|
|
· Blogging the Ex-Mormon World - by Infymus.
· News, Recovery, Information, Meetings, Humor & More.
· Containing
1,983 Articles Spanning 148 Topics
-
Online since January 1, 2005
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"OPINION".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
|
|
|
It's all about Opinions, yours and mine.
|
|
|
| | What kinds of gods do people create, so often full of hatred, anger and bigotry? Members of the LDS faith were once persecuted, hated and driven from their homes, in part by other religious zealots repulsed by unconventional "marriages." Now, come full circle, the once-bullied have joined themselves with the bullies in the voice of bigotry as they battle their boogeymen.
American youths and innocent civilians continue to die in an unjustifiable war. Greed leads to gas prices climbing into the stratosphere. Millions of innocents die of still uncured viruses. Religion- and ethnic-induced hatreds rage worldwide. Poverty runs amok and the poor starve. Yet when the Mormon God speaks, he speaks out against two people who love each other and want to express that love in a committed formal way. I imagine a day will come when the LDS Church will regret lending its support to a failed president and a failed constitutional amendment that did nothing more than divide a nation and rally bigoted and frightened people to the ballot box.
There is a parallel with the way the LDS Church today marginalizes the gay community much as it once marginalized the black community. To previous generations of Mormons, blacks were descendants of Cain and less valiant in their pre-mortal days, a lower class. I wonder what future prophet will become enlightened as to the fact that all are equal in the eyes of a just creator? Who or whatever that may be.
| | | | | Posted Jun 13, 2006, at 07:40 AM. | The Mormon Church Owes It's Late 20th Century Success To Social Engineering And Economics Than To It's Doctrine
| TOPIC: OPINION -You Can Link To This Article!-
| | AUTHOR: Mormon Inc. | |
 TOP | | Mormon Doctrine and history as we know is full of holes, contradictions, and in short, paints an obviouse picture of the falsness of Joseph Smith's claims of being a true prophet of God and the founder of the one and only true church on earth.
I think we as individuals get very excited when we know that the church is fase because the brain washing, fear, and guilt the church controls us with becomes void because once you know it's not true. It's like being a kid and finding out Santa Claus was really your parents and being relieved that this magical man can't read your mind and there is no list with bad marks by your name. Phew!
So we approach our Mormon relatives and friends with our excitement and try to sell them on what we discovered hoping they will feel the same sense of urphoria and freedom as we did finding out it all is a lie and we were busting our butts mentally, spiritually, and physically for nothing!
Then we find most of who we talk to are argumentative or stuck in their old ways of thinking. Experiencing this myself is when I discovered it's not so black and white why people stay in the Mormon Church and lot's of complicated issues come into play here.
The first issue is social engineering. The church leaders know darn well we aren't going to go out and baptize the number on new converts at the same levels as we can retain "born into the church" members. The whole focus of the church is to get it's men and women married in the temple and start having children right after. Why? To get them stuck in the church.
The missions aren't so much to bring new converts into the church as they are to brainwash the young lads into the Mormon lifestyle that will enslave them for the rest of their lives and to get them so horny, they will rush into marriage with a young Mormon girl soon as they get home. I'll never forget how horny all the missionaries on the plane going home were.
The young women get hit up by these horny return missionaries and many end up popping kids out even before they are 19. What has happened here is a woman who could have finished college and had a career is stuck dependant on her young stud RM and kept in her place by the circumstances. Getting married young also makes the couple dependant on their parents and family more and that is what the church wants.
Individual independance means a higher chance of leaving the church. So they want you dependant on your family, inlaws, and husband. The church makes your own family and the family you marry into their prison guards in the prison that is known as the Mormon Church. Then they rope you into callings and get you in social situations where you will lose face bad with your peers at church if you don't tow the line the bretherin have set for you and your family.
Also, temple weddings are used to shame non-temple attending adults in the family.
It's temple marriage that is the focal point of how the Mormon Church retains it's members. Without it, the young men and women would go off into the workplace or college and drift away, so lets keep them on a short leash with the shackles of temple marriage and all that results from it.
The church has enjoyed economic growth in the last 50 years simply because it's members have made money in the vivarant US economy. This is comming to an end. The US is now the largest debtor nation with a currency that is becoming weaker against the Euro, and Yen. China will float their currency in a few years and that will pummel the dollar. Since Americans have a low savings rate, there isn't going to be retirement the way the WWII and Korean War generations enjoyed retirement. This means less volunteers and money donations for the church.
