November 6th, 2008

Breaking: New Anti-Proposition 8 Campaign to Target LDS Church President Thomas S. Monson

Update: Video of the protest and press conference have been posted below.

At 2pm this afternoon (Pacific time), a press conference was held at the LDS Temple in Los Angeles, where a protest had been organized by opponents of CA Proposition 8. To the media present, the woman speaking (Lorri L. Jean, CEO of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center) made the following announcement:

Today we have decided to include the President of the Mormon Church in a campaign that is more productive for our community. We are going to raise money to support the effort to repeal Proposition 8, and we are encouraging people to make donations on our new website: www.invalidateprop8.org. For every donor who makes a donation, a postcard in the name of that donor will be sent to Pres. Thomas Monson of the LDS Church, and I want to read what it says:

“Dear President Monson:

A donation has been made in your name by _________________ to “invalidateprop8.org” to overturn California’s Proposition 8 and restore fundamental civil rights to all citizens of California. The money will be donated to legal organizations fighting the case and to support grass-roots activities in support of full marriage equality. Although we decry the reprehensible role the Church of Latter Day Saints [sic] leadership played in denying all Californians equal rights under the law, we are pleased a donation has been made on your behalf in the effort to overturn the discrimination your church members helped enshrine in the California Constitution. Given that throughout its history the Mormon Church has been subjected to bigotry, we hope you appreciate the donation in your name to fight religious bigotry here in California.

Here are the videos of the protest and press conference:

Here is the Associated Press story just released about the protest. And here’s another.

Here are some photos of the protest.

Update 11/7: Tonight a protest rally was organized at Temple Square in downtown Salt Lake City. See this video, this video, this news story, and this blog post for more information.

158 Responses to “Breaking: New Anti-Proposition 8 Campaign to Target LDS Church President Thomas S. Monson”

  1. Lee
    November 6, 2008 at 3:31 pm #

    sick

  2. Brennan
    November 6, 2008 at 3:32 pm #

    Didnt this all end Tuesday Nov. 4th when we VOTED for this. Hmmm Mormans make up how much of the population of CA, 8%.

  3. Rob Alexander
    November 6, 2008 at 3:43 pm #

    They say they want to “restore fundamental civil rights to all citizens of California”. Since when has same-sex-unions-being-recognized-by-the-government-as-marriage been a fundamental civil right?

  4. Frank Staheli
    November 6, 2008 at 3:45 pm #

    It just goes to show that they never intended to abide by law, and that when the Church stands up for right, all hell breaks loose to give the Church more notoriety.

  5. TheInfamousGdub
    November 6, 2008 at 3:57 pm #

    Well, at least things are interesting.

  6. Jake
    November 6, 2008 at 4:02 pm #

    I wonder how many LDS members who went against the Prophet by opposing Prop 8 or even by doing nothing to support it will STILL stand with those who defame him in manners such as this.

  7. Megan
    November 6, 2008 at 4:05 pm #

    Here’s Lorri’s e-mail address for any one who would like to take a moment and remind her that members of the LDS church do not make up the population or even a majority of the population in California and that INDIVIDUAL members donated, just like individuals of numerous other religions donated and that it was both members of the republican party AND the democratic party and all the other parties that voted to protect Marriage. Lorri, I’m sorry that you feel that you were unjustly beaten in this cause, but you need to do ALL of your homework before you start taking your anger on the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. You don’t see us standing on your front lawn protesting, something is very wrong with the picture of you doing that to us. ljean@lagaycenter.org

  8. Mrs. B. Roth
    November 6, 2008 at 4:16 pm #

    See, I couldn’t support prop 8. I decided that the best way to determine the issue would be to see how the majority of voters in a state choose to vote. So, democracy did it’s thing and the majority said, “No, thanks, I’d like to keep marriage defined as it is.” I disagree, but I accept the decision of the majority.

    Some people are still crying unfair. That’s okay; THAT is their right. Now I disagree with them. Marriage is not a right and a majority of people determined the specifics of who could enter into the contract of marriage in their state. That’s how things work here. They can keep fighting to change minds and I guess they can do what they want with the money people donate to help them – it’ll subtract from the amount of money they can raise if they have to send postcards every time someone donates; I hope Pres. Monson can just sigh and roll his eyes. All this bad press is regrettable – the church does so much good in the world that is ignored, but stand up and say wrong is wrong and watch out … they’ll send POSTCARDS!

  9. Francis
    November 6, 2008 at 4:24 pm #

    President Munson is a busy man. He’s not going to read the cards. Save the money and postage for the next vote.

  10. Jake
    November 6, 2008 at 4:24 pm #

    The law is the law! They were pushing to make same sex marriage a part of the LAW. The LAW said no. And now they are acting like angry little children. Is the LAW not good enough for you unless it is giving you everything you think it OWES you? The LAW is the LAW. Live with it or move out the country.

  11. Mike S.
    November 6, 2008 at 4:27 pm #

    The cry foul and call the president of the Church a bigot. Something is very wrong and hypocritical about this situation. It seems like they’re trying to get the prophet to say something or do something out of sync with what the church normally does. Then they can find fault in him.

  12. shortstuff
    November 6, 2008 at 4:31 pm #

    You guys need to just deal with the fact that the votes are what overturned this and approved the proposition 8. The LDS church donated 20 million dollars of this but where did the rest come from? The Bible states “marriage is of One Man and One Woman” Many religions base their beliefs on the Bible not the Mormons. It is interesting to me that you guys continue to target the LDS Religion. Especially when you live in a state that has such a low percentage or Mormons. If you hate the law so bad move to Canada. You obviously don’t have morals or standards if you want to be with someone of the same sex anyway so what difference does a piece of paper make? Honestly. Give it up!

  13. Husband John
    November 6, 2008 at 4:32 pm #

    So, if I were a donor to an organization that sent a postcard every time someone donated, I’d be upset. Why? Because I donated my hard-earned money to be used for the cause to which I donated – not be be wasted on a postcard each time! I donated to the ProtectMarriage.com organization and I’d be dang upset if they sent a postcard every time someone donated – save the money for the cause!

  14. Equality
    November 6, 2008 at 4:32 pm #

    I applaud the efforts of the invalidateprop8 folks. President Monson should be ashamed of himself for failing to stand up for the rights of an oppressed minority, even the gay and lesbian children of Heavenly Father. The LDS church has unfortunately always been on the wrong side of civil rights (see, e.g., the church’s opposition to equality for women and to racial desegregation). It had a chance to take a progressive stand for human rights, for compassion, tolerance, understanding, and love. Instead, President Monson stood with the forces of bigotry, hate, fear, ignorance, and intolerance. It is a crying shame.

  15. Mike B
    November 6, 2008 at 4:35 pm #

    I agree, to slander the name of the President of the Church obviously have never heard him speak, and seen the compassion that he has for the human race. Slander is coming because of his general concern for their own well being and that of the others on this earth… Sure they have the right to want to be married, but we have the right as well to keep it a sacred God sanctioned union between a man and a woman.

  16. Bruce
    November 6, 2008 at 4:35 pm #

    Equality,

    You’re not a big fan of Jesus are you, given his discrimination of women and gentiles?

    I think everyone should get into heaven; that is the nice thing to do. That whole gospel thing be damned.

  17. Brennan
    November 6, 2008 at 4:35 pm #

    To you equality. You and the other people saying we should take Jesus out of the name of our church. When Jesus went to the temple, and their were people gambling (sinning) on its grounds, what did he do? Say, ohh equal rights for everyone why not call your friends and come. NO! He stood up for morality! Thank your Pres Monson for being a beacon of light in a dark world.

  18. Inthedoghouse
    November 6, 2008 at 4:40 pm #

    I guess all that campaign rhetoric of “NO on 8, No on Hate” just got flushed down the proverbial toilet. I have seen web sites attacking the LDS Church, trying to rally people to support a repeal of their tax status exemption, to schools receiving information on how to teach “diversity” to all the children so that Prop 8 lives on. I guess all the so called “LIES” the Yes on 8 campaign were reported as telling, are in essence not really lies at all now, are they? These very same “lies” are coming to fruition right before our eyes.

