18 replies to this topic

[monogodo]

Over a year ago I agreed to go to church once a month with Cynthia because she wants me to go with her. I've explained that I get absolutely nothing beneficial from going, but agreed to go to keep her happy.

So we went yesterday. Now, it's Latin Mass, from the 1962 Catholic Missal, so I have absolutely no idea what the priest is saying or what is going on. She gave me an annotated missal to follow along with, but it didn't seem to match up with what was happening (which it usually does match up), so I gave up and just thought I'd sit & listen & observe. Then it came time for the homily.

There are two priests, the head priest, and the assistant. The head priest was performing the mass, but the assistant came out to do the homily. I've never heard the head priest do a homily there. The first homily I heard the assistant give mentioned something about non-Christians and Christian holidays, and I could tell he was getting worked up over it. Yesterday's homily happened to be about the "San Francisco Marriage" act that New York recently passed. It took me a few instances of the phrase "San Francisco" to realize that he wouldn't say "gay" or "homosexual". The more he went on about "San Franciscans" and that their getting married was an attack on Catholics, and that the Catholic priests, Bishops & Cardinals in the US didn't fight the legislation, the more pissed off I got. The guy is a bigot, plain and simple. If I hadn't been there with Cynthia, I'd have gotten up and walked out in the middle of it. As it was, I'm glad that he wasn't outside afterwards greeting the parishioners, because I'd have pointedly ignored him.

At first I found it amusing that he was using the phrase "San Francisco" in the way that he was. I find it rather amusing that San Francisco translates as St. Francis, and that he's using it in a derogatory way. Then I realized that he's lumping all residents of San Francisco into one group, when only slightly more than 15% of the residents there belong to that group.

Anyway, one thing is for sure. If I ever were to decide to follow a religion and join a church, he has just guaranteed that it won't be his church, and it won't be Catholicism.

[monogodo]

We talked a little about this, and she doesn't agree with what he said. She explained that the two priests operate as sort of Good Priest/Bad Priest, where one is all about Hope, Love, & Warm Fuzzy things, while the other is all Fire & Brimstone.

[Dave]

I agree with you: bigotry is bigotry no matter how it's dressed up.

It'd be interesting to see them fight the legislation...and then lose their tax exempt status.

[Deb]

And people ask me why I don't support any organised religion..

[monogodo]

Dave, on 07 July 2011 - 01:41 AM, said:

I agree with you: bigotry is bigotry no matter how it's dressed up.

It'd be interesting to see them fight the legislation...and then lose their tax exempt status.

Their reasoning behind fighting it is that they're afraid that they'll be forced to perform gay weddings. I think that reasoning is bullshit, though. They're not required to wed two non-catholics, so why should they be required to wed two homosexuals?

[Dave]

That's why they're bigots. Seething, irrational bigots.

[Chad]

I investigated the Catholic church last year for a few months before joining the LDS church. My last day at the Catholic church was when they passed out a flier to EVERYONE in the congregation pleading with them to show up and vote down a bill that was trying to be passed in Connecticut that would remove the statute of limitations on civil suits concerning child abuse. The letter said that if the bill was approved it would "bankrupt our parish" and that the only kind of people who would be taking advantage of the bill would be greedy lawyers looking for an easy payday. I stood up and waked out.

In my 14 months in the LDS church I have never ever heard of a discussion about gay marriage or Prop 8 in church. Even when it was overturned. I've given talks during sacrament meeting and the guidelines are very clear, you aren't there to bring up controversial politics or anything that would take away from the reverence of the church meeting or atmosphere. I've been in 4 wards (Mormon church's) in 3 states, 2 of them in Utah. Never experienced a meeting or a class or a lesson where anything about gay marriage or San Francisco or anything that would bring about a spirit of contention like that was discussed or even mentioned. I honestly can't imagine a speaker in sacrament meeting addressing the ward about ANYTHING like that.

Edited by Chad, 29 July 2011 - 09:08 PM.

[monogodo]

Chad, on 29 July 2011 - 09:05 PM, said:

I investigated the Catholic church last year for a few months before joining the LDS church. My last day at the Catholic church was when they passed out a flier to EVERYONE in the congregation pleading with them to show up and vote down a bill that was trying to be passed in Connecticut that would remove the statute of limitations on civil suits concerning child abuse. The letter said that if the bill was approved it would "bankrupt our parish" and that the only kind of people who would be taking advantage of the bill would be greedy lawyers looking for an easy payday. I stood up and waked out.

In my 14 months in the LDS church I have never ever heard of a discussion about gay marriage or Prop 8 in church. Even when it was overturned. I've given talks during sacrament meeting and the guidelines are very clear, you aren't there to bring up controversial politics or anything that would take away from the reverence of the church meeting or atmosphere. I've been in 4 wards (Mormon church's) in 3 states, 2 of them in Utah. Never experienced a meeting or a class or a lesson where anything about gay marriage or San Francisco or anything that would bring about a spirit of contention like that was discussed or even mentioned. I honestly can't imagine a speaker in sacrament meeting addressing the ward about ANYTHING like that.

The problem I had with the LDS churches that I went to with Cynthia when she was still a member had nothing to do with what went on in the sacrament meeting. Without fail, regardless of which ward we went to, the church members looked at her with pity because she married a non-member. They all but said to her, "oh, you poor girl, you weren't good enough to attract a member of the church, so you had to resort to non-members. Tsk tsk."

