Geoff, I get very excited about ideas. I like discussing and debating ideas, and I get carried away on these discussion forums. So, I’m strongly considering a hiatus. :-)

If I wasn’t clear in #17, I can try again, quickly.

I think the linked article has some great (if completely impractical) suggestions. The author basically took liberals and conservatives at their words: “If you genuinely believe a, b, and c, then surely you can both support x, y, and z.” I think that’s an excellent rhetorical tool. I think any thoughtful liberal or conservative could agree with the author on many points. The author persuaded me as to the reasonableness of the approach.

My comment was simply trying to point out that we’re not dealing with rational parties. We’re not dealing with parties who are interested in principled approaches; we’re dealing with parties who yearn, thirst for legitimacy. That’s what they want, regardless of what they say they want. To my mind, the solution is not seeking out common ground–though heaven knows I’d like to see that. To my mind, the solution is a cultural way for organizations to lose graciously, to admit mistakes without losing face. We need a way to preserve legitimacy in the face of defeat.

So, I guess my point is it’s a wonderful, thoughtful article, but he misses what conservatives and liberals *really* want. They don’t really want what they say they want. They want to be validated. Which means, when they lose, they need a way to preserve legitimacy, so they can USE THE SHORT TIME WE HAVE ON EARTH TO DO STUFF THAT REALLY MATTERS.

(Yes. I was just screaming. No. I was absolutely not screaming at you, Geoff. I really appreciate your thoughts. I’m screaming at certain institutions.)

What proportion of the youth of the church believe them? Do they undermine their authority by continuing with this line, which has more to do with conservative politics then the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

If the succession system for the President/Prophet is maintained and we go for the next 10 years through those above Oaks, and then him, there will be little credibility or future for the church. The only way I can see the church having any appeal (prospect of going to all the world and being welcomed) is if someone who can see the difference between conservative culture, and the Gospel, becomes leader. Ditch the culture, which would include this version of defending the family, and teach the Gospel of love.

Do conservative Mormons, including our older leaders, realise there is a conflict between their politics and the Gospel, and they continually choose their politics. The Gospel is about love for all, conservative politics chooses many to not love.

As the article says the family is not under attack from the direction the conservatives in the church suggest, but it does need promoting in real ways, most of which conflict with conservative ideology.

I realise I have said conservative politics 6 times, I think this is the biggest problem the church has. This version of conservative politics being taught as Gospel is so extreme that it is just not acceptable/ credible in most of the developed world.

For a minute there I thought I had something intelligent to add. Then when I typed it, it wasn’t very intelligent. So, I erased it.

… Aha! There it is again. Let’s see if it comes out as wonderfully as it sounds in mind.

Legitimacy. If an institution like the LDS Church were to eat breakfast in the morning, it would consume legitimacy, with a side order of validity. I don’t think the LDS Church is unique in this.

Here’s the problem: Institutions make mistakes. Sometimes they behave in ways that do not really meet their goals, they misapply their resources, they drain their good will, and they leave their members all at sea. And, sometimes institutions just lose whatever battle they went out to fight.

What to do when you make a mistake? What to do when you lose? I don’t have a solution, but I think a good question is, How can an institution preserve its legitimacy and move past a mistake? How can an institution lose with grace? Surely we have some successful examples in LDS history. I’m sure other cultures and peoples have come up with other wonderful ways to maintain their validity while admitting mistakes or defeat.

I’m no genius, but this strategy strikes me as ineffective: “We’re not *opposed* to rights for homosexuals; we’re really *in favor* of rights for religious persons.” That only works if someone is trying to deprive a religious person of his or her rights, which, I don’t really see happening out in the real world. Nope. We need a better way to preserve legitimacy than conjuring up a Boogie Man (see Indiana debacle). Sometimes an apology works, if the institution is the type that offers apologies.

How I long to see “family values” move beyond a code word for republican political goals, and an attack on gay marriage. Rather I would like to see it become a term that represents a broad-based collaborative approach to an understanding of family/marriage Then we can work towards solving the many issues that threaten marriages and family relationships. As long as it is a political issue, the debate will be polarized, and discussions will be impassioned, but shallow. Can it be done? Can we move beyond simple generalizations, straw-men, and hyperbole and work towards finding what unites and strengthens families? I believe that we will all be asked to give up an idea or two which we think is important.

Honestly I think if you look at how the Church has shifted on this for a while they are clearly moving towards doing just this. I think their remaining worry is being forced by the state to marry gays, which seems like an unlikely thing to happen anyway.

Is it worth it?

In the past, liberals have been asked to make concessions to conservatives in the interest of maintaining peace in the church. Is it maybe time for the conservatives to do the same thing?

Unfortunately, this “defense” too often becomes code for bigotry against LGBT people, and shaming of divorced parents, unwed mothers, and parents in non-traditional roles like stay-at-home dads and working mothers. I hope we are talking more the former than the latter here.

That said I don’t think the debate is over since as we see in Indiana the new debate is whether accepting this is something completely socially unacceptable like overt forms of racism or if it is more something most feel morally wrong but acceptable like adultery.