It is interesting to see the reaction against Mormons now that the election is over. There are protests at the Temples, a chapel in Orangevale was vandalized, and a boycott on Utah has been called.
During the election, there was even an anti-Mormon commercial that shows Mormon Missionaries invading a home and pawing through women’s underwear to find a marriage certificate to tear up.
Some have commented that the ex-Mormon community has used the cover of the election to strike some blows against the Church.
On the positive side, Church Leaders in other faiths have come out in our defense.
I thought one of the more interesting ant-Mormon rants came from actress-comedian Rosanne Barr.
I thought I would post a portion of it here as some of you might have thoughts on this, as well as thoughts on where this all might lead.
They have crossed the line between church and state and it will be the issue of gay marriage which they so fiercely oppose (as they oppose women’s rights and the rights of child sex abuse victims with their fake pro-family bullcrap legislations) that will reclassify this “church” as the political action committee that it is, and therefore make it ineligible for tax exempt status! they intend the complete overthrow of the us government. they intend to destroy civil liberties and institute taliban like polygamy and child marriage. They hate our country, and want to destroy it’s constitution. This they do while paying not one cent for the firemen the police the teachers the roads the parks, the hospitals. they build their own infrastructure with your tax money.
The old women are encouraged to be self righteous haters of young women, and to demand forced pregnancies as a tactic of control for young girls who are traded like cattle and increasingly these days, not even given birth certificates! Listen up liars thieves whores and satan worshipping anti-christ- you are going to burn in hellfire and damnation unless you repent of your evil sins and choose ye this day to harken unto TRUTH!!! the truth is the truth and there is no higher truth than truth! this is the truth…
On one hand, I had to laugh about what was written. On the other hand, I had to wonder if the ignorance was real or contrived. Anytime that such bigoted language is used, it gives me pause and makes me wonder where we are going in our society.
The Church issued the following statement today:
It is disturbing that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is being singled out for speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election.
Members of the Church in California and millions of others from every faith, ethnicity and political affiliation who voted for Proposition 8 exercised the most sacrosanct and individual rights in the United States — that of free expression and voting.
While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.
Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information.
The black community is also coming under fire.
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/11/07/2084378-thousands-in-los-angeles-protest-gay-marriage-ban?commentId=3963617
and
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_02-2008_11_08.shtml#1226094712
(Warning: comments to articles can contain bad language)
That quote from Rosanne is amazing. I had no idea she was such a hell fire and damnation preacher. Hilarious. Sad too, but let’s not forget hilarious.
Boo-hoo-hoo. LDS members, in direct response to the directive of their president (not to mention arm-twisting of their local leaders) contributed in excess of 2/3 of all donations, and the lion’s share of free labor, to promote an initiative which penalized gays and lesbians in the State of California. Then these LDS members boasted, in various fora, about how they were paying and doing more than other groups. Now, these same LDS members want to cry over how “persecuted” they are, when those they’ve persecuted rise up and cry foul. Now, these same LDS members are bawling, “We weren’t the only ones! Those other guys did it too! Why single us out?” Their evangelical friends, on the other hand, are mostly quite happy to see the LDS church get the negative attention, since most of them still see the LDS church as a dangerous cult.
Here’s the facts, people. If you want to blame anyone, blame Tommy & Co. LDS members are now reaping what their own leaders sowed.
Evangelicals are happy to see LDS experience the demonstrations of gays and lesbians?
I am missing something here, Nick.
What evangelical leaders are celebrating?
Todd, if you think that Monson’s political activism directive is going to win LDS the admiration of evangelicals, you’re quite mistaken. If they had the power to do it, many of them would be pleased to see a constitutional amendment eliminating the existence of the LDS church. They’re more than happy to see the LDS church receive negative PR, no matter how many millions of dollars the LDS membership coughed up to support the evangelicals’ agenda.
Now evangelicals are wanting constitutional amendments to eliminate the political freedom of religion in America?
Who are they, Nick?
My concern is the natural phenomenon that occurs every time a group suffers any kind of persecution. The group, whether pursuing righteous or unrighteous goals tends to get stronger, more focused on their pursuits and further alienated.
By persecuting the gay/lesbian community we are simply making them stronger and more alienated from us. We are deepening the divide and furthering hard feelings. This is hardly the work of true disciples of Jesus Christ. We are not supposed to alienate them, but to embrace them and love them.
The way some members and some leaders have handled this issue has been, in my opinion, greatly opposed to how we have been taught to proceed in these cases:
DC121:
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
Note: Because I know some of you will argue we are “not persecuting them.” Let me remind you that historically, and for the purposes of the phenomenon described above, persecution is defined by the victims not by the perpetrators.
I am also concerned that some members feel happy about having the support of Catholic leaders. The Catholic Church has a long history of violently persecuting it’s enemies and horrendous corruption of all sorts. Their leadership has often turned a blind eye to existing problems of corruption and has acted in a cunning and merciless manner with victims of rape and other sexual abuse. I am not sure I want to line up with them.
I agree with Nick. We celebrate defeating those who we are supposed to embrace; we feel proud religious organizations that (make no mistake) hate us, agree with our actions to take away the rights of a minority; we turn around and claim we are being persecuted after boasting of our monetary power and influence to repress a minority group.
I am truly puzzled. When did exercising the right to vote become “persecution”? Good grief. It is this kind of silly rhetoric that alienates, Elusive.
Nick (and Elusive)…
How do you think it would be appropriate for LDS members (or any individuals with strong religious feelings) to affect their government and the rules by which their society is governed? Or should those individuals have no voice at all?
-Allen
Allen:
I think you misread Nick and Elusive–they aren’t saying that the Church or the membership shouldn’t have the right to speak their minds, it’s just that they don’t have the right to avoid criticism for doing it. To the extent that we inject ourselves into a public controversy by exercising our first amendment rights, we can’t cry foul when others use their same rights to criticize us.
Nate W.,
Those who cry foul are not just criticizing us. They are implicitly criticizing the whole initiative process. If an activist group can raise a boat load of money for their cause and use that resource to get “no” votes, why can’t the church do the same via an opposing activist group to get “yes” votes.
Prop. 8 detractors used just as much effort and resources (if not more!) to sway the public as the Prop. 8 proponents did.
I think it’s rather ironic that activists should cry “foul” when someone beats them at their own game.
Is anyone else not surprised at Nick’s “I’m actively gay and fight against the Lord’s annointed” attitude?
Thought not,
Faithful LDS support the Lord’s prophet in teaching morality.
If you are offended by it, take it up with the Lord.
Jack,
Not sure I agree with you, but regardless, is that criticism not allowed? I mean, from an abstract perspective, I think the idea of allowing a constitutional amendment by simple majority without legislative action to be one of the dumbest ideas I’ve ever heard of. Am I crossing some sort of line?
Scott, thank you for you entry. It feels good to be able to say “I did what I was asked to do”. If we members are guilty of something it’s of being naive and to think that the opposition was going to give us the same respect and courtesy that we gave them. My questions are, what do you think they are trying to accomplish by protesting on the streets and disturbing our Temple patrons? Change the results? And how do they think that a boycott on the Sundance Festival will affect our Church? How is it possible that people in this blog still think that we did it to pleased evangelicals/catholics or to follow a political agenda? Don’t they know Church History? We do and we remember. Prop 8 was the perfect excuse to unleashed the hate that these people have against the Church, and now they can disguise it under their First Amendment Right. Do you know how many States in the Union have constitutional amendments defining marriage between a man and a woman? I heard that more than 35. And, Elusive: we were not persecuting gays.
