Joseph Smith:

“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.

“Heber C. Kimball, while serving as a counselor to President Brigham Young, reported: “I will give you a key which Brother Joseph Smith used to give in Nauvoo. He said that the very step of apostasy commenced with losing confidence in the leaders of this church and kingdom, and that whenever you discerned that spirit you might know that it would lead the possessor of it on the road to apostasy.”

It seems that Brent has some differing feelings on this subject than the Brethren. (“My faith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, erred in supporting this type of political initiative.”) However, it is probably better to resolve those differences internally rather than publicly, as not to openly “find…fault with the Church, saying they are out of the way…” We would do well to avoid “the very step of apostasy [that comes by] losing confidence in the leaders of this church and kingdom”

Also, a reminder from 3 Nephi, in response to the “my church” mentality evident in the article – this is spoken by the Lord to the Nephites:

“Therefore, whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name; therefore ye shall call the church in my name; and ye shall call upon the Father in my name that he will bless the church for my sake.”

When Brent said, “I would really rather that my Church doesn’t try to place its definition of morality onto the general public…” I cringed a little. Well, needless to say, it isn’t your church, Brent – it is the Lord’s Church. When one gets in the habit of calling the Lord’s Church as “my Church”, they inevitably start feeling uncomfortable when “their Church” doesn’t do things in their way. They stop “calling upon the Father in my name that he will bless the church for my sake” because there are too worried about their own sake. Replacing the phrases “my Church” and “my faith” with “the Lord” (whose Church it really is) in the above article would reveal the pathetic nature of those sentences:

“I would really rather that the Lord doesn’t try to place [His] definition of morality onto the general public…”

I believe that this is the heart of the gospel: making public the Lord’s (and His Church’s) definition of morality.

I’ll just let this sentence stand as it was written:

“…The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, erred in supporting this type of political initiative.”

Really? Do you really believe that? The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles – our prophets, seers, and revelators – collectively and unanimously “erred” on this issue?

It is as if Brent is saying as was once said to President Packer, “I am an active and faithful member of the Church; however,…” In President Packer’s situation he was encouraged to join a certain organization of Church members. His response, after refusing to join was this:

“I told my two hosts that if the announcement had read, ‘We are active and faithful members of the Church; therefore,…’ I would have joined their organization.

“That however meant that they put a condition upon their Church membership and their faith. It meant that they put something else first. It meant that they were to judge the Church and gospel and the leaders of it against their own backgrounds and training. In meant that their commitment was partial, and that partial commitment is not enough to qualify one for full spiritual light.

“I would not contribute to publications…that by spirit or inclination are faith destroying. There are plenty of scholars in the world determined to find all secular truth. There are so few of us, relatively speaking, striving to convey the spiritual truths, who are protecting the Church. We cannot safely be neutral.”

Well, if “we cannot safely be neutral” than I sure hope we don’t find ourselves in opposition to the Church and Kingdom of God. We cannot be the kind of Church members that are “active and faithful; however”, without put[ting] a condition upon [our] Church membership and [our] faith. We must be the kind of Church members that are “active and faithful; therefore” because “partial commitment is not enough to qualify one for full spiritual light.”

It seems to me that we must resolve it in our own minds to follow the Brethren and have faith that they are led by the Spirit and by revelation. Certainly, we are entitled to receive our personal convictions that the counsel and teachings of the Lord’s servants are good and true. Let us not, therefore, publish criticism while settling these things in our hearts. Just one week ago the Church posted an article with these words: “Following the passing of Proposition 8 in California, the Church released statements urging civility and reaffirming its position on the issue.” For me, that’s it – that’s all I need. I can take that to prayer and the issue is settled. Elder Gibbons spoke to this subject in October 2006 saying:

“Brothers and sisters, let’s sell that summer cottage in Babylon. Let us be not “almost” but “altogether” Latter-day Saints.

“In Joseph Smith Translation, Luke 14:28 the Lord says: ‘Wherefore, settle this in your hearts, that ye will do the things which I shall teach, and command you.’ I love that phrase ‘settle this.’ Brothers and sisters, I pray that we are ‘settled.’ There are precious blessings that come only from the complete yielding of one’s heart to God.”

There is no doubt in mind that the Brethren have aligned themselves with God, on this important moral issue. And after every other consideration they decided “do the things which [the Lord taught, and commanded them], and they asked the Saints to do the same. This is simply the hand of the Lord working for the progress of good in our latter-day world, even if “[c]oncern over the institution of the family will be viewed [by society] as untrendy and unenlightened.” (Elder Maxwell, prophesy given in 1978).
We should not excuse our criticisms of our inspired leadership by saying (as some have said in these weblogs before – and this is a direct quote): “MANY BRETHREN HAVE SAID THAT WE MUST PRAY TO GAIN A TESTIMONY OF ALL THINGS SAID AT THE PULPIT AND YOU KNOW WHAT? SOMETIMES I MAY NOT GET A POSITIVE AFFIRMATION. AND THAT IS OK…”
That is “OK”, only if it is recognized as not a communication. As soon as one suggests that they have received contrary revelation to the prophet and his brethren, then I worry that it is not “OK”. Either way, acting in a manner contrary to the Brethren’s counsel is dangerous ground, in my mind. President Benson illustrates:

There will be times when you will have to choose between the revelation of God and reasoning of men—between the prophet and the professor. Said the Prophet Joseph Smith,

“‘Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof until long after the events transpire.’ (Scrapbook of Mormon Literature, vol. 2, p. 173).