  19. James
    November 6, 2008 at 4:44 pm #

    Wow, this lady is hilarious. Every argument she’s making is exactly backwards, and that is why she is so wrong. How ironic that the person claiming lies and intolerance against her view is the very one spreading lies and encouraging intolerance towards the church.

  20. Equality
    November 6, 2008 at 4:47 pm #

    You’re not a big fan of Jesus are you, given his discrimination of women and gentiles?

    Wow, is that the Mormon line? That Jesus discriminated against women? I thought the official line was that women were equal in the eyes of the Lord.

    To answer your question, though, I would say I am a bigger fan of Jesus than of the folks who claim to speak on his behalf and leverage those claims of supposed divine approbation to foment hatred against others, which I think is the exact opposite of what Jesus would do.

  21. Dan
    November 6, 2008 at 4:48 pm #

    Uh, oh. Postcards. I don’t want to mess with postcards.

    Was there anywhere NEAR this kind of whining when the vote of the people was overturned by renegade judges that gave gays the right to call their relationship with same-sex people “marriage”? NO. And the voice of the people had already spoken.

    Now, the people have spoken again and it’s still not enough for them.

    People, you act like calling your gay relationship a “marriage” has been a fundamental right for centuries. It hasn’t. CA JUDGES RECENTLY MADE THAT CHANGE against the will of the people. Marriage has always been between DIFFERENT GENDERS. It was such a laughable prospect that anyone would even try do RE-define what marriage is, that it wasn’t addressed to have to actually put it in a law. Are we now going to have to have laws to define that an apple is really a fruit before someone sues to call it a dairy product?

  22. Brennan
    November 6, 2008 at 4:52 pm #

    No, an apple is a vegetable dan gosh!

  23. Forrest Koch
    November 6, 2008 at 4:53 pm #

    This lady is a nut. Didn’t the people of CA speak? Didn’t the majority vote it down. Didn’t 2 other states vote the same/similar propositions down. This lady is spouting so much inacurate and untrue rhetoric.

  24. Jake
    November 6, 2008 at 4:53 pm #

    ONE MORE THING EQUALITY!!!!
    Why would a Prophet of the Lord be interested in taking a “progressive stand” for gay marriage when the Lord so obviously condemns it? Why would you even start to expect a follower of the christian faith to be compassionate and tolerant of such a thing? You are delusional in thinking ‘he missed his opportunity’. The man is showing his true discipleship of Christ by standing against such abominations. OH AND HERE’S THE BEST PART! You say that your right’s are being affected by this? I beg to differ. You have all of the exact same rights as everyone else. You would have the right to marriage; as the law permits — to a man or a woman of opposite gender. What you are asking for are SPECIAL RIGHTS, as a special interest group. Do you not see that this is NOT your right? Not as far as the government and laws of the land are concerned. You don’t have this right and what you are asking for are SPECIAL RIGHTS. Get off your soap-box and nestle back in to the idea that you are just like us, with equal rights as the law dictates – no special exceptions.

  25. Dan
    November 6, 2008 at 4:59 pm #

    In all the back-and-forth on message boards and protests, in emails and in news releases, I do hope the dialogue can be civil. If the No on 8 folks want to send postcards, let them send postcards. At least it’s peaceful.

    But to tell lies (and I’m still wondering what lies this lady is accusing the Mormon church of constantly telling – especially in light of that anti-8 commercial where Mormon missionaries bust in and tear up a marriage certificate, etc.) and threaten violence, etc. is absolutely reprehensible.

  26. Equality
    November 6, 2008 at 5:01 pm #

    So, you are saying that President Monson was speaking as a Prophet, i.e., for the Lord Jesus Himself, and not just his own opinion on this issue? I ask because when I have had discussions with devout Mormons about the racial issue, and I show them statements from LDS prophets and apostles to the effect that segregation was God-inspired and divinely mandated, I am usually told that those statements were just those men speaking as men and not as prophets. I am trying to figure out whether the statements church leaders are making today about homosexuality are their own opinions or the “voice of the Lord.” I can’t figure out how the words of the prophets and apostles about blacks being cursed, having been less valiant in the pre-existence, and not being allowed to marry whites were just opinions but the words of prophets and apostles now about gays are supposed to carry a divine imprimatur. Maybe someone here can explain that to me.

  27. Mark N.
    November 6, 2008 at 5:02 pm #

    Since when has same-sex-unions-being-recognized-by-the-government-as-marriage been a fundamental civil right?

    Ever since the government recognized marriage as being a fundamental civil right.

  28. Mark N.
    November 6, 2008 at 5:04 pm #

    It just goes to show that they never intended to abide by law

    No, it just goes to show that every advantage the law offers them, they will use. Which is what I think any normal person able to afford a lawyer would do.

  29. Mike B
    November 6, 2008 at 5:05 pm #

    “To answer your question, though, I would say I am a bigger of Jesus than of the folks who claim to speak on his behalf leverage those claims of supposed divine approbation to foment hatred against others, which I think is the exact opposite of what Jesus would do.”

    I don’t believe that you truly understand how the Lord and Savior would act after this statement. Yes the Lord is loving and compassionate and will forgive all, but at the same time if they choose not to accept his help and repent of the sins they have committed then they will suffer even as he did and will be punished.

    A sin is a sin, most anyone will say that a child molester should be banned to hell and judged the most harshly, but through this mode of thinking Christ would accept him as he is, and not expect reform… I’m sorry but you are incorrect.(and yes I just compared gays to child molesters) You must remember Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed for unlawful acts, such as man laying with man, and woman laying with woman and all other kinds of beasts.

    And I will be the first to say that Yes President Monson spoke on behalf of the Lord, he always does, the revelation given from the Lord is not always understood by the people at the time it is given but is always for the best during that time and period, regardless, the Lord has his mode of thinking and if we cannot understand it then it is only our option to obey it.

  30. Mark N.
    November 6, 2008 at 5:10 pm #

    The LAW said no.

    No, the voters, responding to various scare tactics involving children and the tax-exempt status of churches, said “yes” to grafting a set of words that was already determined, several months ago, to be in conflict with the basic idea of equal protection under the law that was already enshrined in the constitution, onto that same constitution, despite the known conflict.

    Which was probably not the smartest way to go about amending the constitution.

  31. Mrs. B. Roth
    November 6, 2008 at 5:11 pm #

    Equality makes a very good point, one I hadn’t thought of before. Was Pres. Monson speaking as a prophet or a a church president? He didn’t stand at the pulpit at general conference and ask us to send money and support to Prop. 8 … he sent a letter to the California members … I don’t know, it makes me feel an ounce better not being to philosophically support Prop 8 to think perhaps it wasn’t a prophetic declaration, but the man leading the church’s opinion on the matter – a subtle but significant difference.

  32. Mark N.
    November 6, 2008 at 5:12 pm #

    I think everyone should get into heaven; that is the nice thing to do.

    So does Heavenly Father. Fortunately, he leaves it up to each individual’s choice.

  33. Mark N.
    November 6, 2008 at 5:14 pm #

    Was there anywhere NEAR this kind of whining when the vote of the people was overturned by renegade judges that gave gays the right to call their relationship with same-sex people “marriage”? NO.

    Of course there was. Otherwise, there would not have been a Prop 8.

  34. Mike B
    November 6, 2008 at 5:15 pm #

    Mrs. B. Roth, one thing we must remember… it is Presidents Monsons duty to cry repentance unto the world. Simple enough, that has been duty of all the prophets of old, Noah, David, Jesus as well cried repentance to a world stricken with sin.

  35. scott Jarvie
    November 6, 2008 at 5:20 pm #

    Time will always VINDICATE the prophets.

  36. Brad
    November 6, 2008 at 5:23 pm #

    Wow, this is a pretty one sided audience!