Juliann,
Like I said, it becomes persecution when the victims define it as such. The Church has done this numberless times and has been a tactic used to narrate the history of Church pioneers for decades. Please read some of the narratives about LDS polygamy and their disagreements with both local and federal governments. As a matter of fact, Church members used the same line to encourage votes pro proposition 8, although it never really made much sense: some members said gay marriage was an “attack” on the traditional family.
Just recently, in general conference, one of the bretheren used an umbrella narration to state that “the media” attacks the Church. The media, while sometimes crude and obviously never stroking our ego, has brought up VALID questions regarding our history, beliefs, and doctrines: namely polygamy, racism and the preisthood ban, and our construction of the nature of God. Frankly, that is not persecution, but I have to admit many Mormons feel it is. And therefore, for the purposes of the phenomenon I mentioned in my original post, it has the same effects than “real” presecution (although good luck trying to define what real persecution is).
I agree with you, but you have to understand persecution is defined by the victims.
Allen Wyat,
Evryone should have a voice. What is naive, is to think that there are no consequences for voicing positions. Especially, if that voice takes away someone’s right, or someone’s freedom to choose to do something.
When the consequences clearly contradict the work of Jesus Christ and his admonition (to love one another), then we must consider carefully our actions. Like I said, the community that we affected has defined it as persecution; thus, we have alienated them and distanced them from us, not to mention, we have made them stronger in their pursuit.
To me, the appropriate thing to do is to respect other’s rights and their freedom of choice. We can love them and within this love, begin a journey of persuasion, but the decision should be theirs at last. And even if they decided against what we consider “appropriate,” we must still love them.
As of right now, we don’t have a doctrinal answer in the Church for people with same sex attraction. We don’t understand the roots of it, we don’t know how to change it, we don’t know the causes, we don’t know. Everyone has the right to pursue happiness, and marriage and family are culturally two of the strongest pillars in this pursuit.
Our best answer to gays and lesbians right now is “we don’t know why you are the way you are, but we just know it is wrong, and therefore you shouldn’t be able to get married.” And it just simply doesn’t click with me, sorry.
Regarding something we admit not having answers to, and considering the action happens between two consenting adults, and nobody’s freedom is at stake. I don’t think it is our place to make sure gays and lesbians are discriminated for wanting to have a pillar in their pursuit of happiness, namely marriage.
Jack,
“They are implicitly criticizing the whole initiative process.”
I am sorry Jack, but the Church has done this left and right since it was founded. Please read a little and get a clue.
NOYDMB,
I am sorry to hear your personal attack on Nick. And I am sorry that you are someone who insists that disagreeing with the bretheren on a POLITICAL issue translates to “fighting against the Lord’s annointed,” when the bretheren themselves have stated that is not so. Apparently, you have created your very own criteria of what fighting against the Lord’s annointed is. A wrong one.
When Tod Compton got highly criticized by conservative Mormons for his remarkable work on Joseph Smith’s polygamy In Sacred Loneliness, he wrote a response that summarizes well the phenomenon we see when members dispute the views of a leader:
“Conservative Mormons are somewhat contradictory on the issue of infallibility of Church leaders. In theory, they are not bound to the idea of Church leaders as infallible, and there are passages in Mormon scripture and history that reject the infallibility idea (such as Joseph Smith’s “a prophet is not always a prophet,” J. Reuben Clark’s talk, “When Are Church Leaders Inspired,” Hugh B. Brown’s memoirs, and many passages in the scriptures, such as Moses’s flaws that prevented him from arriving in the Promised Land, and what Paul said were Peter’s hypocritical actions at Antioch). In practice, however, I believe Mormons have accepted a very ironclad idea of church leader infallibility, “priesthood” infallibility. Thus Mormons will say, “Of course we don’t believe in infallibility of church president and apostles. That’s a Catholic idea.” But then mildly disagree with an action of a church leader (which must be done at times, if they make serious mistakes, as they will if they are fallible), and the Mormon who has laughingly denied believing in infallibility will bristle angrily.”
Todd Compton
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/7207/rev.html
cw,
Persecution is defined by the victims for the purposes of the phenomenon I wrote about. Sorry, whether you like it or not, that’s the way it is.
Their protests are for the same purposes all protests are: to voice a position on an issue.
I find this question of yours ironic: Don’t they know Church History? Apparently you don’t. Nineteenth century Mormons had a different definition of “marriage” than did the Federal Government. Mormons surely did not protest, but they made sure their position was known and preserved. But it would be naive for me to think you have read any of it…
One of the differences in the early Mormon position is they simply wanted to be left alone. They weren’t asking the rest of society to recognize or accept their beliefs.
I think the protests today are because the gay and lesbian community wants to feel accepted. I believe that is a very human emotion and don’t blame them for feeling that way. But, I believe their approach is wrong. The current behavior further drives the wedge and reinforces preconceived notions.
One of the most frequently repeated arguments put on the air with Yes on 8 money was that if our Constitution was amended, children would be protected from learning about gays and gay marriage. So, how’s that working out? No one is talking about gay marriage anymore, right?
As a Californian, let me also clarify some of the anger directed at Utah and the LDS. You used money and deceit to game our legislative system and wreak our system for your own ends, without any concern for the consequences or the lives you’re destroying. Think of yourselves as the Enron of morality.
Well it’s nice for a change to actually be persecuted for something that is actually real. If they had won the vote, and LDS went and picketed same sex weddings,(which we would not do) they were not no doubt be an uproar as well, and the indignant display of, “sour grapes”.
Californian,
All the stats I have seen (such as those shown by the LA Times, which took a stand against the proposition) indicates that the money raised on both sides of the Prop 8 issue was largely from in-state sources. In total, the “No” side raised more money and they raised more money from out-of-state sources.
Your anger (and the anger of those demonstrating against the Church) seems to be on shaky ground. I understand being upset about the outcome; you lost. But to say that the loss was due to LDS “out of state” involvement is not supported by the facts.
I will agree that the loss was due to LDS in-state involvement. But I don’t think it was due solely to the in-state LDS. It wouldn’t have happened without the support and action of other groups, as well. For instance, the LDS weren’t the ones who got the proposition on the ballot back in June—it was other groups. Have you marched around their religious buildings? Have you written letters to their leaders? Didn’t think so.
The LDS in California number much fewer than a million, yet they were instrumental in the effort of passing the proposition. Yes, they contributed money. Yes, they contributed time. Would the initiative have failed if they had not done either? Perhaps; we will never know.
I understand the anger of those who lost. I just think that the target of that anger is myopic and misplaced. The LDS are familiar with taking positions that “go against the grain.” I am not complaining about the LDS taking heat in this fight. (Sorry to disappoint you Nick and Elusive, but I’m really not complaining about it.) What I am marveling at is that the LDS are taking virtually all the heat when this was not a solely LDS initiative.
-Allen
Elusive,
I believe when the first presidency asks us to do something as the leader of the church (e.i., in a letter or from the pulpit), he is acting as the Lord’s annointed. When Nick flippantly said we should “blame Tommy & Co.” that was a very disrespectful thing to say, that falls under the description of speaking evil of the Lord’s annointed. Now I know that Nick has some more other covenants he’s broken, but, his statments make sense when taken in context. Unrepentant apostate.
Elusive, you are dishonest when you claim that Nick’s attacks are merely political differings. Nick disagrees with the morality behind homosexuality. The prophets have repeatedly taught right versus wrong on that issue (as well as pre-marital fornication, spousal abuse, and cheating or stealing). But when Nick states that the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is wrong when he’s working in his office is to fight against him. You state that my definition is wrong, but you provide no evidence. The lack of evidence is certainly convincing, but I think I’ll have to decline lending your lack of evidence any credibility. Prophets have the authority to teach morality. President Monson has affirmed that homosexuality is not morality. Attacking President Monson for so doing is fighting against the prophet. Good luck with that.