Outside of the US the church is nothing. The Chinese don't want it. The Europeans rejected it. The third world accepted it only for the possibility of making contacts with rich Americans. But make no mistake. 5/6th of the tithing cash flow comes from the US that runs the whole church. Most of the $40 Billion of assets the church owns are in the US. The church is almost completely tied to the US economy and if the US economy declines, so does the church.
The church has done a horrible job of keeping itself relavent in the younger Mormons lives. The fun activities of the past are gone and in a world of the internet, cell phones, and a zillion flavors of choices, the church needs to have fun activities more than ever for it's youth and it's completely dropped the ball here.
The high expense of college has killed the mission option. Most parents would rather see their children go to college than go on a mission now. The high cost of living has made many Mormon parents lay off pressuring their kids to get married. With higher temple marriage divorce rates and the parents being stuck with the bride and baby, getting Jr. married off is less appealing.
In truth, Mormons are slowly going the way of the world around them and it's a world that isn't compatable with young marriage and having lots of children young. As the United States becomes more of a has been that has to pay it's dues for decades of overspending, so will the church influence around the world and even at home. The church will have to cut back it's spending as well and hunker down and try to survive the downturn just like other organizations will.
Meanwhile, China and other prominent countries will become the new worldwide economic players influencing the cultures of other countries just like the US did in the 20th Century. In short, Mormonism isn't an international religion, it's an Americian religion and Mormonism isn't a 21st Century Religion. It peaked in the 20th Century and very well could meet it's demise in the 21st Century because it was too inflexiable to move with the way the world changed.
| | | | From TownHall.com:
Last week, I ran a series of columns on Mormonism. In the first installment, I voiced my refusal to buy into the notion that all Mormons are “cultists.” I also refused to say that all Mormons are “non-Christians.” For the most part, I received polite emails from those who disagreed. Those who, for example, wanted to argue that you can’t possibly be both Mormon and Christian usually began arguing with some variation of “I respectfully disagree and here’s why.” They generally ended arguments with some variation of “although we disagree, I eagerly await your future columns.”
But numerous anti-Mormon religious fanatics also wrote saying they had lost respect for me and would no longer read my columns. I thank God for the loss of that Kool-Aid sipping portion of my readership.
Among the Mormons, the response was predictable. Most wrote expressing thanks to me for taking the time to study The Book of Mormon and other credible sources about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS). They also thanked me for relying solely on sources recommended by LDS members - carefully avoiding anti-Mormon hit pieces throughout my research. For the most part, those readers reminded me that the Mormons view the U.S. Constitution as divinely inspired. Many offered words of encouragement for my defense of the First Amendment – even after I criticized their religion. I consider them valuable allies against a common enemy.
But the Joseph Smith-worshipping LDS crackpots (a vocal minority) also wrote – mostly to remind me that Smith was appointed by God to provide divine revelations, not Mike Adams. Dubbing me “ignorant” and a “liar” they urged me to keep my mouth shut or face eternal damnation. I also thank God that these Kool-Aid guzzlers have pledged to stop reading my columns.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colum...
| | | | From Townhall.com:
The fact that Joseph Smith roamed about in upstate New York as a young man searching for the lost treasures of Captain Kidd should have been enough to warn people that he was a few fries short of a happy meal. But his later claims to have received a set of Golden Plates from the Angel Moroni spared him from being seen merely as a quack. Instead, they ensured that he will go down in history as both a fraud and a heretic.
The Golden Plates of the Angel Moroni supposedly disappeared into heaven never to be seen again after Smith transcribed The Book of Mormon. This is but one of the evidentiary problems faced by the Latter-day Saints (LDS). The dearth of archeological evidence supporting the claims of Mormonism is also disturbing given that the events described in the book allegedly took place as late as the fifth century A.D.
That many of my LDS readers place The Book of Mormon in the same category with the Bible is odd, to say the least. While archeology has failed to substantiate The Book of Mormon, the veracity of the Bible - both the Old and New Testaments - has been demonstrated repeatedly in recent years.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colum...
| | | | I'm guessing that the general authority who gave the final approval for the letter that was read last Sunday in all the US wards was Lance Wickman. He may not be one of the Top 15, but he's the church's official General Counsel. I suspect that Dallin Oaks played a key role with this letter too. If you haven't seen the exact text, here's a link:
http://www.lds.org/newsroom/extra/0,1...
The last line is the sneaky one. They urge members to express themselves on this matter, but they don't tell them exactly what opinion or position they have to express.
