During some of my gospel reading I came across a statement from Elder John A. Widtsoe in his book Evidences and Reconciliations. Under the heading "Why marry in the temple?" the opening statement reads, "Marriage, the most important event between birth and death is a determining condition of life's happiness." I thought about that statement for minute and reconciled it against other gospel principles to eventually come into agreement with that statement.
Then I could not help but look to the issue of Same-Sex marriage which has been such a hot topic since the last general election. When I first noticed the church get so involved in the issue I admit I experienced some reluctance with supporting those efforts. Not because I agree with same-sex marriage but because I am not sure that government should be involved in marriage at all. Additionally, if churches want the government out of their lives, churches should be out of the governments lives, right? Then I wondered why gays seem to be so militant about the issue. Preaching tolerance while not possessing the principles they hypocritically wish to engender in others.
Then I continued to read the section in Evidences and Reconciliations and I came across another key idea that clarified why the church would be so strongly involved. The statement reads, "Marriage is of such crucial importance in life that it should begin with full obedience to God's law. Love is the foundation of marriage, but love itself is a product of law and lives by law. True love is law-abiding, for the highest satisfactions come to a law-abiding life."
Gay marriage is clearly against law whether you call it nature's law or God's. Same-gender marriage clearly stands in opposition to the organization established for the protection and arrangement of procreation. According to Elder Widtsoe, it then stands to reason that gay marriage is a violation of God's law and is therefore not capable of real love. Supporters of gay marriage would have us believe that marriage will somehow change their level of love for their partner to some deserved level. The church sought to protect the most important event between birth and death in determining our heaven designed happiness. We were asked to stand in opposition to the lies of the adversary wishing to publicly indoctrinate society into thinking that gay marriage is capable of love when in fact all the adversary is trying to do is ease society into a culture of permissiveness and violation to God's laws.
Great post! I had a class at ASU called Communication and Performance which I didn't realize until the class started that the emphasis was on "performing gender", whatever that means. I struggled intensely with the content of the class but I had a few one on one meetings with the instructor who was a very vocal lesbian. I came away from that class with a recognition that homosexuals are not inately wicked people, however they exercise their agency to engage in behavior which is as you said contrary to God's law. Wickedness never was happiness nor will it ever be, and I see homosexuals as people who are unhappy as a result of their choice.
ReplyDeleteI recognize that people are born with tendencies of one thing or another but life is about self mastery. If a heterosexual man has very strong heterosexual urges it is also contrary for him to disobey God's law and indulge those urges and desires wantonly, just as much as it is the responsibility of someone with homosexual urges to learn self mastery and control those desires as well.
Thank you for the nice comment GWH!
ReplyDeleteShortly after reading this, I got a call from a friend, to whom I quoted some of this post. The friend in question was raised with his two siblings by his gay fathers, and they are one of the happiest and most orderly families I know.
ReplyDeleteAs it happens, it was injudicious of me to do so. One of his fathers has been having a difficult time at work due to an evangelical Christian neighbour who, so far as he can see, does not believe that it is right for him to have a male lover or raise children, and in lieu of expressing this openly has undertaken to treat him shoddily wherever possible. The situation has come to something of a head now, and suffice to say their family is thinking about moving house, and I was worried that my friend might burst into tears thanks to my unwise choice of conversation starter.
"[I]t then stands to reason that gay marriage is a violation of God's law and is therefore not capable of real love."
It cannot be said that he was very impressed with your post in general, but it is difficult for me to politely express his disgust and horror at this particular sentiment. It is his firm opinion that his fathers loved both each other and their charges intensely, and are just like any ordinary family.
Personally, I think that my friend was being unduly modest by saying his family is "just like" an average family. I am well acquainted with his parents and younger siblings, and it is own judgement that they are one of the closest, happiest families I that I know—and I include LDS families in this assessment. I find it difficult to reconcile this simple, unadorned observation with your own assertion, save to hope that if you were to become acquainted with such a family, you might well revise your opinion of their capacity to express love.
Jordan, wow, old post, but never the less a comment worth discussion. Thank you for commenting. This subject is and will probably always be a point of controversy as it deals with very powerful emotions.
ReplyDeleteI do feel that any discussion dealing with "love" will cause some of that contention due to the fact that so many people have varied definitions of "love". To a teenager "love" is this wonderful magical thing that is what is shown in movies. To the elderly, love might be changing each others diapers (being a little factitious there), but when dealing with moral principles and therefore with God, the author of moral law, that definition is still differs from what many in the world view as love.
I have no reason to doubt that the family you have mentioned cares a great deal for each other. But happiness is such an fluid concept, so to say that a family is happy doesn't necessarily mean that they love each other. To some happiness is simply a lack of misery, not that they are necessarily happy. It could just mean that they get along well like people that are happy at work (speaking in general observations here of course).
Because this is a topic too lengthy for a blog comment, I will defer to Elder Dallin H. Oaks talk from the October 2009 general conference entitled, "Love and Law". This talk was given after this article but I feel it goes further that I could in explaining this concept that I still hold to be true.
