Tags

Share this Podcast

Comments 35

  1. I have a lot of interest in the Immigration question. I have found myself at odds with many of my friends, several fellow LDS. Over the last year or so many of my friends would post in Facebook statements of celebration over either news of deportations or that laws were passed to facilitate or motivate more deportations. Many of these people are friends I have been close to for years. I was frankly shocked and disappointed in the celebration of the sad consequences of other people find themselves facing. The lack of compassion was surprising and disappointing.

    Perhaps I am closer than others in regards to this issue, my wife came to this country illegally. Luckily we were married before the law was changed that no longer permitted someone who entered the country to receive residency because of marriage to a US citizen. So she has since become a US citizen.

    She came to this country with her Mother and brothers and sister, they are all illegal, to this day. One of her brothers was deported, twice, the last time he decided to stay in Mexico, not because of any possible penalty he’d face but because of the current US economy it is hard to find work.

    To me when you say Mexicans, or illegal immigrants or whatever the label to me they are family and friends, people I care for deeply. One day when I came home from work my wife told me in a panic that her brother had been deported. He was picked up during a random sweep at a factory he worked at in LA. They herded up a bunch of people and the same day they were dropped off in Tijuana Mexico. He wasn’t able to get any belongings or money he was dropped off with whatever he had on him. Luckily he was a man, resourceful and tough.

    When I say he was lucky to be a man, the reason is there many reports of women being brutalized when put in that situation. Bad guys know where the drop off points are and pray on the vulnerable. Not your problem right? OK, Just so you know they don’t get taken back to their homes or family which they may or may not have any more in Mexico. They are all dropped off at a few designated points and left to fend for themselves. These people are loved and needed just like you are loved and needed by your family. You may say that is what they get for breaking the law. OK, that is the law. If your daughter was caught driving on a suspended license and just happened to be in a terrible neighborhood, would it be OK for the police just to tow her car and leave her there? You’d be all over those police. Why should people you care for be afforded common decency when others are not afforded the same. Deportation is a rough deal.

    The saddest part of this issue is the kids that were brought to this country as infants or very young. Many of them end up as teens not speaking their native language well, no longer have family or friends in their native countries and when they are deported it is devastating for them and is nothing short of cruel.

    For many years I attended church in Spanish wards and stakes, served in many leadership callings. When the church implemented the policy of not allowing people to submit their papers for a mission unless they were legal residents. What we did was submit their papers from wards in Tijuana and when they received their calls they’d go to Mexico to then head to wherever they were assigned. Then it was up to them to make it back to the states after their missions if that is what they wanted.

    This is a complicated topic, there are no easy answers but we should at very least understand and appreciate the humanity behind this issue. I would think that followers of Christ might tend to prefer compassion over retribution or punishment. I am not saying that we shouldn’t enforce our laws but the immigrant is an easy target, it seems the companies that hire them get a free pass.

    1. About my first statement about the immigration issue, I think I need to clarify, that I think many of my fellow LDS are compassionate people, and many sympathize with the plight of the immigrants to this country, many of my friends that I confronted with my personal experiences admitted that there is more to this issue than they first thought. I didn’t mean to portray all church members as being insensitive to this.

  2. wow, pretty much everything in that SLTrib response to Hardy’s essay makes me so angry. i feel like everyone consulted for that article, and by association the author included, completely missed the point of that essay. i’m with joanna- chills. chills that finally LDS women are telling their stories. i wish more people were allergic to the judgey. ugh.

    1. I agree, Isobel! I was quite surprised at the very few sympathetic voices Peggy Fletcher Stack found for (or at least included in) the Trib article. To me, Nicole’s story was so powerful exactly because it was so human and told it in intimate details particular to her and her experience with sexuality as a single Mormon woman–so it felt like a violation of sorts to see how it was then treated by those trying to make “points” for their universalizing views. I understand the reasons people want to stay ensconced in their current theological worldviews and behavioral boxes, but it is nevertheless infuriating to see these attempts lined up side by side with something so personal (and so much more powerful–truth expressed at an entirely different level).

