New Order Mormon

John Dehlin is reporting on Mormon Matters that Elder Marlin Jensen of the Seventy met with disaffected member, including gay members and families of gay members who were hurt by the church's involvement in Prop 8, and after listening carefully to the people (including taking notes) Elder Jensen noted that he was a "third tier" leader in the church and offered an apology "to the full extent of my capacity" (according to a note from Carol Lynn Pearson who said she was at the meeting).

Here's the link:
http://mormonmatters.org/2010/09/25/eld ... osition-8/

_________________
Flat Lander

Next conference I will vote Marlin Jensen for president, or at least try and move him up a couple of tiers.

_________________
"You want to know something? We are still in the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages — they haven't ended yet." -- k.v.

"L'enfer c'est les autres" -- JPS

Amen.

You'd think that "seers" would have seen it coming. The problem is that higher ups made decisions for the rest of US when they decided to mobilize and raise funds. I think that was a stupid idea. A waste of time, effort and money and what problems did it solve versus what problems and damages it created? Isn't there a mall to build or something?

What exactly is it that people want him to apologize for?

Standing up for Virtue?
Upholding the Law Of Chastity?
Defending the Sanctity of Marriage?

The Church's push on proposition 8 shone the light of the gospel on the morally bankrupt and any pain they felt was from their own conscience.

_________________
Your Lack Of Understanding Does Not Make God A Liar

I thank the Lord that the likes of Brother Jensen are appointed to represent the church in public relations.

Oh, Mike. I hate to burst your bubble, but there are quite a few gay folks out there who are truly happy. Perhaps as many as there are mormons.

But since you asked, I think the fact that the church organized to fight a purely political battle, and then shirked responsibility for it, is galling to quite a few people. If they had a genuine issue with gay marriage, it seems it would have been easy enough to inject a special lesson about it into the curriculum and 'Stand For Something'. But they chose instead, to use church resources to organize political action outside of the church.

But I don't think that's what Elder Jensen was apologizing for. As near as I can tell, he is apologizing for hurting the feelings of gays and their families. And for that, I agree with NannaP, he will probably end up an emeritus Seventy and perhaps an emeritus historian as well.

_________________
Ahh, Thayne. I am aware of your pattern of having hatred in your heart and posting it on the Internet. --Michael Crook

You're joking, right?

People need to stop thinking of homosexuals as perverts. Discrimination against them is based on this premise alone.

I imagine this will fall on deaf ears, but what two adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is none of anyone's business. "Virtue, Law of Chastity, and the Sanctity of Marriage" comes from strictly a religious perspective. Remove the religious aspect of these concepts and it's entirely possible for a homosexual to be virtuous (moral excellence; goodness.) As far as the Law of Chastity goes, we stopped stoning people for this 100's of years ago. We don't endorse political campaigns against them. And if we'd let these people get married they just might have a sanctified marriage. I don't use the word "sanctified" in a religious context. Although it is primarily a religious term. Their marriage might be holy in the context of their commitment to each other, as well as their love for one another.

This angst against homosexuals is getting old!

Moderator revision: LC disagrees with your leading rhetorical question and implied statement with great vehemence.

_________________
It's only after we've lost everything that we are free to do anything.

Violation of Free Moral Agency.

Hey I completely disagree with Mike, but he is entitled to his own opinion - an opinion that a majority of Americans, or at least californians, hold. From his perspective ( I'm going to have to say religious?) it is wrong and sinful to be homosexual. While I disagree, he shouldn't be flamed for siding with the majority

_________________
"There's no dark side of the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark." -pink floyd

I like Marlin Jensen. He's now a hero of mine, along with Dieter F. Uchdorf and Ronald E. Pohlman.

_________________
(There is) a distinction here between the gospel and the church: the church is an organ that facilitates the gospel, but like any organ it can break down (sometimes to the point of doing the opposite of what it intends).

I wonder if people really hold these opinions. If someone came to me and asked me to vote on something that had no effect on my life, of which I had no education or experience of I think I'd probably make a half formed decision based upon a mixture of knee jerk reactions , fitting in with what I thought everyone expected me to say and a very small amount of thought centring upon 'which answer will give me the most benefit or cost me the least.'

I'm not gay but I do have a gay friend and I can't think of any reason why I should have any influence on who he should be allowed to marry since I never asked him if it was OK to marry my wife.

I bet - with a little bit of education and experience - most people would be able to form an opinion very different from the initial one they thought was right.

I highly doubt a majority of Americans agree that homosexuals are morally bankrupt. You could make a case that a majority of Americans agree that homosexuals should not have the right to marry, but that's much different than passing judgment on the characters of all homosexuals. What Mike said above is highly insulting (but he has every right to say it).

Mike,
The question isn't whether or not the church should stand up for what it believes. If the church wants to be vocally against homosexuality they have every right to do so.
But why should they get to take their religious beliefs and give them the force of law?
Seriously. Why?
I have yet to hear a good argument against gay mariage that didn't ultimately come down to a personal religious belief.
Maybe you have one, if so I would love to hear it.
If the church is going to be about encouraging morality through the force of law then why don't they campaign for prohibition of alcohol? Why don't they campaign to make or enforce adultery laws? Why don't they campaign to make tobacco illegal?

