LDS pushback?
The Contra Costa Times in California reports that the LDS Church's recent call for members to donate their "means and time" to pass a state constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to a man and a woman is hitting resistance, including that of a Mormon literary icon.Author, playwright and all-around Mormon New Ager Carol Lynn Pearson, stopped short of opposing the church's call for action:
In the eight years since the state proposition, we have all become more educated. Most people have realized they have a gay family member or a gay friend or people they work with who are gay. Most people are less quick to judge.Pearson, who primarily markets her many books and plays (including a memoir of the AIDS death of her husband) among Mormons didn't go as far as other members, including Bay area resident Susan Randall:
The LDS church — any church — has the right to do whatever it wishes, but I applaud the California Supreme Court's decision.Meanwhile, another high-profile Mormon literary figure, Orson Scott Card — whose Ender's Game science fiction series has huge readership among non-Mormons — is writing essays in support of the church's call to action in the Deseret News.
9 Comments:
Um, I am pretty sure Carol Lynn Pearson was either excommunicated or disfellowshipped some time ago, so the Contra Costa Times quoting her as some sort of "Mormon" author is misleading. Can anyone confrim this? I know the Church does not publicly comment on these types of discipline, but I am pretty sure she has not been active in the LDS Church for more than a decade.
Right, because it's so wrong to identify a faithful person doing good things as Mormon, or for someone to identify themselves that way even if they aren't fully participating. Right. Maybe if Mormons focused less on labels and more on the people they wouldn't be propagating homophobia in the first place.
I suppose since she's not Mormon enough for you, you'd advocate taking "I'll walk with you" out of the Primary Songbook? Get over yourself. The Church should be paying Carol for all the counseling work she does in the gay community trying to help people heal after terrible, terrible experiences at the hands of Church bureaucracy.
I saw Ms. Pearson about a year-and-a-half ago at an open forum discussing one of her new plays dealing with Gay mormons. Asked about her involvement in the Church, she responded that she was active, and that her Stake President was supportive of her. She also mentioned several of her ward members who were in the audience who had driven from California (where she is a member) to support her that evening. I also receive her newsletter, and all indications suggest she is still a fully-fellowshipped member.
On a side note, I think it is often sad that faithful dissenters are automatically pegged as being excommunicated or disfellowshipped. It should probably be noted that Ms. Pearson did not directly oppose the Church's statement, but commented on the Body of the Church, and the rather progressive transformation that is occurring there. Ms. Pearson remains a strong voice within the Mormon Community and plays an important role in its intersection with the Gay Community. She's a remarkable woman, and her list of authored works include many that are still part of the Mormon cultural canon.
There are some excellent letters here:
http://signingforsomething.org/blog/
I found it very interesting that Signingforsomething.org allows only one point of view to be posted. Even the "Views that do not persuade us” section has been removed. It is certainly their right to limit points of view on their web page. It is somewhat hypercritical however, given the cry of “censorship” you level at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Apparently, their volunteers are screening opposing views as “inappropriate and off topic.”
The purpose of the web site became clear when I saw this in the “Welcome” e-mail:
“IF YOU'RE RESIGNING “
“Some members have expressed a desire to resign their membership over this issue. While we are not encouraging resignation from the Church, we recognize that members have this right. The website MormonNoMore.com is a resource for those who have asked for this information. We would remind those contemplating resignation of the serious nature and ramifications of such action.”
Signingforsomething.org is passive –aggressiveness and very heavy on the aggressive side.
Be well.
I found it very interesting that Signingforsomething.org allows only one point of view to be posted. Even the "Views that do not persuade us” section has been removed. It is certainly their right to l9mit points of view on your web page. It is hypercritical however, given the cry of “censorship” they level at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Their volunteers are screening opposing views as “inappropriate and off topic.”
The purpose of the web site became clear when I saw this in the “Welcome” e-mail:
“IF YOU'RE RESIGNING “
“Some members have expressed a desire to resign their membership over this issue. While we are not encouraging resignation from the Church, we recognize that members have this right. The website MormonNoMore.com is a resource for those who have asked for this information. We would remind those contemplating resignation of the serious nature and ramifications of such action.”
Signingforsomething.org is passive –aggressiveness and very heavy on the aggressive side.
Be well.
If Carol Lynn Pearson applauds the legitamizing of gay marriage, where does that leave her stance on gay marriage within the church?
Is she pushing for gay marriage within the ranks of the LDS church, or just in the civil ceremonys.
How can she be a member of the church, and promote the acceptance of such a grievous sin?
Carol Lynn’s clever play on words does not avoid the fact that she has an issue with the LDS church’s stand on gay marriage which may help her avoid official action by the church, if in fact it hasn’t happened already. She has had every opportunity to clearly state her views and without being direct nevertheless has done so. I knew her and her family many years ago. Her brothers spent many hours in our home and I know that her views are her own likely the result of disappointment in her life. I get the feeling from reading her comments that the basis of her lack of being very direct is more influenced by financial consequences rather than church action, she has made a lot of money over the years due to the notoriety launched by and combined with her church membership. What a shame it is that such a brilliant and talented mind is so inclined but that scenario is not rare these days. Notoriety and fame is often a millstone for those who forget their God and fill themselves with self. I also know Scott Card’s family and appreciate his clear thinking and his willingness to stand up for principles he believes in, he honors his family, his faith and his God. For the mind of man is subject to man and his limitations. The shackles of the natural man are keyed by pride only to be opened by humility in the light of the Spirit.
My reaction to signinforsomething.org was well articulated by rdwinmill above, my response to their website and stance and scriptures used are as follows: We must remember that the scriptures can and historically always have be used to support what ever view we may want to promote. The use of Doctrine and Covenants 134:4 and 1 Cor. 10:29 is an excellent example of exactly that point. Paul was in fact referring to letting the beliefs of the Gentiles which are comparable to those of many groups of people throughout the ages be imposed upon the church but that they should follow their own conscience or what they have been taught as being true by those who have or were appointed as leaders in the church of God. The taking of the 29th verse out of context and using it to support the notion that Paul’s inspiring writings are intended for us go what ever direction our personal feelings or understanding will take us is, with all due respect ludicrous. Life’s experiences and history are full of failed monuments to those who felt they were ready to follow their own intellect or self proclaimed wisdom to venture away from the prophets instructions.
Moving on here, Doctrine and Covenants 134:4 is simply being used in the same way, “We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.”
Many points could be discussed here regarding the relevance and use of this scripture to support the view at hand regarding proposition 8. If we just focus on one; “but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.” Human law verses God’s is now and has always been a challenge for not only the members of the church of God but all people due to the infringements upon the conscience however there has never been, or will there be justification for altering our course from that which is disseminated from the living oracles of God. The fact is, we are even instructed to comply with that which would offend our personal views due to the laws of wherever we may live. So where do we draw the line? The answer is that if we chose to do that which we may not completely understand or agree with, having faith that we will gain understanding beyond our current experiences, we will eventually have no reservation about our actions or feelings. For us to insist on following the direction our conscience would dictate only based upon our current knowledge is like telling your son or daughter they are on their own when it comes to how late to stay out and matter regarding promiscuity. We are all sons and daughters of God and should be eagerly awaiting further light and knowledge and my hope is that we will and remain steadfast to the end.
Post a Comment
<< Home