  3. While I served my mission in Mexico 10 years ago we were instructed to tell anyone considering to cross the border illegally to not do it. We were told to let them know that they would be denied a temple recommend if they were to be in the United States of America illegally. Illegal immigrations was seen as first being wrong because it was unlawful and second because it tended to break up families. Fast forward 10 years later the Church’s policy has completely changed. I have a brother serving in Mexico now as a missionary. Before he received his visa he served in Utah for a few months, where the missionaries were instructed to have a “don’t ask don’t tell” policy towards illegal immigrants. He quoted his leaders as saying “The Gospel of Jesus Christ has no borders.” My brother also informed me that being an illegal immigrant would not prevent you from receiving a temple recommend. Maybe they don’t ask the “honest with your fellow man” question to certain people. He even believed that the Bishop of the ward he served in was an illegal immigrant.
    I know most people’s crisis of faith start with polyandry, polygamy, and or the blacks and the priesthood. This issue is where mine started because within 10 years the Church’s policy had changed completely and so as I investigated why I started to learn about the many things in the Church that had changed and the reasons behind those changes. I have no concrete theory on why the church has changed so much on illegal immigration, but I believe it’s because like the Catholic church, the membership is growing in the Latin American communities while growth is stagnant or declining in other ethnic groups. If the church looks good to the Latin American community then the Church won’t have the stigma of being racist, (at least towards Latinos), if they appear to be on the side of the illegal immigrants.
    Before any ad hominem attacks of racism come my way I would like to at least let all of you know I am in a interracial marriage to a legal Mexican immigrant with two beautiful biracial children. (And no I did not meet her on my mission).
    I am not against legal immigration at all. I wish it was much easier after seeing the hoops my wife had to go through to become a citizen of this nation. I love the Latino people and their culture. I realize many illegal immigrants are exploited, but I also see many illegal immigrants exploiting the system here as well. I am tired of every illegal immigrant being painted as either a noble saintly victim just looking for work by one side of the argument or as some sort of hideous criminal here only to leech off the system on the other side, but let’s not deny that both of those classes exist here.

    1. Liam: I am so glad you shared your perspective. It’s crucial to have an on-the-ground view of how church policy changes. It gives us so much more insight. Thanks.

    2. I think another reason why the church took a neutral position as far as members goes is because it is a very complicated issue. Many member that are illegal, meet and marry people here, they may not be from their native country, the husband might be Mexican, and the wife Salvadorean. If they decided to start being honest or repent about breaking the immigration law and decided to return home that would be the end of the family. This is not an uncommon issue. That is just one aspect of how this is a complicated issue on the individual level.

      I don’t think there is some evil design about this, they did put an end to members that are not legal residence putting in their papers in the US. They’d have to go back to their country of origin to apply to be a missionary.

      For as long as I have been aware, since the early 90’s it has never be cause to not receive a temple recommend.

  4. That was a lively and interesting discussion! Thanks everyone and especially Dan and John for relaunching what I hope will be a continuous, well-recognized and respected weekly series. As you gain publicity I can even see the national press honing in on this panel for feedback on current events in Mormonism.

    One thing that struck me as I listened to your comments about immigration was how families can be split up. The prospect of the Church being concerned about this misfortune stands in stark contrast to its seeming lack of care for families being split up by mixed beliefs. I expect the Church PR machine to patrol these comments on occasion, so I’ll say to Bros. Otterson & Trotter, and Sis. Farah, that it sure would be nice to hear an apostle say something in General Conference about making efforts to keep families together in spite of diverging beliefs among spouses, and between parents and children.

    And thank you, thank you for helping to dispel the awful specter of “better dead than immoral.”

    Here’s to the future success of Mormon Matters Podcast!

  5. That was a lively and interesting discussion! Thanks everyone and especially Dan and John for relaunching what I hope will be a continuous, well-recognized and respected weekly series. As you gain publicity I can even see the national press honing in on this panel for feedback on current events in Mormonism.

    One thing that struck me as I listened to your comments about immigration was how families can be split up. The prospect of the Church being concerned about this misfortune stands in stark contrast to its seeming lack of care for families being split up by mixed beliefs. I expect the Church PR machine to patrol these comments on occasion, so I’ll say to Bros. Otterson & Trotter, and Sis. Farah, that it sure would be nice to hear an apostle say something in General Conference about making efforts to keep families together in spite of diverging beliefs among spouses, and between parents and children.

    And thank you, thank you for helping to dispel the awful specter of “better dead than immoral.”

    Here’s to the future success of Mormon Matters Podcast!

    1. Thanks, Thomas! Glad you enjoyed our first effort! A couple of more episodes have been recorded and will be posted soon.