  37. Mayan Elephant
    November 6, 2008 at 5:24 pm #

    Mike B.,

    yep, you did. you compared gays to molesters. that makes you an idiot. congratulations. being an idiot is not a sin, but it is a blemish of sorts. i have no clue what jesus would say about it. but he might ask you to stop being an idiot.

    as far as i know, understanding the lord and savior is a subjective exercise, and one that up until recently was something monson may have allowed others to do as they see fit. you dont get a cookie for understanding jesus, the lord, or the savior. you do however get extra credit if you can understand flipper. you know, the porpoise.

    sadly, many people like you think its ok to cause suffering, and inflict injury or whatever on others. i think you said they would be punished.

    for once dude. dont be an idiot and dont make up some fictional idiocy about what the lord would do. you dont know.

    now. for the topic at hand – monson. how much did he contribute to prop 8? or, did he just fleece members to donate to his cause, without any personal sacrifice? just curious.

  38. Mrs. B. Roth
    November 6, 2008 at 5:29 pm #

    Mike B. – Right, but I’m not sure how supporting Prop 8 is crying repentance. And today’s press release didn’t condemn homosexuality as a sin; it didn’t seem to be calling gays and those who did not support prop 8 to repentance, either. It was, however, very careful to say we ought to avoid hostility between those on both sides of the issue. It said the Church was grateful for the prop 8 support … no necessarily God himself.

    There are times when the Prophet speaks for God and times when he speaks just as a church leader, and just as a man, with personal opinions, no?

  39. JoeScho
    November 6, 2008 at 5:40 pm #

    Mrs. Roth, when someone is called as Prophet they always carry the mantle of Prophet. He doesn’t have the luxury of “not acting as the Lord’s annointed”. I am not trying to be mean, but not supporting that letter will count against you at judgement. I respect you for following your personal convictions, but it doesn’t mean you were right.

    Mark N., so please tell me. Should the church have supported a proposition supports something that the bible condemns as a sin? The church did nothing wrong and neither did it’s Prophet. If you disagree, that is fine and that is why our democratic government had us vote on it. Blaming the church for the outcome is just ignorant. Also Mark, The case you are referring to when they announced that marriage was a right they were addressing inter-racial marriage, they said nothing about same sex marriage. Not that the case is relevant because we made the definition of marriage between man and woman, so the case doesn’t apply here.

    Equality…first of all you aren’t really trying to have an intelligent discussion you are just trying to argue with people. Jesus loved everyone, but didn’t support when they did something wrong, at all. This is the position that church members should be taking, most of the ones I know are dead on with that. They don’t hate gays, but they don’t support homosexuality.

  40. Mike B
    November 6, 2008 at 5:41 pm #

    Roth,

    Well from what Mayan Elephant said, I am an idiot first off, and am not subjective enough to personal interpretation.

    I will agree with you that President Monson is human, there is human emotion involved with it as well, but in my opinion the man speaks with God, and does his bidding. If President Monson comes out and asks members of the Church to come out and support a proposition to ban something that is seen as an abomonation in the eyes of the Lord (once again up for personal interpretation) then I would support it because of my beliefs.

    As far as crying repentance I would say asking members to support prop 8 was the most diplomatic way of doing it. As being a member of the Church I agree that everyone has their own free agency, and can choose as they please. I will agree that gay couples should definitely be given the abilities that married couples do to… I have never once believed that just because someone is gay does not mean they cannot love their partner as much as I love my wife… I am sure they can and do, but it still doesn’t change the fact that I believe that marriage is sanctioned by God for a man and woman and laying with someone of the same sex is an abomination in his eyes.

    And Mayan Elephant if you believe that I am an idiot for comparison molesters with gay people so be it, but a sin is a sin in my eyes, and may others… I am far from perfect and I sin… but I still have to repent of my sins just like everyone else.

  41. Mike B
    November 6, 2008 at 5:43 pm #

    Amen JoeScho

  42. Reach Upward
    November 6, 2008 at 5:46 pm #

    Living prophets throughout history have generally been treated pretty poorly by the populace. Not only have people consistently found reasons not to follow their counsel, many have been maligned, persecuted, abused, imprisoned, killed, etc. Can we expect anything different in this era?

  43. Rick
    November 6, 2008 at 5:47 pm #

    Someone mentioned California members were 8% of the state. As of the end of 2006 there were 750,024 members which is 2.12% (see United States LDS Membership). Subtract non-voting age, those that didn’t vote, and those that voted no and the percentage probably drops to 1% or less. It seems to me that the people shown in the video are misdirecting their efforts if they are focusing on just 1%.

    If it were me wanting to overturn this amendment I would analyze my mistakes, regroup, and get ready for the next proposition. I wouldn’t waste my energy on calling people names. But let me know when you get serious so that I can donate to your opponents a second time and defeat you again.

  44. JoeScho
    November 6, 2008 at 5:51 pm #

    Also, when did the Yes on 8 Campaing lie? About it being taught in schools? If you really do think that the California school board doesn’t have it in their cirriculum to teach about marriage at the elementary school level please tell me and I will look up the link again. As for churches losing their tax exempt status and pastors being sued? There were already cases of this in other states. Again if you really don’t believe please tell me and I will supply the links to you.

    Mayan Elephant, haha, So everyone should have their own personal understanding of Jesus and that is ok. As I said earlier, Jesus always loved everyone, but never endorsed sin. He also told us to strive to be like him. So we should love everyone, but not endorse sin. I hope I am not taking too much of leap of logic for you.

  45. SHelley
    November 6, 2008 at 6:01 pm #

    WOW! Sending a post card to President MONSON (not Munson) is going to do what? Nothing. It won’t make him change his mind. He is God’s spokeman.

    It is not a civil right issue it is a moral issue. Oh and the LIES she said the campaign passed on to the voters…can she prove they aren’t lies? When a church says “sorry I can’t marry you” and the state says yes, that opens up a whole can of worms. Making gay and lesbian marriage legal then NOT teaching it in school opens a whole can of worms. I don’t like worms.

    I am proud to be able to say I am sticking to my values. I know God lives and loves each of us. He does not however condone sin. Homosexuality is a sin and is wrong. Keep the Faith and do what is right.

  46. NeilP
    November 6, 2008 at 6:30 pm #

    I like how no one is able to argue Equality’s point about the past civil rights stances and “men speaking as men and not as prophets.” I am an active member of the church in CA, and I think this was definitely a case of men speaking as men (or men giving into pressure from a very politically conservative base of members). To say that you would automatically follow the prophet no matter what is a foolish attitude. The church has been wrong on every civil rights issue during it’s existence. I don’t blame God or the prophet for this, I blame a body of the church that hasn’t been ready for it. I’m sure a large number of you Prop 8 supporters would have been equally fervent about preserving segregation, inter-racial marriage and equal rights for blacks when the prophet asked you do to that too.

    And just a note on the concept of preserving “traditional” marriage. You do know that the current state of marriage is less that 200 years old, right? If you really wanted to support traditional marriage, you would be campaigning for arranged, non-consensual marriages between a man and the women of his choosing (within his budget). Because that’s the kind of marriage we’ve had all the way back to Adam.

  47. AMY
    November 6, 2008 at 6:31 pm #

    FUNNY…
    Did anyone see Republicans protesting Black communities today? They were very Large contributers of his campaign…HE WON…clearly they like the democracy and contribution process when it fills the coffers of their “cause”…is no one else allowed the same rights?
    I though Brad PITT was popular and gave a lot to their cause…He is very influencial…wonder why they lost? I mean BRAD and ANGELINA…POWERFUL… but those Mormon moms…must be amazing to have more of a VOICE than BRAJELINA? Sure…WHO is BUYING that? Maybe they just LOST…
    I hope the Catholics and Jews and Christians are watching this…because they may be next…for voting the way they CHOOSE…which is obviously not good enough for these people…
    Traditional marriage was upheld not wonce byt twice by the VOTERS…and now…they think they should protest a Mormon temple…
    I think Mormons…ROCK…for not suing the pants off of these PEOPLE…can you imagine Mormons parading around on Brad Pitts front lawn if they had lost…I don’t think so.

  48. deborah
    November 6, 2008 at 6:40 pm #

    I am just sick that the NO on 8 folks have successfully tweaked this Proposition to mean something it doesn’t mean. This never has been about rights. Everyone already has the same right to be married. What is at issue here is what “marriage” means. We believe that a union between a man and a woman is fundamentally different from a same-sex union. Even science labels the two types of relationships differently — homosexuality and heterosexuality. We are not against same-sex couples having rights to visitation and probate, etc. They are already entitled to all of these rights in CA. And, if there are still some rights they don’t have, then, by all means they should spend their $$ and time in getting those goals accomplished.