The difference is that the Church is being persecuted and attacked precisely because it exercised its very important role in society of asking its members to back an important moral issue in an election. Nick disagrees about the morality of the issue. However, to assert that the Church ought to be attacked and criticized for taking a position on a political issue and informing its members and participating in the democratic process is simply unaccpetable.
What those who are attacking the church are actually saying is that “we want to silence you.” They want the Church to be forced by intimidation to remain silent on its position regarding homosexuality in the public forum. That isn’t acceptable in a democracy. If the Church were arguing that homosexuals had no right to even have their voice heard or to state their opposition, the outcry would be deafening. The Church didn’t break any laws. The Church didn’t do or say anything that was inappropriate or immoral. It simply asked its members to become involved in an issue vital to it. It is immoral and contrary to fundamental fairness to attack the Church simply for expressing its views. Now if they want to debate the merits of the Proposition that was voted on, perhaps they should have found an argument that was more persuasive to the electorate and not the blame the Church for their failure to do so.
Californian, it is time to evaluate the No campaign. It’s greatest weakness was its lack of response to the Yes campaign. Like you are doing now, the strategy was to cry “liar!”. How did that work for McCain? Seeing the human resources the No campaign had access to their campaign is beyond shocking and if that is where a good portion of the anger should be directed. But I have only seen one mention of the failures of the campaign and that was from a black lesbian columnist who was complaining about how the white gay community was venting against the black community for exercising their right to vote. When you are ready to have a conversation and perhaps change minds you are going to have to address the real concerns the Yes campaign highlighted in their ads. Those ads were documented with court case docket numbers, newspaper articles and videos. To reply with “lies!” “deceit!” is not just stupid it is political suicide. They were caught in their own net when they put our state superintendent on a commercial claiming CA schools were not required to teach marriage. The Yes campaign only had to counter with an ad using his official website saying 96% of CA schools DID teach marriage. Further, the concern of YES people is that they be able to opt out of any discussion of gay sex, lifestyle or marriage. When YES puts up indisputable and documented instances parents not being allowed to remove their children and the No campaign replies with….”lies!” what do you think is going to happen? They are going to lose! And in that sense, they deserved to. They put on a shockingly poor campaign despite having a record amount of money and a seemingly endless supply of supporters. So before assigning blame to some church I suggest you take the blame where it will do the most good…to that lousy campaign. I have no doubt that SSM will prevail in CA, I never have thought otherwise. But don’t try to tell those who have concerns that they are liars and deceivers without every responding to legitimate concerns.
I should add that the YES campaign offered to debate both the Superintendent who dissembled in the ad and the No people. Any surprise that they wouldn’t? LIES! can’t fill up the time in a debate. My advice is to start talking and explaining and stop accusing.
I watched the Proposition 8 initiative with quite curiosity — having no horse in the race. What I witnessed was a silent majority rise up in the face of political intimidation by militant homosexual rights groups, brow-beatings by the media, and patronizing by Hollywood elitists to firmly state that marriage is reserved for the special relationship of a man and a woman, so that they can establish a stable environment in which to nurture and raise their children. This is as it has been in the past eons of human history.
I also witnessed a very vocal minority composed of intolerant liberals, militant homosexuals, and religous bigots, misrepresent what they really want from the legal recognition of “marriage” to be extended to cover their sexual behavior: the legal standing to force their lifestyles into the lives of every California school child not only in the form of pro-homosexual curriculum — but also in the form of the complete abolishment of any curriculum that would teach that there are, indeed, abnormal sexual behaviors, harmful lifestyles, immoral sexual behaviors, and unstable human relationships — as the militant homosexualists would make the teaching of such illegal based on Constitutional discrimination against a legally accepted form of “marriage”.
After forcing all discussion in the schools to support their lifestyle without any honest debate – their next targets were religion. My understanding is that AG Brown had already discussed how his office would remove the tax-exempt status of any religious institution in California that discriminated against the Constitutional rights of couples to marry in their facilities, using the same reasoning and language that was used for entities that refused service to blacks, and thus violated their Constitutional rights.
Thus, the LDS Church, the Catholic Church, the Jewish Synagogue, the Muslim Mosque, the Fundamentalist Church, all would have to either marry homosexuals — or lose their tax exemption and be driven out of business by the “right” of gays to marry.
This is why, if you support freedom of religion — you must oppose the legal recognition of homosexual marriages.
What are my thoughts on the issue? I don’t have a horse in the race. I am just telling you the facts.
FMP, the only response has been… lies! We were told fears about tax exempt status was…deception! (As they scream for just that now). I would like to see some substantial discussion on these disputed topics but I do not seen any sign of it happening. YES started out with a double digit lag. They had to convince people to erase that and move ahead. That means they had to produce something that required evaluation. I think the tide turned after they produced the video of a real book that was sent home with a real kid without the consent of real parents. The response? Lies! That won’t happen! CA news was still running protests as a lead story last night. I’m very interested in all of this and even I’m bored with it. Will pictures of shouting people suffice as a strategy anymore than LIES! did? Is there some point where they will begin to address concerns of the opposition or assure parents they will be informed of lessons on this topic and given the right to opt out?
NOYDMB,
“The prophets have repeatedly taught right versus wrong on that issue.”
The prophets, and more exclusively, Jesus Christ, has taught how to handle those things better than you have with your comments.
… I must have missed the conference/sunday school/priesthood lesson where we were advised to point at and publicly decry as “unrepentant apostates” those who disagree with us, even if they are blunt in their disagreement.
These attitudes make a mockery of true Christianity. I am sorry you are so devoid of love. Christ taught we should love everyone, even our enemies.
I am more and more aware of the idea that we are imperfect, and therefore have an imperfect knowledge of many things. If we have a testimony of the restored Gospel, and a testimony of the living Prophet and his Apostles, than we must trust the Church and its stance because the Church is led by God, not by man. We are not led by what the majority feels should be right (although ironically enough, we fail to mention that this legislation was voted on in Arizona and Florida, and passed, and the amount of members of the Church there are much less than in California. I would feel that the majority still feels that Prop 8 is the “right” regardless of their religion).
I feel that we are forgetting something here. We are not saying we don’t love someone based on their sexual preferences. We are not trying to take away their rights (as the Church has stated that they believe that they should have the same rights — i.e. hospitalization, taxes, etc. etc. as married couples) but what we will not and SHOULD NOT support is recognizing a HOLY act of marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman (and ultimately, God). The Scriptures are clear when it comes to homosexuality as a sin. Therefore, it is black and white as far as I see it.
In response to someone who mentioned that “we don’t know why you are the way you are, we just know it’s wrong and you can’t get married”. I argue that we know much more about homosexuality and continue to expound upon our knowledge of it and its origins than you might know or understand. There is a lot of research to suggest that homosexuality is much like many mental illnesses. It is genetic but our environments and learned behaviors elude to the recognition of one being and eventually “coming out” as a homosexual. Therefore, making homosexuality a learned behavior. Just as we had a very small and narrow minded opinion of AIDS in the 1980’s — we still have much to learn about homosexuality and it’s affects on the human mind.
Marriage is an institution between man, woman and God. Perhaps, we might need to make our criteria for marriage more strict (meaning, if it’s not performed by a minister, than it should be recognized as a civil union and not a “marriage”).
This is probably one of most complicated and controversial issues to face our society since the civil rights movements in the 60’s for african americans and for women’s rights as well. Since our society has continued to stray further and further away from God (let’s begin with taking prayer out of schools, and not allowing the Ten Commandments to be displayed in certain public places), it only makes sense to me that gay marriage is the next step in degrading the conservative nature of the family and blurring every line possible as to the gender roles we carry.