      I appreciate your prompt with the “better dead than immoral” note that I promised to post a link to the Michael Ash article from Sunstone magazine in which he makes a case for jettisoning the idea that “the sin next to murder” is sex outside of marriage. Here is that link:

      https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/143-34-43.pdf

      Best,
      Dan Wotherspoon

  6. Let me start out by saying I am closer to this issue than most people in this country. I served my mission in Brazil. Since returning to the states I have developed deep ties with the Latino community. My wife is from Mexico and she came to this country illegally, she has family here that is illegal. She has worked hard and is now a proud US citizen. We are lucky that we got married 15 years ago and there was then the option to apply for residency and work towards citizenship after we are married, now you have to leave the country for up to 10 years.

    From 1995 to 2008 we lived in Southern California, we attended a Spanish speaking congregation where I was very involved I served in Bishoprics and High Councils. Some of the members were legal residents some were not. When we first got married we moved to a part of Los Angeles called Huntington Park, when my mother asked me what it was like I told her, it was %90 Hispanic, %10 African American and if you happened to see a white guy it was me or a cop. Seriously. So when I say I have had a front row seat to this issue I have.

    I believe in the rule of law. I believe we have a right to our sovereignty. I admit at times I am torn between the rule of law and the golden rule. It is easy to decide the fate of others without feeling a lot of compassion when they are faceless masses with weird and different customs and perhaps don’t speak our language. To me when you say Mexicans, or illegal immigrants or whatever the label, to me they are family and friends, people I care for deeply.

    One day about 8 years ago I came home from work my wife told me in a panic that her brother had been deported. He was picked up during a random sweep at a factory he worked at in LA. They herded up a bunch of people and the same day they were dropped off in Tijuana Mexico. He wasn’t able to get any belongings or money he was dropped off with whatever he had on him. Luckily he was a man, resourceful and tough.

    When I say he was lucky to be a “man”, the reason is there many reports of women being brutalized when put in that situation. Bad guys know where the drop off points are and pray on the vulnerable. Not your problem right? OK, Just so you know they don’t get taken back to their homes or family which they may or may not have any more in Mexico. They are all dropped off at a few designated points in border towns and left to fend for themselves. Yes the same border towns you have seen on the news with x number of murders and a police force that was murdered by drug cartels. Sure you can say this is their problem because they can’t get their country in order. (remember that logic)

    These people are loved and needed by their families just like you are loved and needed by your family. You may say that is what they get for breaking the law. OK, that is the law. Let’s say your daughter was caught driving on a suspended license and just happened to be in a terrible neighborhood, would it be OK for the police just to tow her car and leave her there? I mean bad neighborhoods in the US would be our fault and problem right? You’d be all over those police. Why should people you care for be afforded common decency when others are not afforded the same.

    When my brother in-law was deported it was a raid at his workplace, the company my brother in-law worked for kept going and didn’t miss a beat. Next day they had filled the spots with equally illegal people and were never given a fine nor did they face any consequences for hiring illegals.

    Instead of going after the individual I think it is far more effective to shut down the job oppurtunities for those without legal status. In other words dry up the well, instead of fencing it off or running off those that come for a drink. If this (the US) is the only well that has water, doesn’t matter how far you drop them off some if not all will eventually make it back. The only people that benefit are the companies that employ illegals and the coyotes (human traffickers). If there is not water in the well or no jobs to be had they will not come back. But we don’t do that, hmmm why not could it be money? Campaign contributions, taxes, or that the businesses can put up a defense in court? something like that?

    Last year my brother in-law was deported again, he decided to stay in Mexico, not because of any potential penalty but because there were no jobs since the decline in the US economy.

    One of the saddest things are the people that were brought to this country as infants or small children. Raised here many of them all of the friends and family they know are here, many don’t even speak their native languages. There are cased of them getting deported to countries where they are strangers, and know nobody.

    If you are pro-sovereignty (trying to be PC) Stop saying MOST Mexicans are gang members or affiliated with gangs or crime, truth is you probably have no idea. You are most likely repeating talking points. Most Mexicans I know are good people, trying to make a better life for their families when they were faced with overwhelming poverty and problems in their country the only hope was to come here. Yeah yeah you say your ancestors came here legally, tell that to the Native Americans. I am sure they have a different story to tell about sovereignty. 🙂 There are many good people that will have had their lives forcibly uprooted, families separated and will devastated. Even if it is justified it is a terrible thing and if you should at least have compassion for what the reality of deportation is.

    I am not saying that we should turn a blind eye to the issue, but I also don’t think that aggressive enforcement and deportation against the most vulnerable among us is really the answer either, especially when the companies and people that have profited from illegal immigrant workers get off Scot free.