    But, don’t try to nullify the uniqueness of the marriage relationship. That is what is unfair and wrong. The NO on 8 folks seem to be the ones who are intolerant of other’s views here. Just watch what is happening in Westwood right now (5:30pm on Thursday the 6th).

  49. kannie
    November 6, 2008 at 7:19 pm #

    Equality – not to threadjack, but I have to point out that the LDS church has not been on the other side of every civil rights issue: women in UT had the vote before it was taken from them by the Feds back in the day, solely for the purpose of persecuting the members.

    If you’re referring to the fact that women don’t hold the Priesthood, well, that’s okay – we actually value women’s natural abilities and capacities, and we understand that women don’t have to be men to be worthwhile. :-)

    Also, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Prop 8 is not about gay rights; it’s about shutting down individual and group religious freedom.

  50. juice
    November 6, 2008 at 8:11 pm #

    This is ridiculous. This is all about those who slept and those who worked. The members of the Mormon church WORKED. They polled, the called, they walked and sign waved from the very start. The No people? They slept. Despite the fact that years earlier prop 22 banning gay marriage passed by 60% of the vote, the No people somehow thought they had this in the bag. So while the Yes people worked, the No people slept. They have no one to blame but themselves.

  51. Russ
    November 6, 2008 at 8:17 pm #

    “No on 8, Fight with Hate.”

    Wait a minute…

  52. juice
    November 6, 2008 at 8:32 pm #

    And I will add this: I will NEVER support rule of the minority. The minority’s job is to convince the others and make itself into a majority. It may be unfair at the time, but if the cause is just, then with time, it will prevail. But to force something upon a society that isn’t ready for it, EVEN IF ITS RIGHT, is wrong. But most of the time, the minority view is wrong and thus majority rule is the essence of democracy.

  53. kirsten
    November 6, 2008 at 8:42 pm #

    This whole state of affairs is a huge tragedy. As a member of the LDS church, I’m devastated to see more negative publicity raining down on us when our Church does S0 much good on this earth. I really wish we could have gone about this differently — because as much as I believe homosexuality is wrong, I still feel that given our history of persecution, we should be very careful to avoid anything that even remotely resembles persecution. As a former evangelical Christian, I know the horrible, invasive lengths that non-LDS Christians would go to, to harangue and denigrate Mormons because they believe we are sinners who don’t believe in “the true Christ.” I hate to think that we would do the same thing to people whom we believe are sinning.

    If we are really concerned about the tax exemption status of the Church and the right to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for people not in good standing with our beliefs, then we should be pushing for legislation that protects these freedoms for churches — not pushing for legislation that infringes on the freedom of others.

  54. Gabriel
    November 6, 2008 at 8:54 pm #

    “And I also cast my eyes round about, and beheld, on the other side of the river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in the air, high above the earth.
    “And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit.

    Nephi 8:26-27

  55. Carborendum
    November 6, 2008 at 9:06 pm #

    Kirsten,

    I don’t see why this would be bad publicity. I think that those who are with No on 8 are not the kind of people who would accept the gospel anyway. Those that are for Prop 8 are probably saying,”Gee, the Mormons were the ones leading this battle? Maybe they aren’t so bad after all.”

  56. Equality
    November 6, 2008 at 9:20 pm #

    I don’t believe that you truly understand how the Lord and Savior would act after this statement. Yes the Lord is loving and compassionate and will forgive all, but at the same time if they choose not to accept his help and repent of the sins they have committed then they will suffer even as he did and will be punished.

    A sin is a sin, most anyone will say that a child molester should be banned to hell and judged the most harshly, but through this mode of thinking Christ would accept him as he is, and not expect reform… I’m sorry but you are incorrect.(and yes I just compared gays to child molesters) You must remember Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed for unlawful acts, such as man laying with man, and woman laying with woman and all other kinds of beasts.

    And I will be the first to say that Yes President Monson spoke on behalf of the Lord, he always does, the revelation given from the Lord is not always understood by the people at the time it is given but is always for the best during that time and period, regardless, the Lord has his mode of thinking and if we cannot understand it then it is only our option to obey it.

    And this right here is why I am so happy not to have my name on the membership rolls of the Mormon church any longer. You’ve just admitted that (a) you think gays are the equivalent of child molesters, (b) the basis for your support for Proposition 8 is purely religious and this motivates your desire to legislate your beliefs and make others live by them, and (c) people who don’t live your particular brand of religion are doomed to be punished by Jesus. Do you have any idea how your words look to those outside the Mormon bubble? Do you?

    As for my earlier question that has gone unanswered, I have to wonder why no one can give me a straight answer on that. If the prophets are always VINDICATED, as one commenter asserts, I ask: were their views on race vindicated? Brigham Young said “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.) Has he been vindicated?

    Mark E. Petersen said “I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, ‘what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.’ Only here we have the reverse of the thing – what God hath separated, let not man bring together again.”

    These are LDS prophets speaking emphatically, clearly, and prophetically. Were they vindicated? Do Latter-day Saints today believe these things? If not, where is the prophetic pronouncement denouncing these teachings? If Brigham Young, Mark E. Petersen, and many other apostles and prophets who made similar statements (and trust me, I could give you a whole lot more) were NOT speaking for the Lord when they made these statements, what makes you think that Thomas S. Monson IS speaking for the Lord on political and social issues today, especially when, as has been noted, he did not do it in General Conference or claim any revelation, or put it to the general assembly of the church for approval by voice of comment consent?

  57. Carborendum
    November 6, 2008 at 9:21 pm #

    I just had a thought (unusual, I know).

    Does this postcard thing mean that Pres. Monson can get a HUGE tax deduction on his 2008 tax returns?

  58. Dustin
    November 6, 2008 at 9:22 pm #

    Prop 8 was a good idea, I think. It was a firm declaration of the belief of the people that allowing the democratic process to work is better than being dictated to by judges who are not directly accountable to the people. It was a good stand to protect the traditional definition of marriage, a traditional way of life, and a foundational bedrock of our society. And, yes, I believe that President Monson was speaking as a prophet when he asked us to support Proposition 8. I am totally in favor of the result reached on November 4.

    That said, I must say I am appalled by the lack of Christian charity exhibited here by those who profess to follow Jesus Christ. While never simply accepting the sinful nature of the world (and, yes, I believe homosexuality to be a sin), Christ was always compassionate, charitable, and forgiving of the sinner. Even towards those who are unrepentant, he holds outstretched the hand of mercy to the very end, in the hope that maybe, just maybe, they would accept his offer of forgiveness and turn their lives around.

    And here we are, in the middle of a dispute that really boils down whether a particular lifestyle is sinful, and, if so, whether it ought to be discouraged in the law. Reasonable people disagree on both questions. So, what is the proper attitude to take towards those who disagree with us about the nature of homosexuality? Are we to condemn? Belittle? Demean? Or should we, as Christ did, seek to love, teach, and offer them a hand of fellowship, even as we stand strong in our moral beliefs?

    The second course may not succeed in healing our differences or repairing our relationships as brothers and sisters, children of God. But the first course is sure to fail.

    Don’t forget, we won’t just be judged by our sexual practices, but by our thoughts and intents of our hearts, including the presence or absence of Christlike love. In the end, it is not what we have or have not done that is the greatest determinant of our final reward, but who we have become through ALL of our thoughts, words, intents, and actions.

    May we be, as Christ was, ever strong in our stand against sin, and ever loving of those who stand against us. A difficult path? Yes. But being a disciple was never easy.

  59. Equality
    November 6, 2008 at 9:32 pm #

    Juice said: “And I will add this: I will NEVER support rule of the minority. The minority’s job is to convince the others and make itself into a majority. It may be unfair at the time, but if the cause is just, then with time, it will prevail. But to force something upon a society that isn’t ready for it, EVEN IF ITS RIGHT, is wrong. But most of the time, the minority view is wrong and thus majority rule is the essence of democracy.”