There was also that one time in Sunday School after the sacrament meeting where my Father-in-law was teaching, and some woman in the class starts saying, "it's not enough that our young women are getting married to men who promise to convert at some point. They need to hold off on marrying them until after the man converts. I'm so proud that I convinced little Susie Jenkins to postpone her wedding until after her fiance converts. It's important that they both be Mormon." Before I could go off on her my father-in-law looked at her and with a quizzical look said, "I always thought that the most important thing was that they love each other."

Cynthia is trying to get her name removed from the rolls of members of the LDS church. She's sent certified letters to the headquarters in SLC. She's sent follow-up letters to the Stake President & leadership of the local Ward. The only response she's received is the HQ sent a letter to her stating that her request is a local matter, and they've forwarded it to the local ward (which she expected to happen). At that point, the local Ward guy actually called her from the lobby of our apartment building wanting to meet with her. She explicitly stated that all she wanted to have happen was for her name to be removed from the active members list, and confirmation of that fact be sent to her. She also explicitly stated that she was fully aware of what she was doing, and that she did not want to be visited by any members of the church.

Oh, and one more thing that pisses me off about the LDS church: We've been married for over 9 years now, and they still address mail to her maiden name, even when she lists her married name on the correspondence. I can only interpret this to mean that either they don't care that I exist and that we're married, or they don't recognize our marriage as being valid. Fuck them.

[Chad]

I'm responding to your post under the impression that I think can explain some things about the church in a a way that might help give you a different perspective on some of the issues you have and some of the things you've experienced. However since you are trying to have your wife's name removed from the records of the church you may not really care. Which is fine, I just want to share what I've experienced and learned because I've had similar experiences and feelings. Nothing more. I apologize if this ends up being long winded (which it most certainly will)

monogodo, on 30 July 2011 - 02:45 AM, said:

The problem I had with the LDS churches that I went to with Cynthia when she was still a member had nothing to do with what went on in the sacrament meeting. Without fail, regardless of which ward we went to, the church members looked at her with pity because she married a non-member. They all but said to her, "oh, you poor girl, you weren't good enough to attract a member of the church, so you had to resort to non-members. Tsk tsk."

The day of my baptism the High Priest who was conducting it pulled me into a room and told me that at some point, it is guaranteed that someone will offend me. He was right. And I flaked out for a while and didn't go to church. But I went back, without any apologies from the person who had offended me. I had to decide why I went to church in the first place. It wasn't for this person, it wasn't for them and their remarks about me. It was because I believe what the missionaries taught me, I believe the church is true. If you go to church for anyone else you're doing it wrong. You encounter assholes everywhere in life. The church is not for the perfect person, it doesn't claim to be. Go to church for God and for you. That being said, I have experienced first hand people's snotty attitudes in the church, even from the Bishop and that does suck. But at the end of the day it comes down to why you wanted to go in the first place, and who you are really there for.

Quote

There was also that one time in Sunday School after the sacrament meeting where my Father-in-law was teaching, and some woman in the class starts saying, "it's not enough that our young women are getting married to men who promise to convert at some point. They need to hold off on marrying them until after the man converts. I'm so proud that I convinced little Susie Jenkins to postpone her wedding until after her fiance converts. It's important that they both be Mormon." Before I could go off on her my father-in-law looked at her and with a quizzical look said, "I always thought that the most important thing was that they love each other."

I can understand how you can take issue with someone saying that. Especially if she said it just like that with no thought of tact or consideration for anyone else in that class. I'm assuming you were in the gospel principles class, which (ideally) covers the basic principles of the core beliefs of the church and answers investigators or visitors questions. I believe the point she was trying to make was that it is the goal of every Latter-day Saint to be sealed in the temple to their spouse, and that a civil marriage is absolutely a second choice for an active LDS member. A temple marriage extends beyond the grave. There is no "till death do you part" and the marriage is for time and all eternity. The sealing is also the crowning ordinance in the church and in this life. The president of the church at the last general conference said very clearly that your goal should be to be sealed in the temple, and that is something that is clearly taught in the church from very early on. That woman should definitely have been much more mindful of who the potential audience was in that class. I don't know if I would have responded how your Father-in-law did. Getting married in the temple is absolutely the preferred and ideal choice for an LDS member. I'm not entirely sure why your Father-in-law would be troubled by this idea if he's a gospel principles teacher. He may have just wanted to defuse the situation as well.

Fun fact that you probably know, but the church is a very hands on organization. No one gets paid but usually everyone has a job (or calling) and all worthy males hold the Priesthood and can officiate in Priesthood ordinances. So try to remember that if you don't like someone (which happens from time to time) and think they're struggling with their calling, once they're released you could very easily be filling their shoes. Some people will do better than others and sometimes people receive callings and the whole point is for them to struggle and to learn and grow. I was recently called as my wards gospel doctrine teacher and it's rather humbling sometimes when I prepare a lesson out of the manual because I'm still very new to the scriptures. So I have tons of research I do so I at least appear to know what I'm talking about when I teach. There are tons of other people in the ward who grew up in the church who are far more knowledgeable about the scriptures than I am. But I take the calling seriously and have learned a ton. Hopefully the people who attend my class learn something too.

Quote

Cynthia is trying to get her name removed from the rolls of members of the LDS church. She's sent certified letters to the headquarters in SLC. She's sent follow-up letters to the Stake President & leadership of the local Ward. The only response she's received is the HQ sent a letter to her stating that her request is a local matter, and they've forwarded it to the local ward (which she expected to happen). At that point, the local Ward guy actually called her from the lobby of our apartment building wanting to meet with her. She explicitly stated that all she wanted to have happen was for her name to be removed from the active members list, and confirmation of that fact be sent to her. She also explicitly stated that she was fully aware of what she was doing, and that she did not want to be visited by any members of the church.