    While this isn’t by any stretch of the imagination a complete analysis of the situation, I think I have a pretty healthy grasp on the issue. I understand our economy is struggling, and we can legitimately decide that the cost for letting this issue go unresolved is too high. We are within our rights to enact laws to remedy the situation. Just know that whatever side of this issue you are on their are legitimate arguments or concerns on the other side. Seems we are more shouting at each other unwilling to conceded the smallest point.

    Your comments are welcome fire away!

      1. John Dehlin,  Any news on this plan? 

        To me, the best part of Mormon Stories is its way of giving a voice to the voiceless.  It lets people speak for themselves, rather than relying on the LDS Church to speak with a monolithic voice for them.  So my suggestion is that careful attention is paid to ensure that John or any other person interviewed on this topic speaks for himself or herself, rather than trying to speak for the immigrant community.  If you wanted to find an immigrant to speak for him/herself, that could probably be arranged by reaching out to a community group.  I recently had a hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on the subject of immigrant detention and due process.  In less than a week, I was able to gather dozens of first-person narratives to be included in our submissions before the Commission.  None were Mormon to my knowledge, but I was working in Philadelphia, not Utah.  People are desperate to tell their own stories, and Mormon Stories is at its best when it allows people to do just that.

        Mormon Matters, as opposed to Mormon Stories, is (to me the listener) a little more like Mormon intellectuals discussing social issues in smart ways.  They aren’t just trying to speak for themselves, but are trying to synthesize information.  So in my opinion, John could be a great panelist for a Mormon Matters podcast on the subject.

        As a caveat, I should add that as someone who has studied immigration (legally, sociologically, economically, historically, etc.), I’ve been disappointed in the care given to the topic on Mormon Matters in the past.  From the sounds of it, John would be an improvement.

        (kind of confusing that my name is John, and I’m addressing John Dehlin about a guest poster named simply John)

  7. There was a comment and a question about church excommunications and if they are on less frequent. Most of the last 10 years I spent serving as a High Councilmen, in my experience it is less frequent. I was told in a regional leadership meeting that we need to handle more issues with informal probation and such and use formal disciplinary protocols in more extreme instances. From what I gathered it is rare that once someone is excommunicated do they seek reinstatement. I am familiar with many cases of engaged couples not quite making it to the wedding day and confessing and still being able to go forward with their plans to marry in the temple. I personally agree with that approach.

  8. I really enjoyed the discussion of Nicole Hardy’s article. I had not heard of it yet so I went and read it. I think so many of us in the Mormon culture have a difficult time incorporating sexuality into our lives in a healthy, happy, and guilt-free way. I am so grateful for her bravery and honesty.

  9. (I posted a similar comment over on the Mormon Stories thread without realizing there was a Mormon Matters site; figured I should add it here as well.)

    THE METAPHOR/OBJECT LESSON YOU’VE BEEN LOOKING FOR:

    I think I saw this related to a different gospel principle (probably priesthood authority), but I immediately thought, “That would be a vast improvement over the Law of Chastity object lessons we’ve presently got.” The basic idea is that you bring in a “treasure chest” – a cooler or wooden box, whatever, along with a set of keys that are meant to open it. In terms of the Law of Chastity, the treasure chest and the stuff inside of it would represent sexual intimacy, and the set of keys might be labeled “Love,” “Agency,” “Maturity,” and “Marriage.” I’m sure you can put it together from that information: the lesson is that there’s a wonderful part of life that we get to enjoy when we have the appropriate keys to access it. It gives plentiful opportunities to discuss sexuality in a positive and honest way; it also gives an important chance to address abuse (as it relates to the Agency key), which I seriously NEVER heard mentioned in my YW years. I know this analogy has its own flaws, mostly as it builds sex up to this impossible expectation that lots of us Mormon kids already have, but it’s a start. Any suggestions for revision of this object lesson, ways to improve it?

    1. Sara, Some great merit in this approach and its focus on positives to strive for and the absolute importance of agency. Thanks for sharing this!

