Omnibus Response

Well, well, well. The anti-Mormon and anti-theist crowd are going around bombing blogs with comments again. Over half the current wave got rejected for anonymity or personal attack. Nearly all of those were also very poorly spelled or ungrammatical. I'm starting to think literate people in that crowd are a minority. I'm also noticing an apparent belief that even following conventions of spelling and grammar in English or complying with a blog's stated comment policy is just not something these "special" types should have to bother with.

I'm also noticing a strong pack mentality. I can just picture it: "Oh no, I can't go near that awful Mormon's blog by myself, if I quit whipping myself into a frenzy of hate, I might actually start thinking there's a human being with a valid point of view here. Quick, I need herdmates!!!"

I did actually get some literate and intelligent atheists writing in, but none of them are persuasive to me. Simply put, I have personally experienced events in my life that clearly show a purpose and plan above my own intelligence, and the presence of a caring higher being. I have also received guidance and direction from a source that was very clearly more than human. There is no way I can look at various events of my life and believe there is no God without lying to myself and wishing away contrary evidence.

I grew up in a family ranging from apathetic about religion to rabid hatred of any faith in God. As I think I've mentioned here before, it dawned on me recently that in my family, those with the most anger toward belief are also the ones with the worst addiction or psychiatric issues. I can't help thinking there's a correlation.

Answering various points:
The harm coming to marriage from allowing gays to redefine that word to take in their alliances is that as a society, we cannot redefine that which God has defined, established, and declared sacred without incurring His judgement. Those of us who have promised to follow God and stand for His laws cannot accept this. Marriage is a sacred relationship ordained of God. He has made it very clear that marriage is between man and woman, and that He will not accept man and man or woman and woman as being such. Answering one commenter who thinks that to be consistent, I should favor a ban on divorce: in her haste to "score a point", she completely missed the fact that as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I believe that marriage is meant to be for eternity, rather than the built-in divorce at death that comes from marrying "till death do us part". I would very much favor a return to much stricter divorce laws (adultery, abandonment by one spouse, or abuse being the only acceptable grounds), but our "it's all about my freedom, I shouldn't have to be bound by commitments or obligations I'm tired of" society won't go for that. I'm quite confident that when God's law is again obeyed, divorce will be basically unheard of (since people obeying those laws would not commit offenses against their spouses that justify divorce).

Several people claim one can have a moral code without religion. Uh, where did you think those codes originated again? Yep, religion. If you insist on rejecting sexual morality based on the source being religion, to be intellectually consistent, you also have to reject moral codes regarding murder (and other violence), theft, etc., as also coming from religion, thus we have the "free for all" state referenced in "Just Some Stuff Stuck In My Head", which is where the blizzard of comments can be found (coming from readers of an anti-Mormon site who've chosen to periodically form a pack and bombard me with commentary). Without an absolute standard (ie God), everyone can (and does) say "well, I don't think there's anything wrong with this" and can only be constrained from harming those around them by force of law, and that's not working well, either (the whole "criminals getting more rights than their victims" thing is a whole different post I'll probably do sometime).

We supposedly live in a "post-religious" world, where belief in the supernatural is obsolete. Instead, we worship the science lab and our own intellect. Considering how changeable science is, strikes me as a shaky at best foundation to base your life on. Alternately, we can have the "can't believe in anything" mentality, which I've directly observed and even experienced. This leads to a very depressing view of life as pointless and ourselves as animals with no self-control (or need for self-control). Looking at the jump in crime, mental illness, etc., since God supposedly became obsolete and irrelevant (which will bring some harsh judgements on our society, I firmly believe), I really don't think that's working terribly well. See this post by InTheDoghouse for a good commentary on the "secular humanist" mindset.

Every instinct I've had since my childhood proclaims God's existence. This was confirmed to me during my investigation of the Church, in a very clear and unmistakable way. Not all of reality is measurable in a lab. Random chance does not yield the world we live in, or the complexity of the body. It's very clear to anyone not locked into "human intellect is the best we have" that there is a God organizing and guiding.

[Later edit: I came across an article about the misuse of science to deny God here and would challenge any atheist claiming to be "open-minded" to read that article.]

A good point made elsewhere is this: how arrogant do you have to be to dogmatically state that God does not exist, when you can't prove it?

I've seen and experienced the fruits of being too sure of human intellect and reasoning to be willing to humble oneself and admit to a higher Being, with greater knowledge and perspective than we mortal humans. That fruit may look desirable (such as not having to bother with morality), but the taste (in results) is very bitter indeed.

Standing at the Top of the Slope

Much to my relief, Proposition 8 stands, and California's constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman. So far, the attacks on LDS facilities I feared (based on the misconduct of gay "marriage" advocates back when 8 passed) have not materialized, but it's only been six hours as I type this. We shall see.

The excellent blog "Thinking in a Marrow Bone" has an article that I think makes some very valid points regarding what comes next if gay "marriage" becomes legal. I agree completely with the writer, and in fact am surprised that gay "marriage" advocates aren't also advocating polygamy, incestuous marriage, or pedophilia as "oppressed sexual minorities". They're only interested in getting what they want, like most immature types who can't bear the existence of rules against their wishes.

Please read carefully: I do NOT claim that homosexuals are pedophiles (with the exception of those creeps at NAMBLA and like-minded organizations that actively advocate adult/child sex). Pedophiles, however, claim they're an oppressed and persecuted sexual minority who were "born that way" (sound familiar?). I'm quite sure they'll start claiming that legal protection for gay adults that doesn't include them is in itself discriminatory, and in logical terms, they'd be right. To be consistent, gay "marriage" advocates would have to also want protection for other "alternative lifestyles".

Pardon me while I get my stomach under control.

Contrary to the claims of the gay crowd, I (a Temple-married LDS woman) do not hate them as people. I have a gay uncle with a partner who's been consistently in the picture for nearly my entire life (said partner is great, and I accord him honorary uncle status). I have gay neighbors I'm friendly with. Disagreeing with your lifestyle choices does not mean I hate you as a human being. It simply means I disagree with your decisions. I don't agree with any lifestyle choices outside God's laws of chastity and virtue. God's law on sexuality is simple: complete chastity before lawful marriage, complete fidelity during same. I understand that this can be a struggle, especially in an over-sexualized society (I am human), but God's not going to change His eternal laws to accord with mortal whim, and yes, you CAN control your sexual urges and channel them in morally appropriate ways.

I do hate some philosophies, such as the "no right and wrong, my feelings decide morality" that is so common in modern society. Simply put, whether you like it or not, God has given us moral laws for our benefit. You can certainly choose to disregard those laws, but you can't force everyone else to do so. Nor do you get to claim the sacred relation of marriage without living to be worthy of that eternal blessing. God will never decide that the sacred relation of marriage can exist between two men or two women, not when the family is the fundamental building block of our eternal destiny (not to mention our earthly society). See the Proclamation on the Family for the way it is, whether human "wisdom" concurs or not.

Assuming California is not destroyed by the riots that will probably result from Proposition 8 standing, one can hope other states will follow our lead and stand for the family and for God's laws.

[minor edit to correct a grammatical error about half an hour after original posting]