If your wife has sent certified letters to church headquarters requesting that her name be removed from the church records and that she no longer wants to have membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the second that first letter was opened her membership ended. Church HQ automatically sends a letter to you telling you that it's an "ecclesiastical matter" and has to be handled locally. That is entirely false. Legally once they opened that letter that was the end of your wife's time as a Mormon. But what the church does is they also send a letter to the Bishop (usually, might be the Stake President) of the person who is requesting to be let go from the church informing them of the request, AND, gives the Bishop a 30 day window to handle the matter as he sees fit. At the end of the 30 days the Bishop will contact church HQ and let them know how it went. The Bishop will usually try to make contact with the individual and talk them out of it (even if you have given specific instructions for that NOT to happen) but ultimately the decision is yours and if your Bishop does try to meet with you and the conversation ends with you sticking by your decision to leave then he will report back to Salt Lake to go ahead with the records removal. If the 30 days runs out and your Bishop has done nothing or doesn't contact Salt Lake then church HQ will follow through with your request. This is just a formality in the end though. Like I said in the beginning, once that letter is opened her membership is done legally. They give a 30 day window to try and talk you out of it or help solve any problems or mend any fences that lead you to this point. That is a courtesy to the member, in case they want to change your mind. But if you are dead set on getting out you will. But this is usually the process of it all.

Quote

Oh, and one more thing that pisses me off about the LDS church: We've been married for over 9 years now, and they still address mail to her maiden name, even when she lists her married name on the correspondence. I can only interpret this to mean that either they don't care that I exist and that we're married, or they don't recognize our marriage as being valid.

"bigotry is bigotry no matter how it's dressed up"

I assure you the church recognizes your marriage and cares a great deal that you exist. Instead of the church being out to get you, maybe the person who writes the addresses simply didn't get the memo. Like I said earlier, the church is run by it's people, it's very imperfect and "peculiar" people. But the fact that you're at the end of the road with certified letters to church HQ and ecclesiastical meetings tells me that you could have very easily followed up and made sure any records that needed to be updated were. Or you could look at the name on the letter and get mad about it.

Quote

Fuck them.

I can only imagine what kind of attitude you bring with you to church when you do go. There is more anti propaganda, websites, clubs, foundations, you name it, united against the Mormon church than against any other. By a lot. There is not a more politically and socially acceptable group to bash away at than the LDS church. In the 180 or so years the church has been around it has been ridiculed and persecuted to no end. From state issued extermination orders to simple, acceptable discrimination in just about any setting you can think of. If you have an axe to grind then there are tons of pissed off ex-mormons out there who would love to sit around and exchange stories about how they were ignored in a certain ward or were disrespected by the Bishop or how the church had the nerve to not address your letters correctly so you had your names removed from the records of the church. I really am sorry that you have such a bad taste in your mouth about the church. That sucks. I hope your next church works out better for you.

[monogodo]

Chad,

Apologies for the rambling nature of what follows.

I only go to church because my wife likes to spend time with me. Personally, I don't know if there is a God(s), and really don't care at this point in my life.

I also know quite a bit about the LDS church, as my wife was raised Mormon, and only converted 5 years ago. She's answered all of my questions about it, in depth. I also have a Mormon friend who was very forthcoming about the church, without being evangelical. I'm not one of those Gentiles who learned everything they know about the LDS church from watching South Park's All About the Mormons episode.

When my brother-in-law (wife's brother) killed himself, Cynthia went back to (LDS) church. She needed support from her community. I gave her as much support as possible, but it wasn't enough for her. I understood that and had no problem with it. The church pretty much ignored her.

When my father-in-law was dying of pancreatic cancer, he wanted to get his temple recommend before he died. The bishop refused to visit him in his home, while he was on his deathbed, to grant it. He said that Ted needed to come in to church to get it. The man was dying, yet this bishop seemed to not care about that at all. My mother-in-law ended up contacting the stake president, who immediately came over. At his funeral, the church sent someone to give an eulogy. My in-laws were fairly new to the area, having moved there less than a year earlier, so I'll cut them a little slack. The guy knew nothing about Ted. At one point he quoted a known Nazi. At another he stated that Ted had a great love of poetry. Back at the house, my wife and her cousins all looked at Sally (my MIL), and asked if Ted loved poetry. She said that it was news to her.

Every single piece of mail Cynthia has received from the LDS church, whether it be the local ward or stake or HQ in SLC, has been addressed to her maiden name. They know she's married, yet they refuse to acknowledge it. I can only interpret that to mean they don't care about me.

About a year after her brother died, she decided to seek out some sort of spiritual community, since she felt none from the LDS church. We attended services of about a half-dozen different faiths, and she researched them as well. She ultimately chose Catholic for her own reasons, although my grandmother is extremely pleased she's done so. My own observations about the different services we attended were that, with one exception, they all appeared to be just a group of people sitting around a room talking/listening to someone else talk. They could have been any group of people in any location, and the topic could have been anything from faith to finances to sex to war to physics to gaming. There was nothing special about any of them. The one exception was the Catholic services we attended. Pretty much every mass I attended at both the Cathedral Shrine of the Virgin of Guadalupe and at the St. Jude temple, both in Downtown Dallas, as well as the mass at St. Joseph in Baraboo, WI, felt different than the protestant services (including LDS). There seemed to be something else there, other than the priest & congregation. Sure, one might say that's because the Cathedral and the St. Joseph churches have been there for over 100 years each, so they are steeped in the reverence of all the parishioners who've been there through time. St. Jude, on the other hand, has been there less than 43 years. I've been alive longer than it has been in existence. Yet that feeling was still there. Now, I'm a skeptic, so I don't know what it actually was, but even thinking about it logically I have to assume it to be some sort of spiritual embodiment was present. I never felt that same presence, or had that same feeling in any other church.