Perhaps then, we should leave the definition of marriage up to God. He is all knowing, and as a member of Christ’s church…I trust that through personal prayer, scripture study and having faith in the Prophet, that we are standing up for and supporting the family. In the end, that’s what it comes down to for me.
“First, we have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.”
I pray that we learn how to love more deeply without sacrificing what we know to be true. I pray that we are able to come beside every person in a spirit of service. Each time we take the sacrament, we are recommitting ourselves to take upon the name of Christ — and has his servants — we must serve others in truth and righteousness. We must stand up for what is right but not walk on those who disagree. I think the Church did what they needed to do to ensure that they stood up for truth and righteousness.
This is a test. I repeat. This (life) is a test.
Well it’s nice for a change to actually be persecuted for something that is actually real. If they had won the vote, and LDS went and picketed same sex weddings,(which we would not do)…
Oh, I don’t know about that. Orson Scott Card, in the Deseret News, called for the violent overthrow of the government in the even that Proposition 8 failed.
When Nick flippantly said we should “blame Tommy & Co.” that was a very disrespectful thing to say, that falls under the description of speaking evil of the Lord’s annointed.
NOYDMB, I have no qualms with you claiming that I am fighting, or “speaking evil of” those who you consider to be “the Lord’s anointed.” In fact, I’ll quite readily admit to doing such. Of course, LDS members (let alone active, believing LDS members) are a mere drop in the bucket of the earth’s population. I am not among those who consider the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be divinely inspired, let alone imbued with divine authority. Therefore, I have no particular concern that I am somehow angering your deity.
Now I know that Nick has some more other covenants he’s broken, but, his statments make sense when taken in context. Unrepentant apostate.
Really, NOYDMB? Have you ever even met me? How do you know what covenants I am under, let alone what covenants I have “broken?” My familiarity with LDS covenants assures me that there is not a single member of the LDS church, including Mr. Monson, who has never “broken” LDS covenants. Every time you commit an act in contradiction to the LDS understanding of divine commandments, you “break” your covenants, which makes your “covenant breaker” accusation rather silly. I, on the other hand, am not subject to any of the covenants which are administered via the LDS church. I directed that my name be removed from the records of that organization, and according to the official position of your own first presidency, any covenants I may have entered into as a member of your church are, to use their precise words, “null and void.” Since they are “null and void,” it is quite impossible for me to have broken them.
Nick disagrees with the morality behind homosexuality.
Surely you intended to claim that I disagree with official LDS views regarding the morality of homosexuality. If this is what you meant to say, you are entirely correct.
Prophets have the authority to teach morality. President Monson has affirmed that homosexuality is not morality. Attacking President Monson for so doing is fighting against the prophet.
Let’s rephrase your argument a little more precisely, NOYDMB. What you really mean is (1) that believing members of the LDS church maintain that the president of their church is a prophet, (2) that Mr. Monson, the current president of the LDS church, teaches that homosexual intercourse (and not “homosexuality,” since his own publications indicate that homosexual attraction is not, in itself, sinful) compatible with LDS views of moral behavior, and (3) that you consider anyone who disagrees with Mr. Monson’s views to be “fighting against” the man who believing LDS members consider to be a prophet.
NOYDMB, we agree entirely that I am “fighting against” Mr. Monson’s viewpoint and political activism. I’m not sure this is a surprise to anyone who reads this blog. Most here, however, are well aware that appeals to ecclesiastical authority which is not universally recognized will do little to silence those who disagree with you.
Todd Compton: “I am sorry Jack, but the Church has done this left and right since it was founded. Please read a little and get a clue.”
Do you mean “criticizing the whole initiative process”? Or do you mean dipping their ore where you think they ought not? If it’s the former then they would be clear on their intentions. If it’s the latter then maybe you can draft an initiative to ban religious organizations from participating in the political arena. Good luck!
Nate W.: “I think the idea of allowing a constitutional amendment by simple majority without legislative action to be one of the dumbest ideas I’ve ever heard of. Am I crossing some sort of line?”
That may be a valid concern–others who know more about Constitutional Law than I would be more equipped to determine just how valid. But nevertheless, I’d hope we wouldn’t blame the church for a “dumb” amendment process.
Jack… the line you posted as Todd Compton was written by me… the Elusive creature…
I just quoted Todd Compton in my post at the end, the rest of the post and my comments are not the comments nor the views of Todd Compton.
Yes, I was talking about criticizing the initiative process. Many protesters do, and we certainly have done it a great number of times in Church history. It’s not really that unnoble as we try to make it sound today.
It’s just people voicing their opinion. This is a democracy, and therefore the majority has the last word. What I was trying to say is, that sometimes, minorities don’t feel the majority should dictate what they can and cannot do. We as Mormons have been the minority many times. We have resisted and questioned what majorities have tried to impose on us. This is why Salt Lake City exists today.
Just a note: I do not have a problem in any religious organization donating money to whatever cause they decide to defend and I certainly do not have a problem with Mormons using their monetary power to support whatever cause they wish to support. My point is: we should be aware of the natural consequences (not the consequences that we think are fair or should happen), but the natural consequences of these actions, and place them in the context of Jesus Christ’s teachings and in the context of how persecution is defined in cases like prop 8.
You know, our leaders repeatedly lied about polygamy to the federal government in order for Utah to be accepted into the union and become a state. And as Wilford Woodruff states in the manifesto, the government pretty much forced the Church to stop practicing polygamy (although the Church continued practicing it under the table even post manifesto).
I insist on this example because of the paralles of the definition of “marriage” by a minority, and how a majority forces a minority to obey the law according to the majority’s definition of “marriage.”
This is what happened to us, and this is what is happening to the Gay community. To the Protestant based government, Mormon polygamy was an immoral aberration and a degradation of the traditional family; just like gay marraige is to the Church today.
What comes to my mind is the following:
“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” – Jesus Christ.
“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” Jesus Christ.
“4 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…” -Joseph Smith.
I am sorry this writing is so sloppy… took my sleeping pill and it is taking effect…. gnite!
Nick, you wrote,
Whatever Mr. Card actually said or meant, he represents no one other than himself.
Larry raised an important point: Mormons would not be out picketing gay weddings had Proposition 8 failed to pass. Do you disagree?
Elusive, that is a beautiful sermon. But when you have to resort to empty rhetoric that spans time and geography and skips through scripture to make your point you may not have a point. This is a specific event that took place in a specific time in a specific place by a specific population. I would also be cautious about thinking you know more about Mormon history than others here. 😉
Why can we Mormons not see the reality of what we have done? Yes, we can believe we did what we did because it is an important moral issue. Yes, we can believe we did what we did because God told us to. But, do we miss the fact we with this infinitive had a great effect on peoples personal lives? We went and made peoples marriages null and void. Can we not understand that this hurts and angers people? If the shoe was on the other foot how would we fight back? I hope we would do it in a legal manor. I think we would be tempted to take up arms, not just shout, picket, and protest.
Why do we wine that we are being persecuted?
Why are we complaining this is protesting the amendment process? We were protesting the judicial review process. These are both important processes in our systems.
If we think it is important enough to spend millions to take someone’s right to marriage to one of their choosing than we should stand up and take it like men when they are mad and legally protest. We should be grateful they are not taking up arms.
Gail, “we” didn’t do it. The CA electorate did. Now you can claim that half the population of CA is too stupid to have voted correctly…but then you might have to claim they were also stupid and deceived when they voted for Obama. There was no celebration over this victory in Mormon circles. The response has been gracious and civil despite the abuse given in return because there is understanding of the hurt. And I will always be shocked by blatant displays of ugly, vicious threats and hatespeech no matter what group they come from. And might I say you have a very low opinion of gays if you think they would take up arms.
Juliann,
We as a church did spend millions to take away this right. Yes the electorate did also come to vote to take away this right.