    Wow. So, in a “Juice” world we would still have segregated schools and separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks? Because, if I know my history, civil rights for African-Americans were obtained in large measure through judicial action and not voter referenda. Judicial action has often been required to protect the rights of minorities that would otherwise be trampled by the majority. It is so strange to me to hear Mormons, a decided minority with a history of their own of persecution at the hands of mobs (that’s “majority rule” in its purest form after all), touting the will of the majority and the rights of minorities be damned. It’s really quite astonishing.

  60. HeeHee
    November 6, 2008 at 9:41 pm #

    Did anyone notice Janice Dickenson in the forefront? I could hardly recognize her; she looked like a plastic blow up drag queen, man she looks BAD. I wonder if she thinks by standing there (all pouty lipped and pissed) that it actually helps their cause or hinders it. Wow, pathetic. What these people don’t realize is that they are actual producing positive publicity for the LDS Church. I am also wondering if they think that President Monson would actually take the time to see the postcards or that he would even care, or if that it would ACTUALLY make a difference? What a waste of time and money. All in all, these people are pretty entertaining to watch, I have never laughed so hard.

  61. Equality
    November 6, 2008 at 9:49 pm #

    “I could hardly recognize her; she looked like a plastic blow up drag queen, man she looks BAD. ”

    And the Christlike love just keeps on coming from the Latter-day Saints. Nice. Know ye not that a prophet of the Lord once said “some things that are true are not very useful.”?

  62. Merrill
    November 6, 2008 at 9:54 pm #

    Do you remember what happened to the people in the days of Noah, those who didn’t listen, those who didn’t get on the ark? Yep, they died. I wonder what will happen to those who don’t listen to the prophet today…hmmm. Follow the prophet, he knows the way!

  63. HeeHee
    November 6, 2008 at 9:55 pm #

    I am not LDS, just in case you were wondering. And you preach equality, yet you have an entire page dedicated to hate for the Mormons, I find that to be very sad. I mean seriously, get a life.

  64. Carborendum
    November 6, 2008 at 9:56 pm #

    Equality, I’ll give it a shot. I don’t think you have a firm grasp on how this “prophet” thing works.

    Joseph Smith was the instrument of the restoration. As such he was in almost constant communication with the Lord. Even so, he said things as jokes, as opinions, things that had nothing to do with religion, salvation, or anything of note. He was a man with feelings, opinions, weaknesses, and all other strengths and weaknesses of any man.

    But when he was elevated by the Spirit, he was Heavenly Father’s mouthpiece. Everything that was written by him or directly quoted from him as “canonical” was doctrine and/or prophecy.

    Brigham Young once said that his prayer is “If there is anything I am doing that isn’t in line with Thy will, tell me how I may correct it and I will.” This tells me that, while still a prophet, he didn’t have the constancy of communication that Joseph did. Does this mean that we can choose to ignore what he says anytime we don’t agree with it? NO.

    (Possible Mormon Lore ahead)

    In Missouri, the bretheren had counselled the saints in Missouri to flee because of imminent attack. The question that was raised was, “Is this a declaration from the Lord, or is it just the advice of the bretheren.”

    They were told in truth that the Lord had not come to Joseph and told him how to act in this case. But the bretheren were well aware of all that was going on and feared for the lives of the saints there.

    We all know how that panned out.

    (End of possible Mormon Lore). I’d really love it if someone could help me verify this story.

    Another thing to note is that when you are an apostle, it does not necessarily carry the same weight as when you are the senior apostle (i.e. — the prophet). When an apostle give a speech (even in General Conference) their position is noted. This is so that we as members will give different weight to those who say something as an apostle and those who speak as the prophet.

    I forget if it was Joseph F. Smith or Joseph Fielding Smith who was very outspoken about not teaching evolution, how it was an evil and false doctrine. This was as an apostle. When he became President, he never spoke another word about it. I find this very interesting.

    It is my personal opinion that for the most part, the prophets are not in constant communication like Joseph was. But they do have inspired motivations and judgements that are in line with what the Lord would do. And they are in a position to be very informed with world events and how legal, political, and economic conditions will effect us.

    When Pres Hinckley gave his7 years fo feast/famine address back in 1998+/-, he specifically stated that he was neither predicting nor prophesying. But these are times of uncertainty where we need to be especially careful of how we run our finances. The Dow peaked about 9 years later and has been falling ever since. Not bad for “some old guy in a white tower” — or in this case an office building.

    What makes our Church different is that periodically, there IS that direct communication where the Lord speaks to the prophet face-to-face as He did with Moses. This is when things are written in a lasting form. This is the difference between a General Conference address that is to advise us for the next 6 months and a new section in the D&C or official declarations that are supposed to be eternal.

    I know some will think this line of thinking is Heresy. Go ahead and think it. But this is how I see it.

    When the Bretheren sent out the statement to the wards to unplug our computers at the turn of the century (re: Y2K bug) I rolled my eyes. I knew that it wouldn’t do anything and moaned when that was read. But you know, I unplugged it anyway. What’s it going to hurt? How much effort is it going to take?

    Reference the story of Naaman.
    Reference the story of Moses and the fiery serpent on the pole.

  65. Mayan Elephant
    November 6, 2008 at 11:14 pm #

    hey merrill,

    are you sure about that noah thing? really? did god really kill everyone but noah and the animals on his boat? really? do tell, do you follow monson based on the belief that if you dont, god might kill you?

  66. juice
    November 7, 2008 at 12:06 am #

    Wow. So, in a “Juice” world we would still have segregated schools and separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks? Because, if I know my history, civil rights for African-Americans were obtained in large measure through judicial action and not voter referenda. Judicial action has often been required to protect the rights of minorities that would otherwise be trampled by the majority. It is so strange to me to hear Mormons, a decided minority with a history of their own of persecution at the hands of mobs (that’s “majority rule” in its purest form after all), touting the will of the majority and the rights of minorities be damned. It’s really quite astonishing.

    History huh? Sure lets talk history. Civil rights for African Americans were obtained little by little over hundreds of years, and segregation only ended 2 generations ago. Brown vs the Board of Education could have been overturned by massive voter revolt with a Constitutional amendment…but that didn’t happen because the majority accepted it. When it went unchallenged, it was a sign that society was ready for it.

    Do you honestly believe that overturning Plessy could have happened in 1910? No. It took time for society to “warm” to the idea and almost 50 years later, when the time was right, it happened. And on an aside, SCOTUS “undid” its own ruling. The Supreme Court *created* segregation with Plessy and undid it 60 years later – direct popular votes were not involved in any way.

    Even today, is racism eradicated? No. The process continues at a pace that society is ready for. Walk before you run, crawl before you walk…

    The fact is, the majority of America isn’t ready for gay marriage. Obama and Biden, despite showing support for No on 8, are against gay marriage and I doubt that even if SCOTUS wasn’t heavily biased to the right, you’d find them ruling in favor of it.

    My point in all this is that change, no matter how good and virtuous, must be implemented at pace that people can handle.

    And when you imply that you support the rule of the minority, think of what you’re saying. When the Senate votes 51 to 49, the MINORITY wins. Instead of Barak Obama as President, you now have John McCain. A Supreme Court that ruled for civil rights, ruled for GWB in the 2000 election recount fiasco. Are you so sure you prefer your world over mine? You can’t just conveniently discount bad minority rule when it doesn’t go your way. Majority rule IS how this country works. There is some insulation with legislators and judges, but they’re part of society too and if their actions are unpopular (Kansas school board intelligent design anyone?) they get the boot.

    I’ll say it again, if you’re in the minority, your job is to appeal to the majority and bring them to your side and BECOME a majority, whether explicitly or implicitly, that is always how positive change has occurred in America.

  67. juice
    November 7, 2008 at 12:16 am #

    And cheer up, Equality.

    Prop 22 passed by 60%. Prop 8 passed by only 52%. In another 5-10 years, you’ll probably have gay marriage in CA as dictated by the majority. And true to my words, when the majority speaks, I will respect it…

  68. the JoshMeister
    November 7, 2008 at 12:32 am #

    In defense of Brigham Young, who obviously isn’t alive today to defend himself from these claims of his alleged “racism” and “bigotry,” I direct you to this article:

    http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/blacks_chosen.htm

    Here are some excerpts from the article, which was written in response to the statement quoted by “Equality” in comment #56:


    First, the Journal of Discourses is not a source for official Church doctrine. Second, prejudice against Blacks, or anyone else for that matter, is strictly against the teachings of the LDS Church.