      Like all object lessons, this one seems to me to be potentially great and beautiful if taught by someone highly skillful and with a deep understanding of sexuality and intimacy. And this one also seems strong if it would be given a great amount of time. To convey this at a really powerful level, it should probably be taught off and on over the course of several weeks or even months, concentrating on each piece and giving each one a chance to really breathe and feel real and tangible and something really worth fighting for. If it is all condensed and each subject is not given the time it deserves (such as, the agency piece that you rightly mention as basically non-existent in current conversations except “you can choose to say no”), my impression is that the “treasure chest” motif runs the risk of coming across a little too “precious” and feeling a bit too much like the typical, easily tune-outable rhetoric about how highly valued sexual virtue is, how noble and priceless like rubies are virtuous women (even though this absolutely should be taught to both men and women and not just be a Standards Night presentation). If the facilitator can dive deep and get really real, focusing on “this is the kind of relationship you deserve; accept no cheap imitations” then I think a treasure metaphor is potentially terrific. Thank you, again!

      If anyone hasn’t listened to the MS podcast 214-216 with Natasha Parker in conversation with Jennifer Finlayson-Fife, I HIGHLY recommend it, especially the second half of Part I and all of Part II. There is terrific, hardcore commonsense ideas there for teaching and talking about sexuality. The other parts of the podcast are great, too, but either a bit academic and jargony at the beginning and then more geared toward married couples in Part III. If you have a teenager or work with teenagers and young adults, I think you’ll completely love Natasha’s and Jennifer’s discussion.

  10. This was really interesting, thanks to you all.

    I was a little bit depressed by a couple of things, though, and I realize you weren’t speaking with facts and figures in front of you so these things may be off base (and therefore my concerns fictional), but:

    1)- Is there really a focus on teaching virtue in the Young Women classes but not to the Young Men? (On the recording at around 38:00 – 38:20.)

    Umm…double standard, still? In 2011? As if boys have no responsibility in the matter? (But seriously, those Beehives are all such sluts; the boys wouldn’t have chastity problems if those harlots in Young Women would stay away from them.)

    And, sort of related to that:
    2)- During the discussion about whether the excommunication rate for sexual sins has dropped, Dan said (at around 42:05) he had the sense that that was true “especially if you’re either a Melchizedek Priesthood holder or somebody who’d been married in the temple.” *

    Especially if you’re a Melchizedek Priesthood holder. So are women excommunicated for things they might not be excommunicated for if only they were men and had the Melchizedek Priesthood? (Women are more culpable in sexual sin? You can’t teach an old Beehive new tricks?)

    I don’t have kids to ask about YM/YW and no clue about excommunications, but IF these things are so (and I realize it’s an IF; hopefully a big IF), well, that kinda stinks.

    Thoughts? Recriminations? Recipe ideas?

    * Now, if the reason Melchizedek Priesthood holders are less often excommunicated for sexual issues is because if they *were* there’d be no Melchizedek Priesthood holders left in the Church (since, based on articles in every Ensign, Conference talks, Mr. Dehlin’s comments, etc., they’re ALL addicted to pornography (whereas women aren’t)), then that kinda makes sense. The Church needs the Priesthood to run, after all.

    1. I’m the one who made the comment re: virtue in the YW curriculum. I said that because Virtue was just added (last year?) as one of the official YW values, so it is getting a lot more play now–in official printed materials and in the YW Personal Progress program. I have not seen a similar thing added to the YM manuals or official programming, so there does indeed seem to be a pretty big double standard going on from my standpoint.

      So the girls who are doing the Personal Progress program will now have to do several small-ish goals and then one 10-hour project re: Virtue. Again, I’m not seeing anything like this coming from the YM program.

    2. Hi Kat,

      So sorry I’m late in responding! Your passion and outrage are absolutely founded if women were being more frequently excommunicated than men. And I’m sorry my comment led you to think that was what I am saying. I think “kamschron” was responding to you in her/his comment, and I appreciate the help in clarifying things.

      Here’s a bit longer riff: From my experience as a pretty interested trend watcher, though not as someone who has taken part in bishoprics or stake high councils, I believe a shift has taken place in the overall frequency of excommunication for sexual sin. Whereas before, if you were an adult who had received her or his temple endowment, and especially if you were married in temple, infidelity would have led to a pretty automatic excommunication. This was true probably about the same rate if you were a man and a woman. Now I think a lot more is being handled at the ward level, and bishops and leaders are feeling more flexibility and focusing more on what would best serve this person rather than we must excommunicate because “we must protect the church” or leaders acting out of some misguided notion about what the scripture means about “God cannot look upon sin with the least amount of tolerance” and trying to mimic that version of God, etc.