Don't get me wrong. It's glaringly obvious what they want the members to do. The members will understand completely. Their leaders are counting on it. But, if anybody initiates a serious challenge to the church's tax-exempt status by saying that its activities are overtly political, the church will point to that last sentence and claim that they don't dictate any political positions to their members.
Here's how the logic works. It's about the same as if I told you that 1) All Mormons are evil, and 2) Mitt Romney is a Mormon, then later claimed that I never said that Mitt Romney was evil.
The sad thing is, I suspect that it works from a purely legal point of view.
| | | | This guy, Rick Koerber, has a radio show in Utah about financial prosperity principles. He gets real religious sometimes, but he has some interesting things to say about money.
Anyway, he has a forum where they were discussing the church's support of the marriage amendment. He used to oppose it, but he changed his mind when the church officially supported it.
He makes some interesting points, but something about his arguments bother me. They seem to be able to be made both ways. He claims not to be following blindly to the brethren, but I wonder if it's possible for him to disagree with them in any principled matter.
Anyway, for those willing to read it, I would like to know your thoughts. What do you think about his argument?
Thanks
Here's the link to the thread, and the text of his post:
http://franklinsquires.com/forum/view...
Nicely Entering the Debate
I'm interested in this discussion and so will enter the debate with Brandon and John. I want to do it nicely so we can all stay friends... Seriously. Sometimes people read too much into what I'm saying and not enough into what I've actually said. So, regarding this discussion on the proposed Constitutional Amendment on Marriage. I want to make three points and then respond to some comments of Johns.
1. I have been against any Amendment of the Kind.
In the past I have not liked the idea of Amending the Constitution for the purpose of defining family. First, the Founders spelled out a formula that we have almost completely abandoned. That is ---- to ensure the greatest good for "society" whatever that is, the government should secure and protect the rights of all individuals. You see, individuals have rights. Collectives do not get "new rights" because of affiliation. I've not seen any good arguments for "group" rights. So, each individual's rights represents the ultimate object of government protection. Families are collectives. The problem with this is two fold. I'm not convinced families have any rights per se, but only the individuals in these families have unalienable rights. Once rights are "granted" by government to groups or collectives, it creates one huge mess - to put it simply. One of the inherent God given rights incorporated into the "Liberty" Jefferson references in the Declaration and included in the pretext for the First Amendment is theindividual right of free association. So, when the government attempts to regulate this association by kind or degree then I have a problem philosophically - I think it violates principle. Any attempt to define family seems to become infinitely regressive when credibly challenged.
2. I like the idea of the Government out of the Marriage business all together.
In my judgment this is the best way to strengthen families. I think the most threatening force used to destroy the family is the force of corrupt government using its resources to condone, and protect immoral and lascivious behavior from the natural consequences of this behavior.
3. The Church's Position has Given me Cause to Re-Think my Position.
I believe as a matter of faith and religious doctrine that the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is inspired and that the men who have given us the counsel to support this membership is counsel given by prophets. I recognize this is a personal matter but it is a candid explanation of my motivation to rethink the issue. Because of my belief I have been challenged to "re-think" the issue. Notice I did not say turn of my brain and obey. I said, "rethink." I think it is the honest "duty" of all individuals to be responsible for their own judgments or actions and not to blame someone in authority for doing all the "thinking" for them. So, please spare me the whole litany against blind faith, absolute obedience, fallibility of leaders etc. My argument takes this into consideration and therefore I am explaining the "context" of that consideration here. You'll have to have your brain on to understand this. Now I'm sure Brandon and John did not need that last comment ( ) it was for everyoneelse. lol
4. I have, in the last few days, started to see the wisdom in this approach. I am not yet 100% resolved in my thinking on the matter, but I have realized a few things that I think are highly valuable in this discussion. In the process of rethinking my 0osition regarding the strategy of amending the constitution I think that it may be perfectly principled to amend this constitution in this way and it may be the most effective way to bring about good in the battle to protect our republic. I'll explain specifically as I respond to a few of John's comments below.
Now that I've summarized my basic feelings and judgments on the matter I am going to take a few quotations from John's writings so far and respond where I disagree. For example, John states:
Quote:
It states that neither the state constitutions, nor state or federal law can be amended or written to require the same legal protections currently bestowed upon participants of monogamous heterosexual marriages at tax-payer expense be extended to same-sex or polygamous unions."
Well, first of all this statement is highly assumptive and inaccurate for a number of reasons.