    Third, you are quoting this 1863 impromptu discourse out of historical context. For example, in this same discourse (on the very next page), President Young said:

    “For their abuse of [the Black African] race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.110)

    Therefore, it is wrong to take the sentences you quoted as some type of racial intolerance. While Brigham Young was probably influenced by his culture like all men, it seems a little unfair to accuse a man who said that whites would be cursed for the evils of slavery with hatred towards blacks. So what was Brigham Young talking about?

    There are several points to be made about your quote. First, Brigham Young is not even talking about intermarriage between whites and blacks. In 1863, there were few, if any, places where whites were free to marry blacks in the United States. Therefore, President Young is talking about sexual relations outside of marriage.

    The strong opposition that Latter-day Saints have to sexual relations outside of marriage is well-known. The General Handbook of Instruction states:

    “God’s standard for sexual morality has always been clear: ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’ (Ex. 20:14). In modern and…ancient times God has commanded all of his children to lead strictly [chaste] lives before and after marriage—intimate relations being permissible only between a man and a woman legally and lawfully married. Accordingly, intimate relations outside of marriage are out of harmony with God’s eternal plan for his children. To be morally clean, a person must refrain from adultery and fornication, from homosexual or lesbian relations, and from every other unholy, unnatural, or impure practice”

    Since Latter-day Saint men could not legally marry black women, then any sexual relationships between them were strictly condemned.

    Please note that President Young refers to a penalty of “death on the spot” to the “white man of the chosen seed” and fails to mention any penalty applying to the black woman involved. Why? There are at least two reasons.

    First, when Brigham Young talks about a male member of “the chosen seed,” he is specifically referring to a man holding the priesthood. Any Melchizedek Priesthood holder who engages in sexual relations outside of marriage breaks the oath and covenant of the priesthood and faces automatic excommunication from the Church. In LDS theology, excommunication is a form of spiritual death. As President Spencer W. Kimball taught simply:

    “Fornication leads to death.” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.271)

    The rest of the article is available at http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/blacks_chosen.htm if you’re interested in educating yourself about this matter.

  69. Julia Cooper
    November 7, 2008 at 6:45 am #

    You all are ridiculous. The LDS church isn’t the only one who protested for proposition 8 to pass. I am standing with the LDS church by saying NO to same sex marriages.

  70. Michelle
    November 7, 2008 at 6:54 am #

    I agree. I don’t understand why people think that the reason proposition 8 passed was because of the LDS church. The population in California is HUGE and if they really want to think that more than half of that population is LDS well then….they are very wrong.
    I doubt President Monson will read those post cards. I wouldn’t. I would just let them continue to waste their funded money.
    They are just mad it passed and just trying to put the blame on someone. I really am glad the LDS church stood up for what they believe. I believe it too! Marriage is to be between a man and a woman. That is how God stated it, that is how it shall stay.
    Sure homosexuals can be together, whatever, but they don’t deserve the rights of being married.
    If we allow same sex relationships to be married, well then lets just pass a law where we can marry animals too. It’s as ridiculous as it sounds.

  71. Equality
    November 7, 2008 at 8:11 am #

    Juice:
    Thank you for being honest in admitting that you think civil rights for African-Americans should have been delayed until a majority agreed with it. I am sure many African-Americans who grew up in the South in the 1960s disagree with you, but at least you have an intellectually honest opinion. I am glad that you will accept gay rights and gay marriages in states where it will become the law in the coming years as society becomes more enlightened and more progressive and less intolerant and ignorant.

    HeeHee:
    I am glad to know you are not representing the Latter-day Saints with your unchristian attitudes, and I am sure the Mormons who read this blog are also happy to hear you are not one of them. As for my blog, Equality Time, I think it stands on its own. There isn’t a hateful word from me on that blog anywhere in the last 2 1/2 years that it is has been up. I have many Mormon friends and family members whom I love. I don’t hate any individual Mormons. I disagree with Mormons on many issues, be they political, social, or religious, or scientific (for example, I disagree with Mormons such as Merrill in comment #62 that the story of Noah literally happened–there was no global flood.) But I can disagree without hating. I believe that one can criticize the church and its leaders without hate. It is a curious thing to me that so many Mormons seem to believe that if a person utters a critical word about a policy position or assertion made by a church leader, that person must be “filled with hate” or, as Connor put it, “vitriol.” You might ask yourself where that attitude comes from? If you are a Latter-day Saint, ask yourself why it is that any criticism of the church president elicits such a reaction in you? How has that visceral response–the one that makes you automatically reject without consideration or deliberation any criticism of your leader–been engendered in you? Just some food for thought–if you dare.

    Carborendum:
    Thank you for taking on the thorny question of when the prophets are speaking as prophets and when they might be just telling jokes or speaking their own opinions. I am still a little confused, though. You say that they are not always speaking as prophets, but even when they aren’t we should follow what they say. At least, that’s what it seems to me you are saying with your Mormon folklore tale about Joseph Smith’s warnings in Missouri (makes me wonder why God wouldn’t have made it a clear revelation, given the consequences, but I digress) and your story about the Y2K bug (again, given the hullabaloo about Y2K it seems that would have been a good time for Jesus to get on the phone to the Prophet and give some clear direction). But, it seems to me that if you say we should always follow the prophets even when we know (or highly suspect) they are not speaking for the Lord by revelation, then we are being asked to leave our consciences at the door. And there is really no point in saying that the prophets sometimes speak only as men: if Mormons are expected to follow them both when they speak by revelation AND when they are merely voicing their personal opinions, and that becomes the definition of what it means to be a “faithful” Latter-day Saint, then at what point will a “faithful” Mormon EVER contradict the President of the church on ANYTHING? This answers my question. According to you, a faithful Latter-day Saint should have listened to the Prophets who supported slavery (Brigham Young) and segregation (Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, et al.). We don’t need to figure out if they were speaking as men or as prophets; we should just follow them blindly based on the position they hold in the priesthood and church hierarchy.

    And this brings us full circle to the Proposition 8 question. Someone asked what lies the church and the Yes on 8 folks have told during the campaign. One lie oft-repeated in church press releases and on Yes on 8 web sites is that the Yes on 8 campaign was a “grassroots” campaign. Of course, that is a lie. The campaign (at least Mormon involvement in it on a large scale) started in Salt Lake City. The First Presidency issued a letter. The Brethren sent the word down to the regional and local leaders in California (and ultimately around the country) to get an organization established at stake and ward levels. Bishops and Stake Presidents, many of whom were reluctant to join the cause, were pressured into it and told it was their priesthood duty to give of their time, money, and energy, and to encourage the members to do the same. Do you think that Mormons would have donated tens of millions of dollars and thousands of person-hours making phone calls, knocking on doors, and putting up signs if the Brethren had been silent on the issue and the members were left to their own devices? This was the exact opposite of a grassroots campaign. And now the church, which says on the one hand that members are free to make up their own minds on the issue, has said that those who disagreed with President Monson on this issue may be subject to church discipline for expressing that view publicly. It has become, for some at least, a “test of membership.”

    So, members supported Proposition 8 because they were told to do so by their church leaders. It is, at root, a religious issue. The statements made in comments here affirm that what is driving Mormons to support Proposition 8 is the belief that God disapproves of homosexuality. Mormons want their beliefs about God to govern the laws of the state. It is not about protecting heterosexual marriage. Not a single heterosexual marriage would be affected by the marriages of loving, committed gay and lesbian couples. It’s about one thing: legislating religious belief. And if Juice is right about “majority rule” Mormons ought to be very frightened about a world in which religious beliefs are enshrined in secular law–you may be on the same side as the Baptists and Catholics and Muslims on this issue, but what happens down the road when you are not?

  72. Mark N
    November 7, 2008 at 8:25 am #

    Prop 22 passed by 60%. Prop 8 passed by only 52%.

