Defending the Traditional Family

So originally this post was going to be a comment on a Facebook link but to be honest, writing longer-ish comments on Facebook makes me nervous. Ever since they changed what the enter key does, I get so paranoid that the comment is going to post before I'm ready. But this was what I was going to say:

The link on Facebook was to another blog post (I think the article was originally from a blog) titled: "Mormon Pride 2011: LDS church calls for political action against nontraditional families."

*Big sigh*

Usually I try to stay out of all conversations that deal with opinions on homosexual marriage. I certainly do have an opinion, but these conversations usually go on and on and people get offended. I try to stay away from offensive comments if I can help it. But I also don't want to give the impression that I'm embarrassed or ashamed of my own beliefs. So here I am, finally voicing my opinion.

In the blog post, the author, "MoHoHawaii" expressed frustration for an "anti-gay manifesto" as he called it, published in the most recent issue of The Ensign, the official magazine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I was confused, because I had skimmed through the most recent issue already and hadn't spotted anything like that. So before I read the rest of the blog post, I went to lds.org and read the article in question.

It is called "Defending the Family in a Troubled World" by Elder Bruce D. Porter, of the Quorum of the Seventy.

In the second paragraph it quotes "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" by saying that "gender is 'an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.' The differences between men and women are not simply biological. They are woven into the fabric of the universe, a vital, foundational element of eternal life and divine nature."

Reading this in only the second paragraph might lead someone to assume that the rest of the article is about gay marriage. To someone particularly sensitive to the subject, just saying the word "gender" may automatically put them on their guard and assume the entire article is out to destroy them or their beliefs in some way. But it wasn't!

"In our contemporary world, in many dimensions, the family is in crisis." That pretty much summarizes the entire article. And it's a true statement! The family, in our day, is in a crisis! There are families whose parents are abusive, families who spend no time together and have little interest to, and motherhood is an idea that is demeaned and mocked by so-called "successful" business women. Divorce rates are rising, giving some children the idea that marriage is just a cruel joke that does little more than cause pain and heartache. A recent toll has reported that today there are as many as 40% of all births that occur out of wedlock (Brady et all). There are parents with addictions of all kinds that destroy marriages and annihilate trust, leading to broken families and low self-esteem. The Apostle Paul was quoted in the Ensign article as foreseeing this time of crisis, where "men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy …
“Lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God …
“Led away with divers lusts,
“Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth”
(2 Timothy 3:1–2, 4, 6–7).

To think this article is, as MoHoHawaii called, an "anti-gay manifesto" is just being ignorant. The issue discussed is not homosexual marriage. The issue is that now, more than ever, the traditional family, where there is a father who supports his wife and children, a mother who nurtures and cares for her children, and children who are being raised by loving parents, is being attacked. Are they being attacked by political debates and federal issues? No, this is bigger than that. The family is being attacked by Satan, whose eternal goal is the opposite of our Heavenly Father's: "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." (Moses 1:39)

The family is being attacked through Satan's influence on mankind, by means of pornography, alcohol, anger, infidelity, and sexual intercourse outside the bonds of marriage. It is also through the encouraged ideas that mothers who do not work outside the home are weak and have low worth to society, that divorce is a viable option for parents who have simply "stopped loving each other," and that sex (with or without protection) is harmless.

Is gay marriage also a concern held by the LDS Church? Yes, of course it is. The Church has nearly always stayed out of political campaigns and will only advise its members to vote for a candidate prayerfully. Prop 8 is one of the first, if not, the first occasion where the Church has made a political stand. Gay marriage remains to really be the only political issue the Church is this vocal about. But the issue is so much bigger than gay marriage! And I think that because of Prop 8, people believe that the LDS faith encourages bigotry and that articles about "defending the traditional family" is about encouraging prejudiced, and even hostile behavior. This is simply not true.