What's cool about NOM, is people like Mike can come on and share their opinions, and while most on here disagree with him, the comment stays, his account stays, and most respect his opinion and his right to have it, even if it is not agreed with.

But imagine flipping it around, try a post on an apologetic board expressing opposition to prop 8, you'll get flamed and banned almost instantly.

Do you lack an ability or interest in understanding points of view that are not your own or semi-official church pronouncements. Have you read the material on the web page and the posting guidelines?

Can you grasp that some people might feel that the organized action supporting Prop 8 might seem to some people, including active/believing Mormons like an inappropriate intrusion of a church into politics which might also result in members who disagree with the proposition being marginalized and stigmatized for caring about the rights of friends or relatives who have a biological same sex attraction. (Have you listened to Dr. Bradshaw's talk on the data supporting the biological basis for homosexuality?

Is it virtuous to deny people who have committed relationships legal rights about property, power of attorney or hospital visitation? From the various legal actions after Prop 8 it appears that the church was not honest about its activities or financial participation in the campaign. Whether from incompetence of malfeasance, the church violated some laws. How is that standing up for virtue?

How is denying same sex couples the opportunity to form legally sanctioned monogamous relationships related to upholding the law of chastity? Chastity is not about abstinence, it's about fidelity. It's arguable that preventing same sex couples from marrying or forming civil unions interferes with the so-called law of chastity, and does not uphold or support it. Would you like to enforce the word of wisdom on non-members of the church? Should the church in the nineteenth century have pressed for legalization of polygamy, or gone further suggesting that polygamy (both polygyny and polyandry) be made mandatory so America could raise more righteous seed?

How does civil union or marriage for same sex couples attack or diminish the sanctity of marriage? I believe a similar argument was once offered that interracial marriage threatened the sanctity of marriage. Is it possible that each individual marriage is sanctified by the love of the partners and their positive participation in their various communities, as well as the respect and support of the communities involved for the couples and families? If one is opposed to same sex marriage, one ought not marry a person of the same sex. I very much doubt any church would have been forced to sanction such unions if they violated church standards / values.

What exactly do you hope to accomplish at NOM with your apologetic stance? If it's an air of rapprochement and better understanding between those who doubt or question and those who find satisfaction in orthodoxy, I don't feel you're succeeding. In fact I'd say as a diplomat, you're botching things. It's pretty clear you do not empathize or sympathize much with people who doubt. Some of your comments seem aimed at simply creating controversy or defending the orthodox perspective. Please read the our webpage and posting guidelines. It may not be clear that this forum is not for either apologetic or polemics with respect to contemporary institutional Mormonism. If you are not here to process your own cognitive dissonance or provide constructive support for others, then perhaps you should considering finding another forum on which to decry the moral bankruptcy of people who don't believe the same as you or that the Mormon Church has a monopoly on the gospel, truth and knowing the will of deity.

ETA: You might take time to view the documentary 8: The Mormon Proposition as it might help you understand why many people feel the church should apologize for their involvement in the campaign. Alternatively you could look in the podcast archive of PRI's RadioWest to find the interview with the film's producer/director for some of his thoughts on the damage done.

_________________
I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe. -Frank Zappa
--
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken. - Oliver Cromwell
I may be mistaken too. Shhh, it happens.

Mike, you obviously don't live in California or you wouldn't have to even ask that question (apologize for what?). Read some of the threads on here regarding what took place here during the time of the Prop 8 campaign and what tactics were used. I was still a TBM at the time and it made me and my husband sick and we were not alone. Many stopped going to church over this.

As others have said, you have a right to your opinion and to express it..... but what you don't have a right to do is pass judgment on other's virtue, chastity or whether or not someone is "morally bankrupt". I know I don't have to quote you scripture on this because you know the scriptures well.

I don't know Jensen and I don't know if he is a good man acting honorably, or someone sent to offer some sort of "trial balloon" in a manner allowing the church to maintain plausible deniability, but I do support John Dehlin's call for sharing this around on the Internet. On the thread at Mormon Matters John wrote:



I see now that he has closed the comments he has deleted the above comment of his, and in the last comment on the thread writes: "I never meant to imply anywhere that this was an official apology for the church…only that this was apparently a personal apology from Elder Jensen. Sorry for the confusion."

I must admit a certain level of frustration that John's concluding comment seems to have a significantly different meaning from his earlier, now deleted, comment. I still agree with John's original idea, that we should share Jensen's statement widely and encourage discussion of just exactly what Jensen was doing by offering this apology.

_________________
Flat Lander

NOM is not an extension of Mormon Matters. If you're upset that comments have been closed on a topic there, it isn't difficult to find John D's email address or ask him about his motives on one or more of the other venues he operates. John Dehlin is not difficult to find or reach on the web. I must admit a certain level of frustration with someone who cannot understand that someone else might want to clarify ambiguous text, have a more nuanced position, change their mind or decide enough is enough when the number of comments becomes unwieldy or the tone of comments becomes acrimonious. We've closed threads here on more than one occasion, for a variety of reasons.

_________________
I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe. -Frank Zappa
--
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken. - Oliver Cromwell
I may be mistaken too. Shhh, it happens.