“Would it seem reasonable to an eye doctor to be told to heal a blind man by spitting in the dirt, making clay and applying it to the man’s eyes and then telling him to wash in a contaminated pool? Yet this is precisely the course that Jesus took with one man, and he was healed. (See John 9:6–7.) Does it seem reasonable to cure leprosy by telling a man to wash seven times in a particular river, yet this is precisely what the prophet Elisha told a leper to do, and he was healed. (See 2 Kgs. 5.)

“‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.’”

So, those are my thoughts on the subject and about the article in the original post. It’ll be interesting to see if there is more discussion, as there hasn’t been a comment for more than a week.

Regarding Yeshiva, a) they are nonsectarian, b) they never raised a religious defense, and c) Yeshiva allowed unmarried straight couples to live in the dorms, just not unmarried gay couples. So yeah, this doesn’t bear much resemblance to BYU at all.

eHarmony was an out-of-court settlement, and I doubt eHarmony would have lost if they would have gone to trial. Still, if eHarmony would have made clear that their services were to match Christian singles or some such thing (advertise their niche status), there would be even less of an issue. If businesses have a rational business model that appeals to a nice in a market, they won’t usually lose an anti-discrimination case. If they advertise services to the general public, there is no rational basis for them to deny service to gays and lesbians, but they decide to anyway, that will likely be a case. (I’m not an employment lawyer, so there may be some wrinkles in the law that I’m not explaining well here).

And if you’ll notice, LDSFS is still placing children in Mass. Not only are they discriminating against gay couples, but also against non-Mormon couples. They don’t take federal or state funds, don’t place children for the state, and don’t do foster services, so the government has a lot less reason to control them.

Am I saying there will never be conflicts between the interests of the Church and gays and lesbians? Nope. I do think that this country is one of the most respectful of religious freedom and religion in general. The Church is not being tossed on the shoals in countries where same-sex marriage is legal, and there’s even less of a chance of it in this country. The Church is also not standing alone on this issue, either. Inasmuch as there is a wide religious tradition of condemning homosexuality, I think this issue will be looked upon more like not ordaining women clergy than Bob Jones not allowing interracial dating. There are always bumps in the road, but I think that predictions of armageddon are not borne out by history.

And p.s., I may play an east-coast type here in the Bloggernacle, but I’m from Salt Lake City, so be aware of my limited jurisdiction before you ask for my business card. :)

Ohhh, no its normal lawyer talk, right? jk

Its no longer a logical fallacy, nor a coincidence only, when one has to pay real money and in the ruling the judge mentions Roman jurisprudence or British common law. I may think that its post hocy ergoy.. whatever, but the judge doesn’t.

(No offense intended Nate W)

But, respectfully, what I believe you are missing here is that all SSM cases will be based on some form of anti-discrimination and that is what concerns people. We will no longer be able to say that we uphold and respect the laws of the land when we disagree with SSM when it is legal and lawful, even if the disagreement stems from a religious point of view, as happened with polygamy. Plus that Yeshiva University involved a same sex couple, and true there is no SSM in NY, but if this is a problem now what will it be when SSM is legal? The gay lobby can just increase the amount of people they take to court, not just one photographer, or a private adoption service in CA or eHarmony (ie private companies not churches). Plus in Mass, the adoption case, the point was that the CathChurch had been adopting for decades but has to withdraw from the public system, so where does that end? will the church also have to withdraw from the education system because they won’t recognize SSM? will BYU have to withdraw because its honor code rejects even a one off gay lover? I’m not a lawyer (obvious?) but I do run a large business and we have had the weirdest cases against us, arguments that lawyers dreamed up, like people who resign to go to college and then come back 6 months later saying that they were forced to resign due to our ‘discriminating attitudes’ etc etc. And yes, some we won because they were ridiculous but others we lost when our legal firm said that there was no case, and yet others we just settled out of court because its cheaper. But the creativity and guile that those in your profession come up with is bewildering! We have learned to expect the unexpected and wait for new laws to be invented by judges every once in a while.

But your argument in #103 is fairly decent and convincing so maybe I will hire you after all!!
Best wishes,
Carlos

Frankly, it scares me.

None of these have to do with same-sex marriage. Most of these incidents occurred in states where marriage rights do not exist or did not exist at the time of the incident. At its roots, the debate over Proposition 8 is a policy debate. The question is whether Proposition 8 is better than the alternative of same-sex marriage.

Policy is implemented in the real world. While this statement may seem obvious, experience shows that it is a point worth making. Too often, those in favor of a change in policy focus too much on the unacceptability of the status quo to question whether the alternative will be better, while those against a policy compare the imagined harm to a utopian alternative rather than the reality of the status quo.

In the case of Proposition 8, we have to compare the status quo of same-sex marriage with the alternative under California law: a world with the same anti-discrimination laws, the same adoption laws, and domestic partnership laws that provide same-sex couples with an institution that only differs from marriage by its name.

I don’t think legalized SSM and gay anti-discrimination law suits happening side by side is a product of mere coincidence.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Look it up. These lawsuits have been around before gay marriage lawsuits. You’re aiming at the wrong target. Even if you stop same-sex marriage, these lawsuits will go on because of anti-discrimination laws. In fact, existing anti-discrimination laws have been part of the calculus on same-sex marriage cases. So, if anything, the causation works the other way.

You’re parsing like a good lawyer. But, at the end of the day, all of those incidents have to do with SSM–directly. As I said before, when the courts speak they establish a precedent that will influence further related court decisions–sometimes for generations to come. I don’t think legalized SSM and gay anti-discrimination law suits happening side by side is a product of mere coincidence. The more SSM becomes generally legalized across the states the more it becomes codified as a civil rights issue–and that has everything to do with everyone of those examples cited by Carlos.