For me, I wish to say that just because one disagrees with a life choice of another, that does not mean that same person has cause for hatred towards that individual. The old adage of hate the sin not the sinner is relevant in this case. Fundamentally I don't expect someone who holds a different moral standard to agree with such a moral statement. There is much of truth in the gospel where the wicked taketh the truth to be hard. The adversary is very deceiving and often finds greatest success is counterfeiting some of the most powerful human emotions to confuse and conflict the standards of truth and righteousness.
I still hold to my opinion in the article. But perhaps if we defined love under the same terms as this family, there would be no conflict. As it sits, I subscribe to Elder Oaks words and counsel on the matter.
Thank you again for your comment.
Hello James,
ReplyDeleteI see now that it is indeed a rather old post! I found it by chance, and were it not for a small coincidence, it is unlikely I would have undertaken to comment.
Love does indeed mean many different things, but imprecision of language does not inoculate dubious assertions from criticism. The statement I highlighted, and which elicited a powerful response from one whose own experience casts it into serious doubt, is exceptionally opaque and objectionable.
"Real love" implies love that is true and unfeigned. In contrast, by stating that families headed by same-sex parents do not experience "real love," it naturally implies that they do not factually love one another, and belies any statement to the contrary. Such an implication is gravely insulting to such families, besides being nearly impossible to prove or disprove.
Creamed rice is a favourite dish of mine, but I have a very particular idea of what comprises real creamed rice. It must be made from scratch with a short-grain rice, cooked in an oven with plenty of nutmeg on top. I have tried many variations, ranging from the sophisticated to the barely edible, and while they can be perfectly tolerable and enjoyable on their own merits, nothing quite matches the perfection of the real deal.
An associate of a culinary bent advocates that nutmeg be omitted in favour of incorporating a few drops of rosewater. This, to me, is sacrilege; I consider my own recipe to be pure and peerless, handed down through generations of my family, yet she maintains that hers is quite delicious and would not have her pudding any other way.
I cannot easily explain why nutmeg is so vital an addition to rice pudding, and why no amount of rosewater can compensate for its lack. But ultimately, it is none of my business what my friends put in their rice pudding. If they say that theirs is just as good as mine, then I can only disagree. I am just being ornery when I say that the end result is not "real" rice pudding; in the end, there are many things that are called rice pudding, and if taste and circumstances lead one person to make theirs a different way from me, that is their preference and entitlement.
Such arguments on trivial matters (if the pride of a nation can be said to be "trivial"!) are fun and ultimately harmless diversions. Love, however, is quite different, and stating that a family do not have "real love" for one another is a very serious charge. The article you link to (which I read, at your suggestion, but concerning which my comments will need to wait) outlines a particular understanding of how love and moral law interact; but you seem to be going further, implying that any love not predicated on your moral laws is not genuine.
I cannot see how this is remotely true. As I explained, the family I describe experience quite enough unhappiness of their own; when I say that they are a loving family, I refer to the deep and inseparable bonds that bind them together, not mere happiness or conviviality. As I said, the quality of love my friend and his parents experience is easily the equal of that experienced by any of my other friends. Evidently his family does not follow your laws; but that does not invalidate the reality and integrity of their love. That nutmeg is very important to me, but rice pudding with rosewater is still rice pudding.
You have made some fair arguments here including convincing me that I should eat rice pudding. Sounds delicious.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I would like to point out something in your argument that is the key to the difference between love as it related to gospel law.
You said in reference to this homosexually headed family, "I refer to the deep and inseparable bonds that bind them together". It is in this point that I agree but only in proving my point. Love, when placed up against God's law states that through obedience to that law is the highest love is possible.
Gay marriage is not temple marriage and therefore has its end in this world. Therefore their love is ultimately separable. It is disobedience to this law that will end their family relationships at some point. In this sense what they love is not what God loves and that is an eternal family unit bound together by God's law and convenant. If the love they have for each other is not God's love, which love adheres to law and does not supersede God's law, then the love they posses is not eternal as only God law and love is eternal.
I see that many will probably disagree with me on this issue, and I refer to Elder Oak's article again as ran authoritative reference when he said, "These persons disbelieve eternal laws which they consider contrary to their concept of the effect of God’s love. Persons who take this position do not understand the nature of God’s love or the purpose of His laws and commandments. The love of God does not supersede His laws and His commandments, and the effect of God’s laws and commandments does not diminish the purpose and effect of His love.
"We read again and again in the Bible and in modern scriptures of God’s anger with the wicked and of His acting in His wrath against those who violate His laws. How are anger and wrath evidence of His love? Joseph Smith taught that God “institute[d] laws whereby [the spirits that He would send into the world] could have a privilege to advance like himself.” God’s love is so perfect that He lovingly requires us to obey His commandments because He knows that only through obedience to His laws can we become perfect, as He is. For this reason, God’s anger and His wrath are not a contradiction of His love but an evidence of His love. Every parent knows that you can love a child totally and completely while still being creatively angry and disappointed at that child’s self-defeating behavior."
Take it for what you will, but love and law do run parallel with each other. That is not to say that where there is disobedience there is no love, but the highest form of love includes an obedience to God and his commandments, for God is Love.
"Wherever the line is drawn between the power of love and the force of law, the breaking of commandments is certain to impact loving family relationships."
Thank you again for commenting. While we don't seem to see things the same on this issue, it is refreshing to have civil disagreement. Please visit often and participate. I can't speak for the behavior of everyone on the blog, but from my perspective your participation is most welcome.