I am not implying that gays would take up arms. I am saying that if some electorate made our marriages null and void for whatever good reason they had we would be mad as hell, and be tempted to take up arms. I hope we would not. I believe we should realize the reality of our actions and put away this childish winning and take protests and angry words. Angry words are small thing that can be legally done to greave over your marriage being made null and void.
Not sure I agree with you, but regardless, is that criticism not allowed? I mean, from an abstract perspective, I think the idea of allowing a constitutional amendment by simple majority without legislative action to be one of the dumbest ideas I’ve ever heard of. Am I crossing some sort of line?
Nate –
I entirely agree with this.
Taking up arms? I thought this was a democratic process. We went to the polls and we voted, not once but twice. Not just here, in other states, too. Somebody suggested patience…it wont pass for a third time. And I don’t think we would take up arms, if the “shoe was on the other foot”. The fact that the gay community protests and makes their voice heard it’s not the problem. I don’t see how protesting in front of our Temple, blocking the freeway exit to the Temple or going inside church buildings to disrupt meetings is more effective than going to the State Capitol or to Washington where their voices can change minds, unless we agree that there is a little bit of malice. When I mentioned Church History I was referring to our relationship/friendship with evangelicals. We know where they stand.
Juliann,
If people do know about Church history, then they are sure turning a blind eye on this one.
As for your judgment of “empty rehtoric” I would have to laugh at that one… I don’t see too much substance coming from you either.
As for “spans time and geography,” don’t fool yourslef. The polygamy issue is not exactly ancient history. The geography is pretty much the same: the United States of America. The issue is very similar “the definition of marriage and the regulation of govenrment upon it as dictated by a majority.”
Your attempt to simply discredit by saying something is not specific is absurd and childish. We could all make the same clame of each other; and most importantly, we would never be able to learn anything from history (I guess some people never do).
Nice try though!
As for minimizing scriptural statements made by God and Joseph Smith as “skipping through scripture,” I just say this: let that be upon your head. Those scriptures are there for you to take or discard, and you are free to make that choice.
I guess that’s how this thing can work anyway, take away Christ’s principles and everything fits just right. If you don’t see my point at all, that’s fine (but I highly doubt it).
“I am saying that if some electorate made our marriages null and void for whatever good reason they had we would be mad as hell.”
Well that already happened. Some people are choosing voluntary amnesia though… 😉
Yes this was a democratic process, but how clueless are we Mormons? We were just used the democratic process to make peoples marriages null and void. And, now we are saying it is unfortunate that people aren’t as nice as us, since when is it nice to use the democratic process to make someone’s marriage null and void.
When the church says things like: “Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information.” If you have read the commentary on the six consequences much of the churches arguments on this issue were erroneous. How can we consider making peoples marriages null and void respectful or civil? We may consider what we did as right, but I do not believe we have any room to say we were nice about the way we took their marriage away from them so they should not get pissed off at us. Can we not open our eyes and see how we would feel if America voted that anyone that is a member of the Mormon Church can not be legally marriage? How civil and respectful do you think we would be? Did we have no clue that we would make people mad by doing what we did?
Gayl said:
“Yes this was a democratic process, but how clueless are we Mormons? We were just used the democratic process to make peoples marriages null and void”
The Gay marriage was already null and void as all gay marriages are. So LDS people and all the others Californians only expressed their opinion.
The No voters need to learn how to deal with the defeat.
BTW the entire international press (I live in Portugal) never said that the CoJCoLDS gave the victory to the Yes side. All the newspapers are saying:
“In the state of 37 million people the “Yes” to the “Proposal 8″ has earned points in the polls since August, when it intensified the campaign in favor of the measure, which was to target in particular the values of the Catholic Hispanic community, which represents more than 30% of the population of California and who in 2000 voted largely against the gay marriages in a similar query”
(Translated from a Brazilian newspaper)
So in my opinion the critics are coming from people who already used to criticize the Church.
Juliann wrote,
Good observation. My impression is that most Mormons who supported Propostion 8 have mixed emotions about the outcome. We may be relieved that the proposition passed, but we are not gloating. We sense that our involvement in the Proposition 8 campaign will likely have unpleasant consequences. Nevertheless, we believe it was necessary.
Elusive, I will bow out of further off-topic discussion with you. Gail, you continue to avoid what is being said. Are you unaware of what was happening before Prop 8 passed as No protestors started (very late in the game) gathering where the Yes people were? There were police cars parked on our streets. What is surprising about what had already begun? And BTW…the biggest surprise in all of this was that it passed. We went to bed not really expecting it to because they refused to call the election as they did others. The surprise is that they are ONLY targeting Mormons and using the same hateful tactics they accuse others of. What do they plan to do with the half of the CA population who voted the same way? Why can you not understand that?
P.K., I am not sure the consequences will all be bad. There seems to be an assumption that screaming obscenities while stabbing the air with middle fingers is appealing to the half of the country who didn’t agree with them to begin with. http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=39046 Hearts and minds need to be won. Hatespeech and violence doesn’t tend to do that. If it did the Mormon church wouldn’t have lasted the first decade.
Whatever Mr. Card actually said or meant, he represents no one other than himself.
Thanks for stating the obvious, P.K. Too bad your co-religionists don’t use the same reasoning, when they see a very small number of the “No on 8” protesters engaging in illegal acts, such as vandalism. It seems many LDS are quite willing to take those isolated acts as representative of all gays and lesbians.
Larry raised an important point: Mormons would not be out picketing gay weddings had Proposition 8 failed to pass. Do you disagree?
If he means “all” Mormons, I agree. If he means “no” LDS would be picketing, I disagree. Your point?
Here might be a question to pose for strictly academic purposes. I am borrowing the concept off of some comments posted here. Was the purpose, or greater good, of Prop 8 support here (from the Church perspective) that of the principle or the outcome? What I mean, is this; the unintended consequence of defeating the opposition, hence the gay community, is a galvanization of the defeated group. The liklihood that this issue will be faced again both in California and the nation seems high. Let’s speak hypothetically here and suppose that neither our Church or any other Church/organization opposed the SSM initiative. In that case SSM is allowed and moves forward with only minor publicity, and does little to foster/promote the so called “gay agenda”. In other words a relatively few people get married, it’s in nobody’s face, and because of this affects our lives.
So the question is, is it more important to stand and be counted in this case, or to strategically work towards desired outcomes? Again the liklihood that SSM will eventually pass is high, especially as homosexuality increases within the population. If that is the case then opposing Prop 8 was a bad idea if the primary goal was outcomes. If the primary goal was to promote ideology then support of Prop 8 was the better course.
Note: I realize this hypothetical is based on some broad assumptions, I am more interested in the question of principles or outcomes.
“I am saying that if some electorate made our marriages null and void for whatever good reason they had we would be mad as hell.”
Well that already happened. Some people are choosing voluntary amnesia though…
Lance: Correct me if I’m wrong, but many hundreds of our ancestors had their marriages decreed null and void by the voice of the government. (See Reynolds v. U.S.). As I recall, we took it pretty well, all things considered.
Lastly, I still have yet to see anyone actually provide an accurate description of what Prop 8, and the same sex marriage debate in general, are really about. No one really seems to under that actual legal issues in play here. Of course, I suspect they don’ t really care, since the emotionalism of the thing is much more fun.
Lance
I’m amazed at the amount of people who think this backlash is somehow going to be a negative thing for the LDS. I suspect such people are simply engaging in a bit of wishful thinking. The fact is that a lot of people in California, and around the country, watched the Church and it members stand stall for something they believed in, and they advanced it despite the vicious rhetoric and assaults from the other side. For people who are actually looking for a faith to believe in, the Church has become a much more attractive option now.