"MoHoHawaii" already had preconceived notions about the LDS Church before reading the article in the Ensign. He assumed his beliefs would be attacked and to be honest, I believe he wanted them to be. He chose to be offended so that he could stand on a soap box and bad mouth the Church. And unfortunately there are a lot of people who just choose to read commentaries and reviews without checking out the source for themselves. It is probable that the hundreds of people that read his post only read his strategically chosen and placed clip-its from the original article and are in full confidence that this article written by Elder Porter is "anti-gay sentiment" with "no words of compassion, just condemnation and a call to political action against families the Church doesn't approve of." I suppose it's possible that MoHoHawaii didn't read the actual article either, because that accusation is completely false.

"No words of compassion," huh? Here's a direct quote from the article:

"Certainly it is good to be tolerant of those who are different than we are, treating them with kindness and civility. But love, or charity, is the highest of all, and it is far better to genuinely love those with whom we differ."

The LDS Church has not ever and will never teach to hate. We aren't even taught to just accept! We are taught that we must have charity, the highest love, as Christ has. We are taught to love unconditionally, as God does. If anyone has ever been offended, hurt, or even been hated upon by a member of the LDS Church it is so so important to remember that the Church is perfect, but the members are not.

With that being said, official statements from the Church (like in the Ensign or in The Family: A Proclamation to the World) cannot be apologized for and shouldn't be. Messages delivered through this and other official publication have been spiritually contemplated and are considered scripture.

Well, everyone, this post has become a lot longer than I originally planned, and I fear that the more I write the more unorganized it's going to sound. I apologize for not making an outline or an essay web chart before writing this out. I'm going to skip right to the point I was originally trying to make:

The traditional family is under attack. That was the true statement addressed in the article by Elder Porter. MoHoHawaii, the blog author, took the article as a political attack against gay marriage and suggested that Church's PR needed some improvement when he said:
"Placing political op-ed pieces in the Church's educational materials is not a good idea. In fact, mixing politics with religion, in general, is a bad idea. It results in bad politics and bad religion."
The following are his closing remarks:
"There is a silver lining here. It's clear that Elder Porter's op-ed sermon is very defensive. He knows that the Church's position is unpopular with many members of the Church and that its involvement in Prop. 8 was a PR disaster. The subtext of the article is a sense of panic that the Church is losing this one."

These are my issues with his blog post:

1. Did he even read the article? It's not about attacking gay marriage, it's about how the family is under attack (from multiple influences!)

2. MoHoHawaii was seeking to be offended so that he could bad mouth the Church. He chose to believe that every inch of the article attacked his political and moral views when that was clearly not the intent of the article.

3. His closing remarks. The last two sentences actually. The Church does not have a PR problem. Its involvement with Prop. 8 was NOT a disaster. The Church and its members exercised the ability of free speech and proclaiming beliefs. The last sentence in particular makes me think that MoHoHawaii is under the impression that the Church is scared of losing popularity, members, or a good reputation. Since when has The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints been popular? The first prophet of this dispensation was tarred and feathered. There are people who truly believe that "Mormons" have literal horns growing from their heads. I have friends who are scared to death for me because they honestly think I am going to Hell when I die. I have been made fun of and at times, literally surrounded by people yelling comments that attacked my beliefs. Since when did the LDS Church have a sparkling reputation in the eyes of the world? The Church will not change its stand or beliefs in order to be accepted by the modern world. It never has; why would it start now? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is true. Our prophet is the mouthpiece of a real God, our Heavenly Father who loves us and is perfect. He will not lead us astray and cannot change his commandments so that His Church could be something as superficial as "popular."

So MoHoHawaii's blog post did make me upset, mostly because he suggested that the Church needs to change it's beliefs to be "successful," as if the Church were a business that needs popularity and money to stay alive. But with all that that I have just exhausted off my chest, I do have one more thing I have to say: I know the Church is true. I know the Book of Mormon is true. I know that families are central to God's plan for us, and that families can be forever if sealed in the temple by one of His servants who holds the proper authority. I know that God wants us to be happy.

I also know that God does not approve of gay marriage.

I admit that I do not understand why some of God's children are born homosexual. I don't know why some people have to go through their whole lives being told that they are romantically attracted to the wrong gender. It hurts me to think how some active Mormons live their whole life single or have a spouse they are not romantically attracted to. How awful it would be to feel robbed of the ability to love!