    Reduce both of those numbers by the percentage turnout of eligible voters, and you’ll soon realize that it was a minority of California voters who just imposed their religious will on a smaller minority of California voters.

    So much for your vaunted “majority”. I suppose the phrase “tyranny of the majority” doesn’t mean anything to you.

  73. Equality
    November 7, 2008 at 8:33 am #

    “First, the Journal of Discourses is not a source for official Church doctrine. ”
    Joshmeister, neither are letters from the First Presidency or press releases from lds.org, or General Conference addresses, right? Isn’t that what we are talking about, though? Carborendum says we should follow the Prophet even when he is not speaking in his official capacity. And, of course you and I both know that the Journal of Discourse are a collection of sermons given in church conferences by prophets and apostles speaking as prophets and apostles. And I am sure you know that Brigham Young in some of those addresses in the Journal of Discourses said that his words were scripture (do I need to dredge up the quotes or can we just agree on that point?) And how much of the recent priesthood manual on Teachings of the Presidents of the Church–Brigham Young were taken from the Journal of Discourses? And are you seriously trying to argue that Brigham Young was not a racist because he said that the punishment for mixing the seed of a righteous white man with a black woman was death on the spot for the man but not the woman? Or that he was not a racist because he thought slavery was OK as long as the white masters did not abuse their slaves? That’s your defense? I assure you I have read it before both at lightplanet and at FAIR. The problem here is not my lack of education on the matter; the problem is the blatant and pervasive racism of past leaders of the LDS church, and the unwillingness of members to acknowledge it and deal with its ramifications.

  74. Mark N
    November 7, 2008 at 8:37 am #

    Sure homosexuals can be together, whatever, but they don’t deserve the rights of being married.

    If the Lord were to give you what you “deserve” this very moment, you would cease to exist.

    Mosiah 2:

    21 I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants.

    22 And behold, all that he requires of you is to keep his commandments; and he has promised you that if ye would keep his commandments ye should prosper in the land; and he never doth vary from that which he hath said; therefore, if ye do keep his commandments he doth bless you and prosper you.

    23 And now, in the first place, he hath created you, and granted unto you your lives, for which ye are indebted unto him.

    24 And secondly, he doth require that ye should do as he hath commanded you; for which if ye do, he doth immediately bless you; and therefore he hath paid you. And ye are still indebted unto him, and are, and will be, forever and ever; therefore, of what have ye to boast?

    25 And now I ask, can ye say aught of yourselves? I answer you, Nay. Ye cannot say that ye are even as much as the dust of the earth; yet ye were created of the dust of the earth; but behold, it belongeth to him who created you.

    So, lets get a little humility and drop that whole “deserve” nonsense, shall we?

  75. JoeScho
    November 7, 2008 at 8:48 am #

    MarkN, you still never responded to me. In your most recent post you noted that the Lord only asks you to abide by his commandments. In the Bible Homosexuality is listed as a sin. Do I need to explain that sins are the negative act of a commandment? So why should the church not support prop 8. Please explain it.

  76. Susan
    November 7, 2008 at 8:51 am #

    Lorri Jean should go back to her trailer park.

  77. Merrill
    November 7, 2008 at 9:18 am #

    The story of Noah is real–in fact, all died except for eight, and the animals. Now, if you decide to live as Adam and Steve, or Eve and Eva, you too will eventually die and will not leave a posterity; therefore, you and all of you has died. Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus were all prophets–unfortunately, for those who did not follow them, they faced or will face dire consequences. I hope we can all better follow God’s prophet on the earth today. Including myself.

  78. HeeHee
    November 7, 2008 at 9:19 am #

    The day my children go to school and have to be taught that being gay is okay or right, is the day I home school my children. I never understood why so many Christian faiths and others alike had their own schools, now I do. This world is a scary place and everything that was prophesied is coming to past. The war against good and evil is more than ever so apparent. The second coming is at hand, get ready.

  79. Equality
    November 7, 2008 at 9:25 am #

    “Lorri Jean should go back to her trailer park.”

    Ah, the love just keeps flowing from the so-called christians.

    “The story of Noah is real–in fact, all died except for eight, and the animals”

    Do you also believe in unicorns and fairies?

    “The day my children go to school and have to be taught that being gay is okay or right, is the day I home school my children.”

    So, it IS about making sure your particular religious views are enshrined in law, then, isn’t it?

  80. HeeHee
    November 7, 2008 at 9:38 am #

    Check out this website, re-read “Equality’s” comments, and then think about whether he/she can actually justify anything he says:

    http://www.equalitysblog.typepad.com/

    If we are all “so-called” Christians, then what does that make you?

    You preach “Equality” but you have an entire website devoted to debasing (and written in pure hate for) the Mormon religion. What do you have to say for yourself? What does that make you? Answer that? Instead of quoting everyone because you have nothing to say, explain to us why you hate people so much? And not just Mormons, but ANYONE who doesn’t agree with everything you say. Seriously dude, you need to get a life. Pathetic. You are a hatemonger as I see it. Just like all the people in these videos. Such hypocrites, driven my Satan. I hope that makes you feel good inside.

  81. Dustin
    November 7, 2008 at 9:46 am #

    Marriage, apart from being a religious principle, is a public stamp of approval on a private, intimate relationship. The public is entitled to use whatever criteria they choose to determine what to place their stamp of approval on what to withhold it from. Yes, this is legislating morality, not private morality (the homosexual relationship, which is a protected Constitutional right) but the public approval or disapproval of that private morality. There IS a difference.

    Whether the public’s stamp of approval is based on religious belief or moral views informed by some other source is irrelevant.

  82. NoLongerCalifornian
    November 7, 2008 at 9:53 am #

    I don’t think this is a matter of religion being pushed on people. When the country (or individual states) are ready to accept a new definition of marriage it will happen. I am a supporter of Prop 8. Not because my Prophet asked that I support it, not because of any of the advertisments that were put out in support of it. Simply because I along with many many other people both LDS and non LDS are not ready to change the definition of marriage.

    Now because the LDS church believes that marriage is ordained of God and between a man and a woman they are being targeted. Sure they donated funds…but it wasn’t the church that donated funds, the members donated funds, no church leader told them they had to. It was their choice. As it was the choice of other religious groups and non religious groups.

    I don’t see Conservative Republicans picketing on Democrats lawns, saying that they lied about their campain. They accepted the fact that a Democrat was elected. Ok, we lost, move on. Try again in 4 years.

    This is just my opinion, as everyone is entitled to one, but to try to force your opinions on other people wheather for or against prop 8 is wrong!

    So prop 8 passed. Get over it. Start a petition for Prop 37 to amend the new amendment to change the definition of marriage. Maybe by the time that one makes it to the ballot the country (state) will be ready to change the definition of marriage! Since that IS what this is about…NOT religion…But comments digress…….

  83. Brennan
    November 7, 2008 at 9:59 am #

    What do you believe in “Equality”?

  84. Esther
    November 7, 2008 at 10:14 am #

    The thing that interests me the most about this protest is that firstly, the Evangelical community and the Catholic community started this movement and kindly invited the LDS church to join the cause knowing they could be helpful . . . and now all the sudden, the LDS church is the blame for all the problems. Again, not to mention again that the LDS members only make up 1% of the CA population.
    Secondly, the church as an organization DID NOT fund any money from the general church fund. The money that went toward the campaign was privatized and individually donated funds . . . not church funds.
    As always, please check your facts with a creditable source before becoming bent out of shape.

  85. Esther
    November 7, 2008 at 10:17 am #

    Also, just to add. Here is a great press release from the LDS church in regards to this proposition. . . .please read it, it decisively explains the church’s position on the issue.
    http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-responds-to-same-sex-marriage-votes#

  86. Merrill
    November 7, 2008 at 10:21 am #

    Equality–my small child THINKS fairies and unicorns exist; just like you THINK homosexuals have the right to marry. Unfortunately, you’re both wrong. Your belief is almost as silly and naive as that of believing in fairies and unicorns. Come on man, get over it. The voice of the people has been heard. Unfortunately, for you, you are in the minority.

  87. Esther
    November 7, 2008 at 10:22 am #

    And! This is the second time that the majority of voters have passed this proposition . . . the first time around, the supreme court decided that the majority was wrong and overturned it . . . I’m in favor of the checks and balances of this country, but I hope that 2 times in a row will convince the court that this didn’t pass on a whim.