A while back there was a trend among some very liberal churches to solemnize gay marriages. Such church almost universally lost membership. At the same time, churches that held true to their “conservative” believes regarding mariage, etc., grew exponentially.
I guarantee you that the Church will come through this comepletely unscathed, (except for missionaries getting a few more doors shut on them in CA).
Lance
“Lastly, I still have yet to see anyone actually provide an accurate description of what Prop 8, and the same sex marriage debate in general, are really about.”
If you would like to clear this one up I’m all ears.
Elusive,
Oops! I saw Todd’s name at the bottom of your comment and supposed it was your “signature.” Maybe I do need to read more afterall. ;>)
That said, I concur with Juliann. I don’t think the circumstances surrounding polygamy allow for a good comparison with Prop. 8. For one thing, Utah wasn’t a state when the Mormons got there. They ran for the hills precisely so they could live the way they wanted. That alone should qualify your comparison as “apples and oranges.”
Cesar,
Thank you for clearing things up for me. I see it is not that we as Mormons can’t see anyone’s perspective except our own. It’s that no one else has a perspective. If those dam gay people would just figure that out they would understand we were not delving into their personal lives, because they do not have personal lives, and they could stop feeling hurt and angry about our intrusive action into their nonexistent lives.
Gail the first step to getting someone to understand your perspective is to make a minimal attempt at understanding theirs.
It looks like some rational analysis may be forthcoming:
http://malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1797
“When defeated at the polls, there are several potential courses of action. One can engage in endless recriminations and purify the movement (or as I like to call it, shallowing the political gene pool). On the other hand, if you’re a particularly reflective person, you could engage in a bit of self-criticism, use the data at hand to understand where you might have gone wrong, and vow to do better in the future.
There is a third option, however, and it isn’t one I recommend. You could have a collective meltdown, look for a scapegoat, and behave in the most cowardly, histrionic manner, one calibrated in such a special way that it appalls opponents while giving your allies serious pause.
No prizes for guessing what we’re doing this week.
Here is an excellent debate on Prop 8 including lawyers Blake Ostler and Morris Thurston.
http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2008/10/prop-8-comment-they-would-not-print/569/
1 Corinthians 6: 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
A couple of interesting observations here.
1. I have never read where god had a ratings system on sin…you know worst to first! So sin is all equal…you have sinned against your Lord.
2. Homosexual was inserted in the text in the late 1800’s. There is a footnote on this passage which takes you to the original greek and the word was CATAMITE. A catamite commits pederasty…the act of a high priest raping a slave boy. God’s word got changed to mean something else?? Hmm…is that sin?
3. Anyone that rails against homosexuals had better look up the definition of sodomy!! Because if you have EVER had sex for any other purpose than procreation YOU ARE A SINNER you dirty sodomite!
4. Nor Idolator! Hmm…interesting that so many good Christians hang idols in their home and from their neck. SINNER!
5. See #1 and then go look for your stones! Beware though that your good Christian neighbor will be aiming for you!
Juliann,
I have read these things. I am not trying to argue against the Church’s position on prop 8 here. I am trying point out how obvious it is that people are going to be angry and protest the church at this point. I also think if we choose to take action on things like prop 8 we should expect people to protest us, but intend we wine and say we are now the victims.
You said the point is that we are being singled out. Well, first we are not really being singled out. Second, we are the single largest group involved in this action, and defiantly the most cohesive. We also gave more than any other group some numbers suggest we gave more than all other groups put together. As Mormons we gave millions to make peoples marriages null and void. Why are we surprised that this pissed people off.
Nick,
Your answer presents a “false dichotomy,” a logical fallacy. You write as if you were unaware of the vast middle ground between “all” and “no”.
Let’s be clear: most Mormons have not and would not go out picketing homosexual weddings.
And when I say “most” Mormons, I mean the vast majority: I would guess more than 99.9%. If some among the remainder do go out and picket, they will be acting without the approval of the Church leaders or the majority of their fellow Mormons.
Do you disagree?
Jim,
Alas, your attempt at cleverness falls short.
I suggest you reread 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 and reconsider your exegesis. Your point #5 is especially inapt: Nothing that Paul wrote in those verses tells Christians to stone sinners.
Paul does, however, warn the unrighteous they shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. It is a warning that we should all heed.
But I suspect your real interest is not understanding scripture. Instead, you seem to be trying to paint the religious supporters of Proposition 8 as intolerant hypocrites. Was that your intent?
Gail, you have said we “wine” (that is whine, BTW) so often is spam. We get it. We disagree. Move on. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is going to step in quickly: http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1387052.html
I think Elusive has a misconception about loving others. I would submit that loving others does not include condoning wrong-doing, especially serious ones. Nor does it mean that we should act as Casper Milquetoast in the face of wrong-doing.
Let us suppose that you stumble upon Matthew Shepard, when his attackers are about to murder him. Would you think it an act of love for your enemies (i.e., those who would literally bash gays) to NOT intervene? Would God smile upon that? I would think not.
Rather, I would think that God expects us to intervene–forcibly, if necessary.
Before you claim that the Church is doing the same thing as Mr. Shepard’s murderers (if only to a lesser degree), please allow me to point out that, contrary to that vile anti-Mormon commercial, the LDS hold the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments sacrosanct. They do NOT advocate that gays should not own property, or dispose of it as they will. They do NOT believe in ransacking the homes of gays. They do not wish to undermine either gays’ right to speech or the vote.
Yet, the last is EXACTLY what Mr. Literski and others advocate against the LDS.
The only “right” that the LDS are “taking away” is the “right” to force the LDS–and others–to call unacceptable behaviour legitimate. As Ayn Rand put it, there is no freedom to enslave.
I think that before one can argue a point, the primise has to be accepted.
Why is it that a certain group (whether it be religious or not) opinions has to be put above anothers?
Heterosexualism must be awful to homosexualism as the one is to the other.
Perhaps so many herosexuals are practicing the very same sexual acts on each other?
I do not think it is fair for someone with beliefs against homosexuality to be punished for their beliefs as long as they are not commiting crimes against the individual.
I do not support Sarh palin,but it was very rude to hang her image up as if in a hanging whether it be Halloween or not.
Anyone who speaks against homosexuals are immediately branded as homophobic. Why are not homosexuals branded as heterophobic.
I have not read verbatim Rosannes Statement, but if it singles out the black race as being responsible for “yes” on proposition 8 and compares it to Civil Rights, the very statement itself defeats the argument that homosexuality is a civil rights issue as it pertains to this. Many blacks will argue that the skin color is something that is openly prejudiced against and Rosanne proves this if she is singling out blacks as a whole and excludes black homosexuals and black heterosexuals who supported “No”Proposition 8.
The Mormons are seeking to keep church and state separated. How can someone who does not believe in the Christian values impose their beliefs on someone else?
Should heterosexual Christians give up the namesake “marriage” and call it a Biblical union between God, man and woman blessed and sanctioned by God Almighty to promote family values. Has the heterosexual relaxation of Gods principles regarding marriage allowed for marriage to be be questioned as it is as more and more heterosexuals manipulate the meaning of the marriage bed being undefiled to mean that a couple united in marriage can do what ever they want in the privacy of their own bed instead of the true meaning that coital sexual relations within a marriage is undefiled.
it appears that things are going backwards as opposed to moving forward as Christains are again the ones being persecuted for thier beliefs that are in direct conflict with the consciousness of what man wants to do because of mans disobedience to God.
Should we do Gods will or have Him do ours? Not many Christians will argue that sin is sin scuh as fornication, adultury, lying, stealing, killing, coveting, taking Gods name in vain. Not many Christians will argue that Jesus died for thier sins to be forgiven. On the contrary, to be accused of bigotry and hatred with an expectation to separate thier belief system is fundamentally wrong based evenon the same expectation that the accusations come.