      About the Melchizedek Priesthood thing, I believe the opposite was happening at one time than what you took me to be saying. For instance, if a male returned missionary confessed sexual activity outside marriage, it seems that in the past he was more likely to be excommunicated than his sexual partner, especially if she were had not received her endowment. It was more of a “to much is given, much is required” angle on the issue, and he (by virtue of his priesthood and endowment) had been “given more,” And I think in my statement, I was also recalling how sometimes the fact of his having the Melchizedek Priesthood was often given back then as part of the explanation for the differences in discipline between the man and the woman. Now, I believe it’s less automatic that either this returned missionary or his partner would be excommunicated (though it might be close to automatic still if it happens “while” serving–I don’t know that I have a sense if that’s changed and would love listeners to weigh in if they have more information or any anecdotes, etc.).

      So, although I know there is still way too much blaming of women and making them too responsible for mens’ sexual behavior, in this case, the priesthood element was a factor for MORE likely to be excommunicated rather than less likely.

      Now about our exchanging some recipes… [Loved your humor amidst your outrage! Thanks, so much!]

  11. On the subject of excommunication, my understanding is that the tradition has been that members who hold the Melchizedec Priesthood or who have been married in the temple are more likely than other members to be excommunicated if they have committed sexual sins. I think that what was meant in the podcast is that this difference in the degree of punishment for the same offense has decreased in recent years.

  12. Sex and immigration go hand and hand actually. The church took a gamble years ago to increase membership in the church at all costs from all different races and countries. Once brown and blacks started talking to and mixing with their little blonde girls the majority of saints have begun to sing a different tune whilst the majority of the leadership is out of touch, still trying to increase membership at all costs.

    1. That’s quite a “razor,” Friar William! I don’t think it cuts to the deepest heart of the immigration issue and the reasons for the law and order approach among many Latter-day Saints, but the fears or discomfort you mention is very likely a piece of it (primarily an unconscious one, though at times explicitly stated) for some folks. Important to raise the question. Thanks!

      What do others think? How big a factor is someone worrying their son or daughter might marry a person with a different skin color in the matrix of factors that would lead to that person to take a hard line when it comes to those who are in the country illegally?

  13. With the Church’s Presiding Bishop in attendance at the signing ceremony for new immigration legislation, LDS leaders are signaling even stronger support for compassionate approaches to this difficult issue.

    Here is a link to an article in the 16 March 2011 Salt Lake Tribune regarding this new development. I hope others will also load links as they find good stories or commentaries that can help us continue our discussion here.

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51439173-76/bills-burton-church-immigration.html.csp?page=2

  14. Thanks for a great podcast. I hope Joanna and Heather will be frequent panelists. And I’m with Chino Blanco – I also would love a standalone discussion of immigration issues.

  15. random thought:
    I read in an article that many of the Spanish speaking wards in Utah have many undocumented people as Bishops and Stake Presidents. My thought was this…I assume you must hold a temple recommend for those callings. The temple recommend interview questions asks if you deal with your fellow man honestly. If they are here in some undocumented way, how can they answer yes to that question?
    The second part of my thought revolves around the fact the article made a big deal about the Bishop being there when they signed all the new legislation because it showed church support. So what about this temple recommend question — Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual? Does that mean that if I disagree with with the parts of that law, and sympathize with groups that are against it, that I shouldn’t answer no?
    referenced article:
    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51437254-76/bill-bills-federal-government.html.csp

  16. Hi I’m just listening to this podcast … Something you didn’t mention which is an issue for me is the comments made by members continually about ones children not marrying within the church. As someone who grew up in Africa where there were not a huge number of members and those men that were “available” where people you had grown up with and as such more like brothers than someone you wanted to date. I became inactive and married outside of the church… However when my son was born I decided that he needed to have the basics taught to him to be able to decide for himself and had agreed with my husband although I was inactive that any children we had would be raised in the church before we married. My husband has since joined the church and I believe that these teachings or attitudes oppose Christ teachings not to judge and to love our neighbor and share the gospel. had I not married outside of the church my husband’s family genealogy would not be done now and my husband may not have joined the church! Yet members continually discuss this in Sunday School classes about how heartbroken they would be if their child married outside of the church and I take offense to that because my husband is an amazing man and has to sit and listen to this and he is so loving that he doesn’t take offense but I think it is offensive and opposes Christ’s teaching!
    Still listening and love that their are people who do give consideration to all matters… Gay marriage is also something that I feel strongly about and support! Who are we to judge them … I was given the explanation that marriage is suppose to be eternal however we don’t oppose heterosexual marriage that isn’t eternal and ion a world that is so promiscuous why deny people who love each and aren’t being promiscuous and want to make a commitment to the person they love!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.