Also, of all the services we attended, only the Catholics seemed welcoming of me. The Mormons wanted to convert me, as did all the protestant sects. The Catholics were just happy to see me. And I'm talking about the members, not the clergy/staff/higher ups. The only issue I have with the Catholic Church is the fact that they consider me to be Catholic, when I've done nothing to make them think that. The simple fact that I was Baptized as an infant is all it takes for them to list me as a member of their church. Because I'd been Baptized, Cynthia and I had some hoops to jump through in order for her to be converted. We had to have our marriage Convalidated. We also had to track down my baptismal certificate. Had I been LDS that would have been a simple matter of calling SLC and having them send it. The Catholic church doesn't keep centralized records, each parish keeps their own. I didn't know where I was baptized, and neither did my parents or Godmother, so I had to call every single Catholic church in Madison, as well as the one in Baraboo, to track it down. One church had had a fire that destroyed most of their records at some point after I'd been baptized. Luckily it wasn't that church.

Religion is a tool to keep people in check. It's all about limiting the members to keep them safe, and to ensure the community as a whole flourishes. It is unnecessary at this point. When religions first came about, the leaders needed a way to get their people to live safely. What better way to do that than to invent a "higher power" that will punish your eternal soul if you don't follow their rules?

Faith and spirituality are different. They are individual in nature, and don't require attending services with others. I've felt "closer to God" while riding my bike than I ever have felt in any church.

Just so you know, I'm not one of those people who don't believe in God because there's no proof He exists. I understand that the whole point of faith is that one believes in spite of the lack of proof. If there were actual evidence that God existed, there would be no need for faith, it would be knowledge. That also brings to question the phrase I've heard Mormons say, "I know the Church to be True." If they know it, there's no need for faith, and they're living a lie.

I have other issues with religion: Why the need to pray? If God is omniscient, omnipotent & omnipresent, he already knows what I want/need/desire, there's no need to tell him. Some have explained that God likes to hear us ask for what we need/want. That sounds to me like God is pretty insecure. Why do I need to dress "appropriately" when going to church? If what everyone has said is true, God/Jesus/whoever loves me for me, not for how I dress. If I want to wear shorts & a t-shirt to church, am I going to Hell, or not getting into the Celestial Kingdom? I didn't realize there was a dress-code in Heaven.

Yes, I know that there are assholes everywhere, and I can be one of them. I also know to not judge an entire group of people based on the actions of one or a few of those members. But when I get the same impression from every single ward I attended, I have to start to think that maybe they're all like that, or at least the vast majority of them.

Another problem I have is that pretty much every religion I've heard of states that we can not know what or how God thinks, that we're incapable of understanding him. Bullshit. That's just another tool to keep the masses in check. "Do what I say because I said it, you don't need to know why." That works great with children, not so much with adults. As a trainer, one thing I was taught was that adults are more likely to buy in to an idea if they can understand the reasoning behind it. "Because we've always done it this way" isn't enough. Explaining "we've tried various methods over time and this one is the best one we've discovered" is more likely to work. At the same time, the "powers that be" should be open to new ideas from the people.

Please don't take any of the above as an attack on you personally. I may disagree with what you believe, and you with what I believe (or don't believe as the case may be), but that doesn't mean I dislike you. Some of my closest friends have completely different beliefs and/or politics than I do. Differences are good. Discourse is good.

I've rambled on long enough. Time for breakfast tacos.

EDIT: one more thing

Chad, on 30 July 2011 - 07:06 AM, said:

I can only imagine what kind of attitude you bring with you to church when you do go. There is more anti propaganda, websites, clubs, foundations, you name it, united against the Mormon church than against any other. By a lot. There is not a more politically and socially acceptable group to bash away at than the LDS church. In the 180 or so years the church has been around it has been ridiculed and persecuted to no end. From state issued extermination orders to simple, acceptable discrimination in just about any setting you can think of. If you have an axe to grind then there are tons of pissed off ex-mormons out there who would love to sit around and exchange stories about how they were ignored in a certain ward or were disrespected by the Bishop or how the church had the nerve to not address your letters correctly so you had your names removed from the records of the church. I really am sorry that you have such a bad taste in your mouth about the church. That sucks. I hope your next church works out better for you.

I bring an attitude of love for my wife, tolerance for those whose beliefs differ from mine, and an openness to a new experience. And I think you've forgotten about the Jews in your list of "any other religions". So Mormons have been persecuted for 180 years or so, big whoop. The Jews have been persecuted for 4000 years or so. In the greater scheme of things, Mormons are pretty much left alone at this point, while entire nations are still trying to wipe out Jews/Israel.

It was not my intention to bash the LDS church specifically. It was simply one of many I've had contact with where I had a generally negative experience. As you can probably tell from what I've written above, I'll bash the Catholic church as well as most protestant ones.

Not every Mormon is bad. Just most of the ones I've had contact with. I can think of about a dozen or so off the top of my head that are great people. Not every Catholic priest is a bigoted ass, just that one in particular. And I'm sure that not every member of the parish who heard the homily agreed with it. At least, I hope there were some who didn't.