1) The proposed amendment text says nothing about the "legal protections currently bestowed upon participants of monogamous heterosexual marriages at tax-payer expense be extended to same-sex or polygamous unions." The text of the Amendment referenced in this discussion is the Senate version scheduled for debate on June 6th, which reads in substance, word for word....
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
So the first problem with John's assumptions which are included in his statement quoted above is that it is technically inaccurate. His conclusions are his own speculations, which I'm not disagreeing with in this point.
2) The "legal incidents thereof" is not a reference to the protections afforded married couples under the law it is instead related to the definition of a particular type of contractual relationship. This amendment does nothing positively or negatively to the protections afforded or benefits provided to any group. The reason this is important is that both the federal legislature and the state legislatures are still free, according to their constitutional authority to write and pass legislation related to the protections and/or benefits of marriage or any other contractual relationship. For example there is nothing prohibiting either the Federal or State legislatures from creating "Gay Unions" under the law and defining certain contractual protections and provisions for such an institution (other than common sense in my opinion) but the reason this is not acceptable to the political movement against this amendment is that this would require a political movement in all states, and at the national level, and take a long time. This, however, is how social change was expected to occur in a democratic republic. The thing that is expressly and simply prohibited is calling or labeling "under the law" something as "marriage" that is not "a" union between "a" man and "a" woman.
This is important for a number of reasons not the least of which is that it is important because certain political movements are trying to create new "law" through the judicial process rather than the legislative process. This is no small problem for a republic such as ours. This by the way is precisely what Elder Russell M Nelson explained as one reason for the endorsement of a constitutional amendment. He signed a letter which states that: "We are convinced that this is the only measure that will adequately protect marriage from those who would circumvent the legislative process and force a redefinition of it on the whole of our society.” The reason this is so critical is that many laws have been passed both federal and state that related to marriage with the assumption that the laws would apply only to marriage meaning between a man and a women. This concept is known as legislative intent. All U.S. courts have used legislative intent as one of the standards for understanding, interpreting, enforcing and passing judgment on laws. But, certain political groups that can not apparently get the support they need to write new law have pursued and to some degree successfully the strategy of judicial sabotage. This strategy says, if we can "redefine" what the word "marriage" means under the law then we can "claim for ourselves" all of the "rights, privileges, and blessings" of those laws previously passed. This would (and has in the past) create legal and social chaos. The idea of new legislation by redefining terms is a political strategy that is flawed in principle and seriously dangerous. Not to mention that the strategy is more politically sophisticated than most "laymen" are educated today to be alert to. So, the courts begin remaking society in a way not intended at all by the constitutional framers of our republic. Those who defend this strategy support the idea that the devastating consequences of legislation by judicial fiat and the blurring of distinction between the three branches of government is less important than the "public good" served. Of course the "public good" is not the protection of individual rights as checked by the republican form of government the democratic input of the people but by the few elite in power who know better than "the people" what is good for society. Funny thing is that the political rhetoric of these supporters is just the opposite. If the political cause was genuine then the fight would be fought honestly in public - which is what this constitutional amendment does by the way, it moves the debate where it should be - into the publics view and participation.
3) The proposed amendment says nothing of monogamous relationships. For example, it does not define a marriage as valid or invalid based upon the fidelity of the partners. This is a matter left up to legislators to decide. It also does not prohibit a person entering into multiple marriages - such as bigamy, polygamy, polyandry etc. Some "assume" this because of the phrase "a" man and "a" woman. However what the text does mean instead is that marriage cannot be defined as the union of two women and one man. But to assume the endorsement of monogamy (while not out of reason) is not legally consistent with the text. The political threat being addressed is not the attempt of polygamists to change the definition of marriage... but the judicial strategy to redefine marriage to mean something it has not traditionally mean in previous legislative processes. If it was meant to exclude other types of associations it would say the "exclusive union" of "a" man and "a" woman. But, for example polygamy has never been defined as "group marriage" it has been defined as when one man or one women is involved (or to use the term more accurately - you can reverse the genders here) in more than one marriage. Or in other words in a polygamous family where one man is married to three different women there is not "one marriage" defined as the man and his three wives but instead there exists three marriages, each between one man and one woman. BTW, I think the Church would not support an amendment to the constitution that the Lord would say "is more or less" than what he originally established or in other words inconsistent with doctrine.
John also states that:
Quote:
In essence, monogamous heterosexual marriages are being subsidized at the expense of everyone else. Anyone claiming to be a "Free Capitalist" and in support of such an amendment is NOT acting in integrity in my opinion. The ideal is "Liberty and Justice for All", not "Liberty, Justice, and extra benefits for the Privileged Majority at the expense of All".
