that is the sole basis for even LDS leaders' statements, I'm led to conclude that the whole edifice of belief about homosexuality as wrong or sinful--whether condition or behavior--is highly questionable at best. There must be room for gay relationships in the eternities, because gay people have always existed, there have been hundreds of millions of us, and Joseph Smith said that God Himself could not create the individual characteristics of His children because they were co-eternal with Him. To me, that means the gay part of my nature is just as eternal as God Himself. And God said it's not good for us to be alone. So I hope that in some future day enough members of the Church will be ready to receive more light and knowledge about where God's gay children fit into the plan, because surely we fit somewhere. The Church just doesn't know where yet. Meantime, kudos to you for your efforts to understand and reach out.

    ReplyDelete
  25. And thus we see that there is a time for shouting and a time for talking, speak and a time to listen, a time to cast stones and a time to gather stones together. Looks like the class in Civil Discourse in a Democratic Society is still in session. It's not limited to lawyers, just in case anyone is wondering. :)

    I'd still like to see the formal debate in the Tabernacle though. I'd even settle for a moderated panel discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  26. thank you for posting your initial statements and for allowing the ensuing discussion. i feel engaged, edified, and enriched.

    ReplyDelete