I will have no "next church." One can't have a "next" of something if they've never had a "first" of it. So my "next" church will be my first, and I don't see that happening any time soon.

Thanks for the well wishes. I hope you continue to enjoy what you've found in the LDS church.

Edited by monogodo, 30 July 2011 - 02:54 PM.

[Chad]

I fully intend to write a response that will follow suit and probably be a novel but I just wanted to say that I definitely wasn't trying to come off as hostile or anything in all this. If I did I apologize. Deep down inside I'm still a combative prick. I said everything with full respect intended to you and your views. I just didn't know your history with the church and thought I might be able to throw my 2 cents in. Although if you'd be willing I'd love to hear some of your experiences. Even with other church's. I was a militant atheist for most of my life, was never raised in any church, never baptized, had no real knowledge of Christ or Christianity at all. One day I watched a few episodes of Bill Maher and just started to parrot back what I thought sounded right. Then I read some books by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris and thought those guys had the scoop on what was up with life. The more I read and the more I learned about the atheist culture that they kind of preside over the more miserable I was. But in the last year and a half I've done a lot of researching into as many different branches of faith I can find.

More to follow ...

[monogodo]

Nah, I know you, like me, can be a combative prick sometimes, so I took no offense.

I subscribed to the RSS feed of an atheist blog recently, The Friendly Atheist, but ended up unsubscribing because I found him to be just as militant about it as the atheists he was trying to distance himself from. Whatever I end up believing, or not believing, it's my choice, and will be the right choice for me. Why would I try to persuade someone else to believe as I do? It might not be right for them. Sure, if someone asks, I'd be more than happy to discuss it with them, but I won't go out of my way to espouse my point of view. All I ask is for the same in return.

I'd love to hear your thoughts, and am open to discussion on the topic.

As for background, I was baptized Catholic as an infant to appease my maternal grandparents, but that's as far as it went. My parents divorced when I was young (so young, in fact, that I have no memory of my mother being my mother, I know she is only because I'm told she is and her name is on my birth certificate). My dad raised us to make our on decision about faith when we were ready to do so. Meanwhile, he joined a cult (Eckankar), and has recently started attending services of the Moravian church. Neither of my brothers attend any church, as far as I know. My dad has encouraged us to research our own faith, if that's what we want to do.

I've attended services at Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, LDS, and Unitarian churches. I currently have no desire to follow any of their teachings. I recently read a book about Buddha, and thought about Buddhism, but don't like the limits it puts on people, and think the whole concept of enlightenment is BS. From what I read about Buddha, he became enlightened when he decided he was enlightened. They say there are steps to take to enlightenment, but then they tell you what the actual goal is (other than being called enlightenment, of course), so if I understand what they're saying after reading what the steps & tenets are, why can't I be enlightened, too? Do I have to go through all the steps because Buddha did? Maybe I'm just smarter than he was, and am able to realize what is going on without going through everything he did. Or maybe I'm missing something. Who knows? Hinduism, Judaism & Islam are not for me, again because of limits - I like beer & bacon. LDS isn't for me because of limits - beer & caffeine (and there are other issues with it, but that's the main one). Catholic would be ok, but I don't see the point.

Really, I don't see the point of any religion. As I said earlier, I have no problem with faith, or with anyone who believes in God(s). However, as I said in the Shoutbox a few weeks back, I think less of one when one tells me they follow a specific religion. Especially if I know that person to have a decent level of intelligence. And yes, I think less of my Dad for going to Moravian services. And I think less of my Mom (the woman who raised me, not the one who gave birth to me) because she is attending church services. And yes, my opinion of my wife has diminished slightly because of her conversion & consequent church attendance. I say slightly because I knew she had a certain level of faith when we met, and her conversion to Catholic didn't change that. But that's a topic for another discussion.

Thanks for listening.

[Chad]

I wrote a 45 minute life story and acidentally closed the $%^& browser before posting it.

More to follow take 2 ....

[Chad]

I wrote a 45 minute life story and acidentally closed the $%^& browser before posting it.

More to follow take 2 ....

[Chad]

monogodo, on 26 July 2011 - 07:51 PM, said:

Their reasoning behind fighting it is that they're afraid that they'll be forced to perform gay weddings. I think that reasoning is bullshit, though. They're not required to wed two non-catholics, so why should they be required to wed two homosexuals?

I have to disagree, I believe it is a very legitimate concern. It wouldn't come down to marrying non-catholics or denying temple weddings to non LDS. You can be openly gay and be a member of the LDS church. You can hold the Priesthood, go through the temple and hold callings and positions of leadership in the church. As long as you do not have sexual relations outside of a lawful marriage. Sexual sin (in the eyes of the church) is sexual sin, no matter what gender the other person is. If (when, in my opinion) same sex marriage hits the US supreme court and they grant full marriage equality, then ANY church that will not perform and acknowledge same sex marriage will be discriminating against a protected group in the same class as sex, race, age, disability, color, etc. (I will explain why that classification would be an error shortly) It would be the equivalent of the LDS church denying a temple marriage to a couple because they happen to be Chinese. Church's would have no choice in the matter. It stops being a doctrinal and church policy matter and becomes (another) legal one. Then that will lead to an a clash of religious freedom becoming discriminate to a group newly granted full membership to the protected class like the ones I mentioned earlier, with new extended coverage of legal protection that would give them more than 2 legs to stand on to legally challenge a religious institution for not allowing them a church recognized and sanctioned same sex marriage.