I disagree. The "subsidizing" of marriage is a separate issue. What the amendment is doing is keeping marriage from being redefined so that a new class of relationship can inherit protections and privileges which previous legislators did not ever intend. I would argue that the subsidizing of marriage is a separate, serious problem but not germane to this debate - though the issue would become much less controversial and the opponents of the amendment would not get nearly the support of this were admitted. I do however understand that as a practical result this amendment would do nothing to abolish this problem of subsidy, but this is much different than an argument that it somehow validates or keeps in place the current problem. It quite simply does NOTHING to the current problem of subsidy. So, while I agree with John's sentiment of a Constitutional "present or privilege" being given to one group and not another is a travesty, I just think it is a bad argument and dangerous to mix issues here. As I have saidbefore, I don't think the proper role of government would ever include bestowing "group" rights at any time and I do not think it principled to decide who gets which rights any more than I think it appropriate to decide who gets which goods. That government quite simply, when it does this, is ripe for abolishment. This, at least, is what Jefferson writes in the Declaration. So, again I agree with John's sentiment but I think it is HIGHLY dangerous to bring that sentiment to this debate because it blinds the real issue, it makes this a nebulous conglomerate issue and obfuscates the principles, and actually makes it harder to win the fight for good government by doing so.
Finally, John's attack on the integrity of a "Free Capitalist" supporting this amendment (which I think by the way is simply unproductive) is based upon an assumption that the support of the amendment would be the support of the government granting special rights to special groups. This has never been my argument nor was it Brandon’s. So, if there are other issues of "integrity" I'd like John to elaborate more clearly. I think this misunderstanding happens a lot in politics. We think with our own set of assumptions (all of us are guilty and some of us are more blind to questioning our assumptions than others) and therefore fail to consider that someone who disagree with our "stance" on an issue may in fact not be disagreeing with us in principle but may "see something" that we have not yet seen. Which is what has happened for me. At first I was disappointed to see the Church's endorsement of this idea, and now I think I see some of what I did not see before.
John says about the proposed amendment that:
Quote:
It would require an amendment to the Federal Constitution to allow State Constitutions or state or federal laws to require the same legal protections that this Amendment would forbid.
No, I don't think so. The prohibition here (and this is the only thing this amendment does - prohibit) is simply prohibiting any State or the Federal Constitution from being "construed to require" a redefinition of marriage. This is very limited in that it is basically a check against the judiciary. It IS NOT a limitation on the legislature.
Think about this for a minute. To my knowledge there is nothing in the Federal or any of the State constitutions that "requires" a speed limit, or local sales taxes, or any of the many many many government functions taken on by the legislative and executive branches of the government. Yet these laws exist. They arise freely from the legislature. You see it is not the legislature or the executive that can "construe" the meaning of a law. The legislative creates the law, and the executive enforces the law, the judiciary construes the law. This amendment simply prevents judicial fiat creating new law (and at that only related this topic).
This means for example it would simply require legislation (either State or Federal) to create a new class of relationship rather than a judicial ruling construing new meaning to old legislation and thereby forcing new law to be written. But nothing would prevent a state from freely choosing, without coercion from the court, to pass a law granting gay marriage or any other kind of marriage. The only thing prevented by this amendment would be the judiciary forcing the legislative or executive branches to do so. This is as it should be. So for example, Massachusetts could have gay marriage on the books, but it would have to come freely from the legislator, not compulsory from the State Supreme Court as it did. And, if a State did have such a statute on the books no court could use the State or Federal Constitution to force other states to recognize the law/statue of another state. This is how contract law - by the way - works. For example, in Utah a real estate investor can use a "lease option" agreement to form a contractual relationship with a tenant. However, in Texas the state legislature does not recognize the lease option agreement as such but instead considers all such agreements as actual conveyance instruments of real property - thus changing dramatically what is available under the law to citizens of each state. Now that is not a prefect example but it demonstrates that state laws vary and recognition of different types of contracts vary. Some states allow minors certain privileges, while others forbid the same. Some states allow concealed carry permits, some do not. Some states require professional licensing for certain services, while others do not. Some states allow certain types of adoption, while others forbid the same. Some states allow marriage without parental consent at age 13 some at 18. Some states criminalize homosexual activity of all kinds, some states restrict such activity by age, and some states do not restrict homosexual activity per se.