I am not a Mormon ;however, it is my hope that Mormons do not relax thier beliefs based on the sway of the popular manipulation or even harrassment of current society. Someone has to be willing to stand.
They do not wish to undermine either gays’ right to speech or the vote.
Yet, the last is EXACTLY what Mr. Literski and others advocate against the LDS.
Ever read that passage that says “Thou shalt not bear false witness,” Steven? Now that you’ve made this accusation, I expect you to quote any instance where I have ever said that LDS members should have no right to speech or right to vote. If you have any integrity at all, you will retract your completely false accusation, ask forgiveness from the person you’ve wronged, and repent of the sin which Nephi said would result in you being “thrust down to hell.”
From what I have read, the single largest group that had the greatest impact on the prop 8 vote was the Catholics. The Mormons are involved in this at the request of the Catholics, and the public opinion shift among Catholics–after they talked about it from the pulpit–was greater than the entire voting African American vote. It was certainly greater than the Mormon vote.
I’m of two minds right now, and I have two comments reflecting that. Please read both before responding to either.
I opposed Prop 8 based on the idea that government should not even be in the marriage license business to begin with. There ought to be a standardized “civil union” law that applies to people, regardless of gender (homosexual vs. heterosexual) or number (monogamist vs. polygamist). Such laws could also be extended to non-sexual relationships – such as two elderly sisters who live together and take care of each other, but still don’t have right of hospital visitation or automatic power of attorney.
Government should be primarily concerned with protecting vulnerable parties, and in promoting relationships that confer societal benefits, and regulating those that pose societal risks.
There is nothing in that interest that requires the current marriage license scheme. “Marriage” is a symbolic and religious prestige marker. There is no benefit to government regulating who does and does not have it. And as long as government gives it to some unions, but not others, the situation is by-definition unequal.
So yeah, I wasn’t a fan. I felt like the Brethren saw the need to draw a line in the sand and stand up to the relentless societal encroachment they were seeing from amoral elements of society. They felt like they were being required to sacrifice morality in the name of “tolerance” and felt the need to make a stand.
Anyway, that was my impression. Could be wrong.
But I think that ultimately, initiatives like Prop 8 will damage LDS marriage more than they help it. What the LDS Church has done in pushing Prop 8 so heavily is CONCEDE that we derive our marital legitimacy from government sanction.
Really?
Last I checked, there was nothing in the scriptures that made a judge’s approval a condition for a temple marriage. My temple marriage was under GOD’S law, not the state of Utah’s. I actually kind of resent that the Brethren seem to think that Utah’s approval was necessary for my marriage to be valid. I think this is simply bad doctrine.
Marriage is authorized by God, not by Caesar. Government may have a stake in regulating human relationships, but it has none in playing pastor.
This de facto acknowledgment by the LDS that we need government PERMISSION to get married will come back to bit us in the end. I think this campaign was a mistake, and I don’t like how heavy handed it was. For instance, allowing local California LDS leadership to get utterly carried away and subverting our Gospel Doctrine classes to political rallies. Or combing local tithing records to suggest money amounts to donate. Or complete ostracizing of dissenting political views – even going so far as to take disciplinary action against some who opposed Prop 8.
The behavior of many in the LDS Church was downright ugly during this campaign, and I am ashamed of them. I think the over-the-top rhetoric from some of our local right-wingers has also been reprehensible.
But…
Now the other shoe drops.
I’m completely disgusted with the reactions of the GBLT community.
The cries to revoke the LDS tax exempt status is hysterical and shows an utter ignorance of the law, or the social/moral reason why we protect religious tax-exempt status. It’s also doomed to fail I think.
I have read commentary on gay blogs in the past week that I would have expected from a neo-nazi website.
One guy boasted that the next pair of Mormon missionaries to show their faces on his doorstep would leave “with a dozen new orifices” (I’m paraphrasing – his language was much more foul). There were about ten different commenters on that thread who thought that was a great idea.
Another blogger declared “open-season” on Mormons to general applause. Calls have been made to deface Mormon structures. Then there have been vicious attempts to dredge up every bit of uncomplimentary information about the Mormons as possible. “Pedophile Joe” “kooky magic underwear” “brainwashed cultists” “raving idiots.” The gay online community is awash with these terms right now.
Then racial epithets were thrown at black protesters at the LA Temple because apparently a lot of the black vote supported Prop 8. Are you kidding me?
Gay bigots is a totally appropriate word. And the irony of a picture with a guy flipping off the temple while holding an “end H8” sign was not lost on me. I don’t think there’s any doubt in anyone’s mind that his heart is a hateful little cesspool.
And I do not like the fact that my fellow Mormons are being beat up for simply voting their consciences.
Whatever the hysterical rhetoric from the left may be, I do not think that wanting to deny the “marriage” label to gays constitutes prima facie evidence of “hate” or “bigotry.” I find the GBLT rhetoric on this point hysterical and overwrought. Certainly a vote for Prop 8 is a far cry from a “vote for H8” in my mind.
However, I am seeing very real bigotry in the retaliation from the gay community.
If I were gay, I would be utterly ashamed at the past weeks events.
And to think I was sympathetic to the concerns of gay couples. A lot of that has distinctly cooled in the past week.
Seth R –
Both of your comments paint my sentiments exactly, well said.
Wow…”Roseanne” needs to research her facts a bit more carefully…and then maybe check herself into an insane asylum.
I guess we were not paying attention when the word gay got redefined. It used to mean happy and excited – a word you could use to describe an innocent child. We lost a good word back then. I suggest that everyone who objects to redefining good words stop using “gay” to describe homosexuals.
If there is a round 3 on same-sex marriage here in California I’ll again pay my share of what ever it takes to defeat another attempt to redefine marriage. I think the 4 Judges of the California Supreme Court who created the Prop. 8 battle should resign in shame at their desdain for the democratic process and for our US constitution first ammendment that says there should be no government establishment of religion. Overturning a definition of an institution that has profound religious significance to the great majority of the citizens seems like government trying to establish their political corectness religion with no regard at all to rights of the religious majority.
All the whining about something being taken away from homosexuals is just nonsense. Where did they ever get the right to take our word “marriage” and redefine it?
There never has been any right to marry anyone you want. We observe rules against incest and polygamy for example. And, homosexuals have the same right as anyone to marry under the current institution. A homosexual man can marry a woman, a lesbian can marry a man. Or, they can choose not to and still enjoy virtually all the legal privileges of marriage through a civil union or domestic partnership whth their same-sex partner.
Seth – Marriage is a civil contract. The government can(and has) put restrictions on who can enter into that contract if it wants, usually through acts of the legislature. Hence all states have rules on capacity, minimum age limits, etc. The Church has stressed over and over again that it doesn’t oppose legislation to give homosexuals the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. And you don’t need to be married to go visit people in the hospital or make decisions – ever heard of a power of attorney? Push come to shove, I’d rather drop the concept of civil marriage altogether, and keep it strictly religious in nature. That would definitely change definitions of chastity, but new language could used. There is no real incentive for gays to even push a change to the definition of marriage. They have a much larger agenda, and that is to be “accepted” fully and completely as normal. Almost all states have voted to define marriage as being between man and woman. Why aren’t these CA gays picketing other states? When I hear of “active” members who disagree with the Church’s position on Prop 8, I want to ask – where is your testimony? Do you really think the First Presidency encouraged us to support Prop 8 on a whim? Don’t you think it was a matter of prayer and reflection? Sure, our Church leaders aren’t infallible. I’m sure they kick their dog once in a while. But I think any member can get a spiritual confirmation of the doctrinal positions taken by the Church. And if you don’t receive the confirmation through the Spirit, then try harder. Worse case, at least keep your second guessing to yourself. Being a convert and member of 30 years, I can promise you’ll see the correctness of the prophets’ position eventually. I think Satan has simply taken the concept of righteous, brotherly love and mutated it into something offensive in the eyes of God. I know this comment will get tons of screaming and shouting, but that’s the way I see it. And it does matter that we’re legally married, even though it is a civil contract. You may have been married in the temple by appropriate PH authority, but lots of members aren’t. I’ve lived long enough to see the disintegration of the family and its effect on society. And I think it’s implied in our basic belief system that we be good citizens, and support a government system that encourages free religious worship. Therefore, I’m willing to give President Monson the benefit of the doubt, and support Prop 8.