I cannot empathize with those who are homosexual. I honestly do not know how it feels to be gay. I can't begin to imagine what it must be like. I can't imagine how confusing life must have been during adolescence and how painful it must be at a time like now. I feel so lucky to be heterosexual and only have to contribute to this controversial debate when I choose. Homosexuals are involved with this every day of their life and whether they're Mormon or not, whether they wished more than anything that they were straight or have fully embraced their feeling; they are in the thick of this debate every day of their lives. I have many friends who are gay, and I cannot tell you how much I am inspired by their strength and appalled with what they must have to deal with on a mental, spiritual, emotional, and spiritual level on a daily basis. I commend them for their positivity and their fierce determination to fight for their personal beliefs, whatever they may be. To all my gay friends:

You are incredible, inspiring, and amazing.

And I love you.


Works Cited:

Brady E. Hamilton, et al., “Births: Preliminary Data for 2008,” National Vital Statistics Reports 58:16 (April 2010), 5.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/12/984406/-Mormon-Pride-2011:-LDS-church-calls-for-political-action-against-nontraditional-families?detail=hide

http://lds.org/ensign/2011/06/defending-the-family-in-a-troubled-world?lang=eng

Blonde Moments & Bus Stories

So I usually post these stories as facebook status' but some people make fun of me for having journal entry status' and some people get annoyed when I post more than one status in a 24 hour period (ahem, Steven Marshall). I thought having a twitter account would help me out with the latter issue (and it does) but then the problem arises when I have multiple short stories that I want to post on the same day but I can't explain in 140 characters or less! What to do!?! So that's when I remembered I had a blog... which no one reads, but that's okay. At least it's out there. I'm going to be honest- if something happens that I want to remember later on, it will stress me out trying to remember details until I finally write them down somewhere. Then I completely forget about them. Truly. It's like exactly how a pensieve works.

I'm rambling again. Sorry.

So anyways, the other day on the bus, I was looking out the window and watched the little dingy shops go by. I saw one that looked like some kind of Mexican bakery. I could tell because there were pictures of wedding cakes and pastries all over the building, along with spanish words. I saw on the window next to a cake that said "3 leches." I kid you not, I looked at it, frowned and thought, "'three leches??' It's supposed to say 'tres le--' ohh....."

And then I felt really dumb. Mind you, this all took place in my mind in less than 2 seconds, so at least I caught myself before I would have felt the need to drop out of school, so we're good. I still thought it was funny though.

So this second story kind of appalled me in a funny way. So I was on the bus and was sitting across from the back door, so I was facing it. This big guy came on the bus and brought with him about 5 brightly colored party bags. There were no more seats, so he stood by the door right in front of me. He was very odd, I thought. The only way to describe him really was that he was very animated, but moved in a very fluid, feminine way. It's weird to say that because while all city buses are jerky, no bus moves a standing person THAT much. He also laughed to himself every 20 seconds or so, quite heartily. I was trying to figure out if he was listening to an iPod and had just one earpiece in on the side of his head I couldn't see. Either way, he seemed very odd. Then he proceeded to grab into one of the party bags and pull out beef jerky. He at the piece very daintily, with his pinky up. When he was done he grabbed another bag and pulled out turkey jerky and ate it the same way. The whole bus was casually watching him now. He ate a couple more pieces of jerky, pinky up and laughing more frequently. He reached down again to another bag and pulled out a glass bottle. It was large (probably held a half gallon) and was less than half full of a watery brown-red liquid. On the label shined it's content: Brandy. My eyebrows raised a little and I turned slightly to my left to see if anyone else had seen what he pulled out. The lady next to me had her eyebrows raised too and we looked at each other with dumbfounded faces.

"Drunk!" she mouthed. I nodded and we both looked back at the man who took a big swig as the bus kept jerking forward. Laughing as though he was going to tear up, he put the bottle back in the bag. He brought it out a few more times to take some big gulps, but I was out of the bus before I could find out where the Big Brandy Man was going. Hopefully to somewhere with a shower. Alcohol + Jerky does not do much good for someone's body odor.

And those are my stories. Oh the joys of public transportation...