This proposed amendment would not necessarily create any new legal conundrum or even any substantial change. It would however put a stop to judicial tyranny in this one area of the law.
So, John then makes the argument that:
Quote:
Since marriage is a legal contract as far as the government is concerned, I see no reason why all states shouldn't recognize and uphold contracts legally made in other states. Imagine the confusion that could ensue if a marriage recognized by one state is not recognized by another. If one person took up residency in another state which did not recognize their marriage contract, would their marriage contract remain in force, or would it be dissolved? What of the distribution of property jointly owned, or any fiduciary responsibilities? Of course, this would require a uniform standard for contracts across states, including but not limited to the age of consent and what terms and conditions are enforceable by law.
There are a few things I would like to comment on here.
1. All States should not be compelled to recognize or uphold contracts legally made in other states because this would threaten the sovereign authority of each State to virtually eliminate any semblance of statehood whatever, and make all States simply federal provinces. To the degree that we have done so much with so much loss of liberty resultant from this type of federal usurpation already, I'm surprised by John's argument here.
2. What would be confusing about a marriage in one state not being recognized in another? There are two faulty assumptions here.
The first is that states wouldn't "freely choose" to recognize the other types of marriages performed in other states. I know this seems like an easy argument against my position. However, over time - though no federal constitutional or state constitutional requirements were used to coerce the states - the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) which was created to harmonize the law of sales and other commercial transactions in all fifty states was freely accepted by 49 of the 50 states and Louisiana has essentially adopted it, but has found it hard to reconcile the language with its own civil tradition in Napoleonic Code. My point here is just because the COURTS can not compel acceptance does not mean acceptance won't happen. This is a common mistake made by "socialists" or those thinking with socialist tenants. That because something is not required by law, it will not happen. Quite the opposite is true. The market place of ideas is subject to all of the forces that participate in the political process. The only difference is that the political process legalizes the use of force for compulsion. The UCC and other uniform acts are perfect examples of how the code (though not in itself a law) was created and then each state legislature was free to judge its desirability for itself. As acceptance grew, nonacceptance became too costly. This is REAL social change vs. TYRANICAL change that creates the illusion of right - rather than right in substance.
The second faulty assumption is that a lack of uniformity would create intolerable confusion. This however is more of an appeal to the sensational than anything else. History has shown over and over that this is not the case. Just look at a few common examples.
A. In Business Relations - Laws and Recognition Vary By State. For example, in one State I can do business as a school without a license but in another it is a crime. No confusion, but awareness is critical.
B. In Government Subsidies - Laws and Recognition Vary By State. If I qualify to receive State administered assistance in one state, I am not necessary qualified in another. No confusion, but it does create an incentive for certain people to choose to live in certain places.
C. In Marriage - Some states recognize common law marriage but in other states they do not. Standards also differ from state to state. However, there does not seem to be an uproar about confusion on this issue.
D. In sexual Relations - Premarital sex is a crime in some States and in others it is not. Adultery, cohabitation, sodomy, etc., are regulated differently by state.
E. In Education - In some states I can choose where my child goes to public school and in others I can not. In some states I, as the parent, can legally teach my child at home without government permission in others this is a crime.
The entire American experiment includes a fundamental understanding that each State creates, engenders, and develops its own laws, cultures, etc., underneath the Federal banner which unites the states in key principles. We have survived as a republic without uniformity in marriage and many many other areas as well.
3. Finally, regarding property rights, financial responsibilities etc. These questions are not germane to the issue. As I have pointed out, the proposed amendment does not change the actual existence of any legal benefit currently. Secondly, this argument is often used to justify the need for everyone to be able to "marry" regardless of gender particularly. However, all of these issues including inheritance, custody and guardianship of children, finances can and actually do have a history of being thoroughly addressed in contract law. It does however take personal initiative and an attitude of self-reliance. If one abandons this, I agree that current law does provide disproportionate protection of rights to individuals involved in one type of association called marriage than others. Whether or not this is good/desirable is a different debate as I've already explained.
So, in the end, I was surprised in my own research and exploration on the topic to see how nicely the "real" issues pair down to a simple decision about the role of the judiciary on this one topic. That’s it! The debate in public however will be much more spectacular and probably the result will be much different than those enthralled in the debate currently imagine.
On a separate note I would also like to point out (especially for the LDS audience) something that is also highly important in my opinion related to the Church's "endorsement" of this amendment. Even the Deseret News gets it wrong based on flawed assumptions. I seem to have a built in "hot button" for the mental laziness that afflicts us all at times to "hear" what we think was said, instead of what was "actually" said. For example, after having researched the issue thoroughly I think many would be surprised to learn that:
1) The Church did not endorse this amendment.