I don’t live in California Southerner.
I was never under any obligation to support Prop 8. If it comes to Colorado, I may rethink that position.
Secondly, your position in civil contracts and stuff is basically the same argument as “separate but equal” under segregation.
Sure, it’s not as serious, of course. But it’s exactly the same concept.
As long as gays get the same rights, why should they complain?
I’ll tell you why. Because the label of marriage carries a certain prestige in some quarters. If the government hands out marriage licenses, the government is de facto granting prestige to one class, but not another.
As long as government gives “marriage” to some but not others, you are going to have inequality.
Thus, my solution – take government out of the marriage business entirely.
“I think the 4 Judges of the California Supreme Court who created the Prop. 8 battle should resign in shame at their desdain for the democratic process”
Uh, don’t those judges represent a legimate part of the democratic process?
“The Church has stressed over and over again that it doesn’t oppose legislation to give homosexuals the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.”
This may be true of Prop 8, but likely only because anything more would have been “pushing it” in California. If you recall, four years ago in Utah the Same Sex issue was for marriage under what was then, Proposition 3 – I think. Some legislators proposed a comprimise of Civil Unions, which would naturally differentiate between heterosexual marriages and homosexual unions, thus protecting the sanctity of the family, while still extending the State given rights of marriage to Same Sex Couples. During this debate the Church issued a statement saying that they entirely oppose all measures offering marriage to homosexual couples, including any measure which which provide for marriage under a different name, ie “civil unions”.
Elusive said:
As I have written here: http://amateurscriptorians.blogspot.com/2008/11/mormons-polygamy-and-prop-8.html The issues between early Mormon polygamy and prop-8 are completely different, and should not be confused whatever your position on prop-8 was.
James:
Your position on the dissimalarities between 1890’s polygamy and the current prop 8 leaves a few stones unturned.
First, you are comparing the legal remedies and social consequences of former times and comparing them to now and suggesting that “therefore” they are not the same. If prop 8 had been the issue in the 1890’s, do you suppose that the consequences would have been different from the polygamists. Of course any reply here from either side would be merely conjecture, however we do have precedent for the opposite with modern polygamist groups. They are no longer imprisoned or threatened with seizure of property. The current legal assault on Mormon polygamist groups has nothing to do with polygamy except as it applies to cases of coercion of either adults or minors.
Second, you fail to address the complexeties of an institution which has fallen under federal condemnation vs. an undesirable social movement. Most of the threats towards the seizure of property were aimed at the Church (institution) directly, ie the temples and other like property. Because the SSM supporters represent a movement and not an entity drawing comparisons about seizing property is not valid. Would the government seize a gay bar for example?
A third point you fail to address is that at the time Utah was in a state of war with the federal government. This no doubt played as a crucial factor in the extreme enforcement by the government. Had Utah not been seen as a hostile threat, one might conjecture that the action taken against the polygamists may have been more civil.
Finally, you criticize society for condemning polygamy while endorsing promiscuity. While morally I can agree that it is unsettling to see society so embraceful of infedelity, the notion that once you have had a ceremony it is considered appropriate is one many people would disagree with. Even Brigham Young suggested that Polygamy was an outlet for men to “sow their wild oats” – Sounds like promiscuity under a different name to me. So are you offended at notion of men who are unable to restrain their natural urges, or the technicality of neglected ritual.
Personally, I’m proud of the LDS Church for taking a stand against this. Homosexuality is wrong, period. There’s no excuse for it. Also, I don’t see how they can consider it “marriage” if they don’t have a religion to support their lifestyle “Marriage” is something spawned by religion, and it’s something sacred. As far as I can tell, Christianity is against homosexuality. Go ahead, point some fingers; you’ve got over 75% of the world pointing fingers back at you.
I blogged about this very topic just a few weeks ago. If you’re interested, go to http://factorandrew.blogspot.com/2008/11/prop-8.html. It’s reasons that homosexuality is wrong, not backed by scripture. Take a look.
In conclusion, people just need to shut their mouths and go about their business. The Church doesn’t go around damning people for how they live, yet everyone is damning us because we believe God still speaks and calls Prophets today. Odd, huh?
Andrew:
The appropriateness of the Church’s actions regarding Proposition 8 is certainly debatable and will be seen differently by many groups. That is fine, but if the Church didn’t “go around” getting in peoples business (damning is a stronger adjective than I would use), we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Also the notion that we are persecuted because “God still speaks and calls Prophets today” is very flattering to us and thats why we like to repeat it, however it grossly misrepresents the opinions generally of those who oppose to the Church. This is particularly true of those currently upset over Prop 8, they are damning us because they feel like their civil liberties were infringed upon by religious zealots/bigotts, etc.
Well … of course they feel that way. And they have every right to feel that way–even if they’re wrong.
The Church has every right to fight on the moral front. And if some folks think that entails “getting into other people’s business” well then … they have a right to feel that way–even if the church is right.
It has surprised me how nasty, mean, and vicious the anti-8 protestors’ behavior has been. It just shows their true colors, and how eager they are to force their “new morality” on all who disagree with them. For the life of me, I just can’t see how retaining the traditional definition of marriage imposes in any way on their freedoms – civil unions are and should be all they could want. They are just shooting themselves in the foot by showing to the world just how intolerant and mean-spirited they really are. They are out for revenge, and have no qualms about lying and making all kinds of false accusations, including extortion and slander to further their cause. Then they complain that we object to that kind of behavior. Have they no shame at all? I’m not sure there is any hope for these people. It appears that they are beyond trying to reason with. They are so blinded their hatred that they are convinced that anyone who disagrees with them is a hateful bigot whose rights can then be trampled on.
they have a right to feel that way–even if the church is right.
Jack:
You make a good point, everyone is entitled to their views including the right to express them. Youre “as matter of fact” statement, that the Church is right, of course cannot be proved and does little to engage the issue reasonably. This is the problem largely on both sides. The only real benefit you get from your statement is the ability to identify with the likeminded individuals within this community. Because you cannot prove that “The Church is right” you fail to address the broader community and values of those all across the spectrum. This intentional disenfranchisement of the gay community will do little to serve your ultimate agenda (I think), and give them more fuel to feel persecuted with. We shouldn’t need to agree with everybody’s choices or lifestyle to respect the liberty that affords each of us the oppurtunity to carve our own way and seek our own view of happiness.
“If they had won the vote, and LDS went and picketed same sex weddings,(which we would not do)…”
Nick replied: “Oh, I don’t know about that. Orson Scott Card, in the Deseret News, called for the violent overthrow of the government in the event that Proposition 8 failed.”
Nick, I just posted to you about this on Mormon Matters. You recently wrote an excellent article there about how even small untruths or misrepresentations via spreading rumors is harmful.
I tried to find where OSC advocated violent overthrow of the government if Prop 8 passes and I’m coming up blank. Please produce a link to this article.
I did find this article where he advocates a constitutional convention. (Extreme, yes, but nothing even close to a violent overthrow.) In fact, he said the following:
Some documentation here, so that we can see what he really said in context, would be appreciated.
Extraordinarity: ,