Time for some clarifications. This is easily the most sensitive subject I engaged people on. I used to have tons of atheist and gay friends. That's pretty much all I had. Once I came out as a Mormon I was shunned and cut off from almost all of them, but not before I got their full views and opinions of the church and my decision to join it. I'm go go to great lengths to prove my point, show as much cause as I can why there has to be a clear distinction on very specific issues, and show that my thoughts and feelings about gays and laws concerning their protection from discrimination are identical to what I thought and felt when I was a militant atheist. Membership in a church that is locked in a historical political and social battle with the LGBT community hasn't changed any of my views on this. I will be walking on eggshells as best I can and will be respectful with my words here as there are a lot of sore spots with people over this.


Point 1) I have always maintained that the "born this way" explanation is not the whole case. I don't contend that it's a choice like picking out what color shirt you're going to where that day, but there have been a lot of bold claims from the LGBT community concerning the nature of homosexuality and disagreement with some of the ideas put forward does not make someone a gaybashing bigot. Even when I was a militant atheist I used to debate back and fourth with my gay friends about it, and it was always civil and informative. We were respectful and it was great to get other peoples perspective from "the other side." Once I joined the church the exact same views I had then became ignorant and insensitive and I was an intolerant gaybashing Mormon and had no standing with them as a friend anymore.

Here is my view in detail, using an article with a detailed explanation of "why" written much more clearly and precisely than I could ever hope to accomplish.

"environment can influence gene expression, and free will determines the response to whatever predispositions might be present. Sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations. Dr. Collins noted that environment, particularly childhood experiences as well as the role of free will choices affect all of us in profound ways. Regarding the contributions of genetics to areas such as homosexuality, Dr. Collins concluded, "Yes, we have all been dealt a particular set of cards, and the cards will eventually be revealed. But how we play the hand is up to us."


This is written by the director of the human genome project. I think it explains why I feel the "born this way" view isn't entirely accurate, but being gay isn't quite like choosing what restaurant you want to have lunch at either. This is where I think certain distinctions need to be made when granting specific rights and privileges to the LGBT community. I remember during the Prop 8 vote I saw a sign held up by a protest that said "gay is the new black!" Ideas and beliefs like this are simply incorrect and misleading and it isn't politically correct to say so, and I take issue with that. You may have a predisposition to behaviors, feelings, and attractions but it just isn't in the same category as what ethnicity you are. I've never heard of a "coming out .. black" party. I think the background and studies into this are completely relevant when comes to legal classification and issues like Prop 8. I do not believe, however, it minimizes the identity that people get from being gay. I think that is part of where a lot of the anger comes from. Regardless of all the studies and all the tests and debates and court cases, I understand that at the end of the day this is who people are. This is what defines them. The same way I've used to church to change what I want to (and hope) defines me. There has to be respect for that by everyone. The political arena and an unconstitutional government have destroyed any respect that might have been there, and is a constant frustration to any efforts of trying to being healing to people on both sides who desperately need it. Which leads me to point 2.

Point 2) I don't know why the government has the right to marry anyone. At all. The government should offer nothing but civil unions to any 2 consenting adults who enter into a relationship together or who wish to be able to exercise basic rights that are unjustly reserved for marriage. That word should be removed from any type of government process. A relationship that deserve equal consideration for tax breaks and the legal stuff that comes along with having a significant other, regardless of gender of either party, is the absolute extent of power the government has. A very bloated and unconstitutional government that has grown far beyond it's limits is the lynch pin in this (in my opinion) situation. They have no business marrying people, they have no right, and trying to keep a handle on things like this that mix a whole mess of "values" and "progressive thought" and a new "civil rights movement" and "religious institutions" will lead to division, hatred and misunderstanding between a lot and most of groups in our society. The government wants (and sadly has been misusing) authority to draw up lines that define what and who these groups are and what package of laws and rights comes along with that. It isn't so much that I'm against gay marriage, I am in very strong favor of civil unions for everyone, without concern to a persons background. Gay, straight, white, black, man woman, if the government would stop applying labels it has no business doing, then everyone really will have equal rights. That is true equal rights, that is how this whole mess can be fixed and until it is I don't think common ground will be found between groups who are in conflict with each other over this.

Point 3) after I converted to the church I was asked one question in particular from most of my friends and family before having many fallouts with most of them, how I felt about my gay friends now that I had joined a church that is the poster child for so-called "gay bashing." As I explained earlier, I felt the exact same way as I did before. I don't care. I still don't. I've been accused of being a hypocrite for this but that isn't the case, and for one important reason: none of them are members of my church. I don't think any of them believe a single things my church teaches. There is an order of education when joining the church, lessons you're taught, pamphlets, classes, there is an unreal amount of information you can learn about the church beyond the core beliefs. But in NO instance is your sexual orientation brought up (ideally)and talked about (which will usually with local leadership like a Bishop or Stake Pres) unless you want to be baptized. You start off with Jesus Christ, and go from there. If a gay person doesn't have a belief or testimony of Jesus then that's where it ends. You can't "sin" without knowledge. That is scriptural, that is gospel doctrine and an official teaching of the church. Taking the approach of trying to convince someone that their whole life, their whole identity is "immoral" or "sin" without them having learned and accepted the gospel, and having a belief in Christ and made covenants through baptism to follow the commandments as a member of his church, then you are being destructive to your cause and usually leave a real bad taste in the mouth of whoever you just offended. You DON'T focus on peoples lifestyles, you share the gospel with them, share your beliefs and they have to decide on their own. Otherwise you become an idiot and the bigot we're made out to be. Even if you learn the gospel, if you don't accept it or believe it you are NOT held to the guidelines of the church. Intolerance to people or groups like this is unacceptable and I wish I could say the church as a sparkling clean history in situations like that. But the church is run day-to-day by very fallible men who sometimes mix in their personal beliefs or world view with the teachings of the church. An individuals lifestyle that is not in harmony with church and gospel teachings can only be addressed if they're members of the church. If they aren't then you have no right to judge them for not living up to standards they don't accept and most likely know nothing about it. Actually you don't have a right to judge anyone. That is scriptural as well.