2) The Church did not recommend its members endorse this amendment.
Doesn't that just sound funny given what most of us "heard" last Sunday. Well, let me explain. First, you should re-read the text of the letter that was read. You can find it here. In the letter the First Presidency says only that "the United States Senate will on June 6, 2006, vote on an amendment...designed to protect the traditional definition of marriage." This statement is informative, not prescriptive. The only behavior of the members being endorsed is in the final sentence where the brethren write, "We urge our members to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate." Notice anything missing? The letter falls short of an actual endorsement. It is, I agree, a conceptual endorsement - meaning to me that it is clear+ the brethren want something done to protect marriage and family and that one method that they endorse is a constitutional amendment. However, the did not endorse any specific amendment. Actually they have gone to great lengths to allow church membersto voice their opinion to change the wording, redraft an amendment, etc. This is quite different than simply encouraging members to support a vote one way or the other. At least it is quite different in my mind.
For example, the brethren have published 3 public press releases on the subject of supporting "an amendment" to the Constitution... but no specific endorsement of any particular one. April 24, 2006, October 19, 2004, July 7, 2004. As a matter of fact on July 7, 2004 there is a specific statement that while the brethren support the strategy of amending the constitution to protect the definition of marriage it is not endorsing "any specific amendment."
Now I make this point not to somehow de-emphasize that it is quite apparent that the brethren would counsel us to support the current amendment absent a better alternative (my judgment of the matter) but it also seems clear that they have not given us divine permission to turn our brains off and disengage in the debate but only blindly support what others come up with. To the contrary they even anticipate members involvement in the debate. In the April release they write, "Because national campaigns on moral, social or political issues often become divisive, the Church urges those who participate in public debate — including its own members — to be respectful of each other. While disagreements on matters of principle may be deeply held, an atmosphere of civility and mutual respect is most conducive to the strength of a democratic society."
So, I make this point only to say that all Americans but particularly Latter-day Saints (because of our belief in the divine inspiration behind our leading authorities) have a duty to keep our brains on, to be effectively engaged in good causes of our own free will and choice, and should not wait for the Church to set up specific programs, to endorse specifically worded legislation, or to send out an instruction manual for civic responsibility. We know the doctrine, we know the counsel, and I am convinced the brethren expect that we act accordingly - which does not mean "zombie-like assent on this or any other issue."
Now one last point - more personal to me. Please understand that the following is related more to my personal and private opinion while the previous is a more public discussion of my own mind on the subject.
So, I have come a long way in my willingness to consider this approach (a constitutional amendment defining marriage and restricting it to opposite gender relations) to solving the problem. To be perfectly candid my biggest reservation at present may be a bit surprising to some. However it has to do with what I'm sure will be debated socially, politically, and legally. Just like John, I think many including the majority of the supporters of this amendment would construe this amendment to "outlaw" polygamy. In my post here I have outlined a brief description about why I don't think the text as it stands, does so. Nevertheless, it will be debated. The text could be changed, etc. Additionally, the multi-denominational statement signed by Elder Nelson includes the call for an amendment that defines marriage as, "the exclusive union of one man and one woman." Now the reason for my concern over the matter is this.
Obviously the Church has some history with relation to plural marriage / polygamy. (We use the term polygamy, which has broader meaning, but we use it to mean one man entering into more than one marriage) I am certainly aware that this history was and remains largely misunderstood and that after 1890 the Church's position changed dramatically. However, the DOCTRINE of the church does not change. My understanding of plural marriage is that it was not simply church policy at the time, but that it as a principle is DOCTRINE. There are two parts to the marriage doctrine - as I understand it.
First, celestial marriage - meaning marriage for Time and Eternity by proper Priesthood Authority.
Second, plurality of wives.
Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants addresses much of this topic as explained in vs. 1 and 2. Most of the section appears to deal with the celestial nature of the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. However, this section of the scripture also very clearly explains as touching the "principle and doctrine of their having many wives..." In verse 34 the Lord explains that Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham because it was "the law."
So, my point is not to teach, encourage, or in anyway suggest that members of the Church question the current position of the Church. However, it is to explain a concern I have related to this DOCTRINE. I believe it is Christian doctrine and could enter into quite a lengthy conversation on the topic and its many facets. However, the part that concerns me is this.