Point 4) Denying rights to an individual based on things like sexual orientation is discrimination how ever you cut it. When I say that I really don't care about anyones sexual orientation I mean it. My friend in Maryland just had his son come out as a full time female wrapping up hormone therapy. All I am is curious about how she is coming to terms with that. That's a dedicated decision and a lot of work and money to do what she's doing. It's not a phase or a fad, this is what she has resolved to be her chance at finding happiness and identity. Good for her, most people give up and become the Michael Moore slacker type or just a bitter asshole. The decisions she's made and followed through on are incredible to me, Making a huge life change by joining the LDS church came with some growing pains. I can't imagine what it's been like for her. I was friends with her as Stephan and I'm friends with her as Emily. Back on point ... denying basic rights to someone who has an "alternative" sexual orientation or lifestyle is wrong all over the place. But those classes the government draws up and puts you create opposition. I don't have a clue what it must be like to be in a transition from one sex to the other, but that doesn't mean we need another classification created that has certain rights and privileges but not others. The government should give all it's citizens the same rights and should have no regard for anything like race, orientation, or age. People and groups will continue to find ways to hate and fight with each other without rights being divided up and labels given.


Point 5) I still maintain the philosophy "to each his own" and have weird views on a lot of the "issues." I am against abortion and am also against the death penalty. Personally I don't think you can be "pro-life" and for the death penalty and I don't think you can consider yourself "loving" and open and accepting and support abortion. Both sides want some killing done. I've come to realize that the perceived differences in the political parties are exaggerated quite a bit.

I think there is a huge attempt by our culture and society to remove any and all responsibility from any aspect of life possible. Suing food chains for being fat, suing tobacco companies for causing cancer, suing gun companies for people using their guns to murder, suing banks for taking loans you knew you couldn't pay, it goes on and on. There is a fundamental flaw and a very hard lesson that will be learned when you start to take away consequences. When you remove someones responsibility for their own life and their own actions and remove the consequences of those actions you are breading a society that will live life like anything really does go. That is flawed on every level possible. In the case of abortion, the womans rights movement was some crazy shit. Women were going to be equal with men because that's how things should be. Women should have the right to choose, especially when it comes to your own body. To say otherwise is to violate someones right at the most basic level. I get furious when they talk about a womans right to choose and the idea abortion interferes with that. That is complete crap. A womans right to choose started when she chose to have sex. You made a choice with the most ultimate of consequences, creating life. No matter what trend our culture follows and no matter how it's portrayed, you are making a choice, and once that choice is made there are consequences, really big ones. Now comes the standard response to what is usually asked, in cases where a woman is raped, molested, the pregnancy is the product of incest, there is a risk to the mother, then it is absolutely a choice that woman gets to make. The LDS church stance on this is just that too. But abortion isn't birth control for irresponsible people who have no regard for their actions or think they don't have self control in the matter. That's bullshit.

I am against the death penalty as well, the whole "thou shalt not kill" thing comes to mind for me, but there's other considerations too. You are victimizing the family of the person being executed even more than they already have been, which I think a lot of people are quick to forget, or even worse they place blame. That family is a victim too. Plus it's been proven statistically that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent for people to stop committing crimes that get them the death penalty. And, I think this is the most important one, what does it say about us as a people that our legal system puts people to death (although a lot of times they've certainly earned it) when we don't have to? The 2 main focuses are to remove the criminal from society so he can not do anymore harm, and our prison system now a days have pretty much been designed for just that. It's impossible to escape from a max prison. So that solves that problem. And secondly we have to to try to set things right and get justice for people. A max prison is NOT like a trip to Disney. Life without parole, he will probably stick to his core behavior that got him there in the first place and spend most of his time in solitary. You aren't supposed to kill people. When you kill people as an example of why you aren't allowed to kill people you create a paradox that could destroy the universe. Worse than dividing by zero. Just doesn't make sense.

I tried very hard to be as honest and respectful as I could. Lots of touchy subjects though, so I understand if someone gets a tincy bit riled up over some of the things I talked about but I sincerely hope that isn't the case. Civility is the key and I would love to keep a dialog going.

Thank YOU for listening

[monogodo]

Response:

Point 1: I believe people are born to their sexuality, that it is innate to them and not learned. I also believe that human sexuality is a spectrum, not either/or. Yes, there are people who are 100% straight, and others that are 100% gay. And everyone else falls somewhere in between. I'm bi. Always have been. I was only ever exposed to heterosexual relationships while growing up, yet I found both men and women to be sexually attractive. Until relatively recently, I've kept those thoughts/desires to myself, and only acted on the straight ones. I wasn't abused as a child, either. My environment was essentially straight, yet I'm not 100% straight.

My wife's best friend of over half her life was raised Mormon. He is gay. I'd be willing to bet that his environment while growing up was strictly heterosexual in its examples. Yet he "ended up" gay.