1. The scripture seems clear to me that having many wives was not just a temporary policy of the Church but is a doctrine of the Kingdom.
2. When President Woodruff issued the Manifesto Oct. 6, 1890 he explained that, "Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise...And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land." Then, when President Snow offered the motion for a sustaining vote he offered it by stating that the manifesto would be "authoritative and binding" on the Church. No where did the DOCTRINE change nor was it forsaken, as I read the document. I could be missing something, but because of the Constitutionality issue - and the subsequent revelation from the Lord, the manifesto was issued.
3. President Hinckley on the subject does not dismiss the doctrine, but says instead, "If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church. An article of our faith is binding upon us. It states, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (A of F 1:12). One cannot obey the law and disobey the law at the same time." To see my point, notice that the Constitutional status of plural marriage is given as the binding force behind the current position of the Church.
4. Now I do admit I have not completely understood President Hinckley's further elaboration that, "More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage."
5. Lastly, concerning the Constitution of the United States, the Lord has said, "...I established the Constitution of this land, by the hand of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose..." The Lord also said, "Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; and as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil." There is much more contained in D&C; sections 98, 101, and 109 on the subject.
So my concern is this and it is twofold.
A) I think it would be highly troubling for the Church to take a Constitutional position that is inconsistent with the Doctrine of the Kingdom. The Church in the past argued vehemently against the position now viewed as Constitutional that polygamy could and should be prohibited by the government. If the Church now argued in favor of the abolition of the practice and to do so by supporting amending the actual text of the instrument God has already endorsed it would seem to me to be a serious contradiction, especially since the Constitutionality (or lack thereof) was used in 1890 and recently by President Hinckley as the reason for the current position of the Church.
B) I do not claim to know EXACTLY what the Lord is up to here today, but it is my understanding and I believe it was the understanding of the brethren at the time of the manifesto that the day would come again in the future when the Lord would require the practice of plural marriage. Though it would seem troubling to many, both in and out of the Church, as it did over 100 years ago, I can not see why we would now want the government of the United States to make illegal ANEW a doctrine of the Gospel. Of course, it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things what I can or cannot see as far as the Church is concerned, I just state my case for the purpose of explaining a concern that I have. It seems to me that the Church would benefit from the opportunity to get the government out of the marriage business as it originally argued years ago.
I have always thought that it would be a strange irony that Satan’s movement to destroy the family would mobilize support for the governments withdrawal from the marriage business which would at the same time lead the way to validate the arguments of the Church over 100 years ago in defense of the Celestial Order of marriage in its completeness.
| | | | Oher threads have exhibited the hostility - and fear - that Mormons and fellow conservative Protestants have of secularism. Mormons and conservative Protestants usually point to the courts as the source of their affliction.
I think the real answer is that Mormons et al. are afraid of secular *ideas* more than the government these people already largely control.
One metric is where the bodies and minds are going. A very interesting survey shows that the population of religiously non-affiliated persons is expanding, in historical terms, rather rapidly in the United States. But this is a quiet, person-by-person phenomenon.
This metric argues that Mormons and their conservative Protestant allies do have something to fear iin spite of their growth and political strength: the disaffection of people from religious mythology to secular ideas - i.e., the inability of extreme religious myths to permanently win over minds and hearts of independent people.
The LDS and other religious righ fear they will wake up some day and find the U.S. socially like Europe, with religious myth becoming increasingly irrelevant and formerly Christian societies unabashedly secular in outlook.
That is why LDS et al. want to insulate young minds from secular ideas - evolution and beyond. That is why there is such a rush by conservative religions to put the lid on gay marriage with a constititional amendment. They fear their day of power may wane.
Exmos are certainly part of this trend, with many defecting to secular, agnostic viewpoints that are skeptical of Mormon and other religious claims. Therefore we are the enemy.
http://www.alternet.org/story/36640/
"According to the City University of New York Graduate Center's comprehensive American religious identification survey, the percentage of Americans who identify as Christians has actually fallen in recent years, from 86 percent in 1990 to 77 percent in 2001. The survey found that the largest growth, in both absolute and percentage terms, was among those who don't subscribe to any religion. Their numbers more than doubled, from 14.3 million in 1990, when they constituted 8 percent of the population, to 29.4 million in 2001, when they made up 14 percent.
"The top three 'gainers' in America's vast religious marketplace appear to be Evangelical Christians, those describing themselves as Non-Denominational Christians and those who profess no religion," the survey found."
| | |
|
|
|