The reason you never hear of a "coming out... black" situation, it because it's usually obvious to everyone that a black person is black. Until recently, our society was extremely anti-homosexual, so people who knew they weren't straight behaved as straight, because that's what society said they should be. I didn't act on, or mention, my attraction to men while in high school because it would have gotten me ostracized. Hell, there was a transfer student my Junior year who dressed like Kings of the Wild Frontier era Adam Ant (this was the mid-80s, after all), and he was picked on mercilessly by the jocks & homophobes in the school because they couldn't understand that a guy could have pierced ears & wear eyeliner and still be straight. Imagine how he'd have been treated had he actually been gay. Think back to when you were in HS. People who were different were singled out for bullying. If you felt different from what you were told the "norm" was, you'd be damn sure to hide that fact, so that you wouldn't get beaten up or worse.

When you converted to LDS, I'm guessing you told people. Why? Probably for the same reason a gay person "comes out" to their family/friends. It's an important aspect of their being, and they want people to know about it. I'd imagine it's the same with your conversion -- it's an important aspect of who you are, and you want people to know about it.

When my wife chose to leave the LDS church and find another faith to follow, the main aspect she struggled with was the sense of loss of community. Mormons, to a certain extent, are like Jews. One can be Jewish by faith and Jewish by culture. One can be Mormon by faith and Mormon by culture. There's an actual culture to the LDS church. I've seen it, and I'm sure you have, too. There's nothing wrong with that, by the way, it just is. Anyway, pretty much all of the churches she went to lacked that sense of community. The Catholic church came closest to having that sense of community. Add to that the fact that one must go through classes & specific steps & rites to become Catholic, and it was very comforting to her. She's since learned that ex-Mormons make great Catholics, and vice-versa. They're both attracted to, and comforted by, the rituals in each respective church. She's since discovered a specific parish to attend that has given her that sense of community that she'd thought she'd lost. During her conversion she went to the Cathedral Shrine of the Virgin of Guadalupe, because that was the closest Catholic church to her that had the classes. She had a sponsor assigned to her, to be her Godmother. The woman barely spoke English, and was of no help at all. Most of the parish was Hispanic, and most of the priests don't speak or understand English. She felt very out of place there, but felt that she'd made the correct choice in a new faith. Shortly after I broke my leg in early March, she discovered her current Parish, Mater Dei. It's old-school Latin Mass, and everyone is friendly and welcoming. She's finally found the community she was searching for.

I forgot where I was going with that.

Point 2: The government has the right to recognize marriage because they pretty much always have had that right. Even going back to pre-Christian times. As for Civil Union vs. Marriage, they're both simply terms chosen by people to label the relationship. To me, civil union sounds dry & clinical, more of a contract between two people rather than a unification based on love & mutual respect. Here's another thing that bothers me about what you propose: when you meet a couple, they might tell you that their married. What if they only had a civil union? Have they been civil unioned? Civilly united? Hi, I'm monogodo, I'd like you to meet my civilly united partner, Cynthia. No, she's my wife, and we're married. It's much simpler for all concerned. And when we tell people we're married, no one ever asks if we were married in a church or at a courthouse or some other venue, or if the officiant was a judge, clergyperson, or ship's captain. Whatever they think happened to cause us to be married is fine, as it doesn't affect our marriage one bit. For the record, we were married in a bed & breakfast by a friend of mine who happens to be an ordained minister in the Disciples of Christ faith. She's been associate pastor of two different churches and interim minister at a third. Our ceremony was very non-denominational, though. My brother, on the other hand, was married to his wife by a justice of the peace in the county courthouse. We're just as married as they are, and vice-versa.

You said, "Gay, straight, white, black, man woman, if the government would stop applying labels it has no business doing, then everyone really will have equal rights." What gives religious entities the right to assign labels while the government can't? What gives any church the right to "own" the term "marriage" and not another entity? God can't be the answer, because not everyone believes in God, or even the same God. Changing it so that everyone has a civil union instead of a marriage is attempting to change thousands of years of history & custom, and I'd be willing to be the churches would fight that just as strongly as they're fighting gay marriage.

It's just a word. Its meaning is different to everyone. To some, marriage is the union of man & woman for the purpose of having a family. Yet those same people have no problem with infertile couples getting married.

I've got to go to bed. I'll respond to the rest later.

[Chad]

monogodo, on 06 August 2011 - 03:22 AM, said:

I've got to go to bed. I'll respond to the rest later.

Aiight. Goodnight.

[Jaiden]

hi
It was the first time I went to a Christian service in about 7 years (I have been to Unitarian services in the meantime). I was raised Catholic and have come to dislike organized religion in general, though I still consider myself spiritual and I do deeply miss the rituals and ceremonies. I went with Vash the Gal to a Methodist church in Virginia yesterday.

[Chad]

Quote

It was the first time I went to a Christian service in about 7 years (I have been to Unitarian services in the meantime).

Unitarianism is a Christian movement.

Quote

I was raised Catholic and have come to dislike organized religion in general,

The Catholic Church can have that effect on people.

Quote

though I still consider myself spiritual and I do deeply miss the rituals and ceremonies.

Going to church doesn't make you a Christian anymore than standing in a garage makes you a car. I have a question, though ... the theological differences between Catholicism and Unitarianism are pretty significant. In fact, Unitarianism started off when this Polish guy started publicly speaking out against the Trinity. Since the Trinity is Catholicisms measuring stick of what constitutes "true Christianity" how did you reconcile the differences between churches?

Quote

I went with Vash the Gal to a Methodist church in Virginia yesterday.

Vash the Stampede?