  88. juice
    November 7, 2008 at 10:31 am #

    Equality said:

    Thank you for being honest in admitting that you think civil rights for African-Americans should have been delayed until a majority agreed with it. I am sure many African-Americans who grew up in the South in the 1960s disagree with you, but at least you have an intellectually honest opinion. I am glad that you will accept gay rights and gay marriages in states where it will become the law in the coming years as society becomes more enlightened and more progressive and less intolerant and ignorant.

    I’m saying this is how our democracy works and nothing short of a violent revolution will change that. The majority, either explicitly (via popular vote) or implicitly (via judicial action) has determined the course of society. And history has shown that the majority eventually does the right thing.

    And you conveniently neglected to answer just exactly when and how the minority should rule. You’ve conveniently left out that Obama would NOT BE PRESIDENT today under minority rule. When the Supreme Court overruled Florida in the 2000 elections, giving GWB the Presidency, that was minority rule. Once again, you conveniently tout the greatness of minority rule when it suits your cause, but ignore its failure as a general policy. That goes for you too Mark N.

    Mark N said:

    Reduce both of those numbers by the percentage turnout of eligible voters, and you’ll soon realize that it was a minority of California voters who just imposed their religious will on a smaller minority of California voters.

    So much for your vaunted “majority”. I suppose the phrase “tyranny of the majority” doesn’t mean anything to you.

    What you’re really saying is that the NO people were NEGLIGENT and didn’t go and vote their conscience…and you’re somehow blaming the YES people? LOL, lemme rephrase. Its not minority rule, its negligent rule. You want the negligent to rule? Give me a break. I can’t help you if you’re not willing to do your duty and vote. And we can’t second guess elections by trying to determine if enough people that “would of, could of, should of” voted this way or that is truly representative of the majority.

    And thats whats truly sad. There are THOUSANDS protesting in the streets…where were these people BEFORE NOV 4? Why weren’t they waving signs, walking precincts, and calling? They weren’t. They neglected to follow the established democratic process and now they want to change the law by shouting and yelling or some other process.

    I will always support the tested and established means by which change occurs in this country. It works. Like the stock market, it may have its short term ups and downs, but it generally trends up in the right direction. Attempt to artificially correct the natural short term “downs” and you’ll break the whole system and set back civil rights hundreds of years.

    The “tyranny” of the majority is nothing compared to the real tyranny of the minority or negligent. Every dictatorship on the planet is a minority rule. Every single one. Given the choice, I’ll choose the tyranny of the majority over tyranny of the minority because history has shown that such tyranny is short lived in America.

  89. Interesting
    November 7, 2008 at 10:40 am #

    Bubba, where did you get this information from?

  90. Mark N.
    November 7, 2008 at 10:55 am #

    The public is entitled to use whatever criteria they choose to determine what to place their stamp of approval on what to withhold it from.

    And in return, in the name of justice, the public is required to be consistent and fair (see: equal protection under the law) with regards to what they place their stamp of approval on and what they withhold it from. And it would just so happen to be the job of these awful, so-called Godless, anti-Christian activist judges to see to it that this happens.

  91. Mark N.
    November 7, 2008 at 10:58 am #

    I’m in favor of the checks and balances of this country, but I hope that 2 times in a row will convince the court that this didn’t pass on a whim.

    And if the court overturns Prop 8, will that convince you that the court isn’t making these decisions on a whim?

  92. Mark N.
    November 7, 2008 at 11:01 am #

    The day my children go to school and have to be taught that being gay is okay or right, is the day I home school my children.

    Why wait? You seem to fear that this might eventually happen, so why don’t you start now, and exercise a little proactivity?

  93. Mark N.
    November 7, 2008 at 11:16 am #

    Mark N., so please tell me. Should the church have supported a proposition supports something that the bible condemns as a sin?

    You tell me: is it the business of the state to actively suppress something that the Bible condemns as a sin, but that the state does not classify as a crime?

  94. Mark N.
    November 7, 2008 at 11:23 am #

    Given the choice, I’ll choose the tyranny of the majority over tyranny of the minority because history has shown that such tyranny is short lived in America.

    I guess you’ve forgotten how the Book of Mormon ends: the majority persecuted the minority until the entire society was destroyed. But I suppose that there was no real reason why Mormon and Moroni decided to include that particular lesson in there for us.

    And they lived happily ever after.

  95. Mark N.
    November 7, 2008 at 11:35 am #

    Give me a break. I can’t help you if you’re not willing to do your duty and vote.

    I voted.

    I voted “yes” on 8.

    But can you guess the reason why I voted “yes” on 8?

    And we can’t second guess elections by trying to determine if enough people that “would of, could of, should of” voted this way or that is truly representative of the majority.

    Of course not. But I’m a little weary of those who try to throw around numbers to try and give the impression that the majority of Californians want something to be a certain way when that is not at all true. Less than 1/3 of all eligible California voters we able to enact Propositions 22 and 8 because the other side didn’t do a good job of getting out the vote to counter them in equal numbers. No “majority” was involved. It’s the equivalent of a family of six taking a family vote on where they should go on vacation this year, when three out of four of the kids are not in the room, so mom’s and dad’s two votes are going to beat out the one child’s vote in the room every time.

    I just want everyone to understand just how many people made up the so-called “majorities” you like to use as support for your argument.

  96. DC
    November 7, 2008 at 11:38 am #

    So I’ve been reading a lot of the comments on this page and it has become clear to me that there are many enlightened people out there, on both sides of this debate. Now the problem that I see is this:
    No matter what is said in defense of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, people will always hate us. We will always be called bigots, and liars, and blah blah blah…. Now people, individually and as a group are not free from sin and in terms that Equality can understand, we are human and screw up on a daily basis. No one is perfect and therefore we all must be compassionate and understanding of each other’s faults.
    Now I have a gay brother who I love with all of my heart. Do I support him in what he’s doing, No. Does that make me a bad person, you’ll say yes because I should be tolerant of my brother. Well… I’m going to say to you this, I was born hating everything different and you have to accept me! You have to accept me, be tolerant and love me although my actions are completely against what you believe. If you don’t you have thus defined yourself as a bigot. I can’t help my hatred(this is all hypothetical and I don’t hate any group, persons, affiliations, etc) but you have to accept me, and I’m a minority in this so therefore I should get all the special treatments that other minorities get.
    For now, my last arguement…. if Prop 8 had not passed, did you know that Heterosexuals would then be discriminated against. With the domestic partnership act passed in 1999, it started off giving heterosexual couples, over the age of 62 and meeting certain requirements, and all homosexual couples the right to visit their partners in the hospital. Since then it has included all rights of civil marriage without the burdens of marriage, thus divorce wasn’t an issue. Now if prop 8 hadn’t won, then homosexuals would have a leg up. I as a heterosexual would have to either be married, or be 62 to get the same rights that any homosexual couple gets as soon as they live together. So who’s being discriminated against now?
    Sidenote, why, when someone loses a fight in a decision always scream for a redo or it was bias or its been tampered with or whatever other excuses there are out there? You lost, get over it… and you can’t say its unconstitional cause its in the constitution of CA. sorry to say it like this but BOOYAH!!!!

  97. DC
    November 7, 2008 at 11:57 am #

    One other thing on Tolerance, since it is such an issue for people who want to force their agenda on us… and you know its true because everywhere does it say, be tolerant with gays, or people who live here illegally and don’t speak English and get all the free health care they want, or the little green men who have come to invade our planet, they don’t know any better….
    Here’s an English lesson using synonyms starting with Tolerance. Now I can already see you arguing that there’s other words that can be used, but when you look at definitions and then synonyms you’ll see that compassion and tolerance aren’t really synonyms at all.
    Tolerance-lenience-indulgence-immoderation-lawlessness-ANARCHY or CHAOS.
    You talk about Jesus being tolerant, NO… he was compassionate. It didn’t say that Jesus was Tolerant, it said he was compassionate or merciful. Tolerance is a word created by men to excuse themselves for screwing up and not taking responsibility of their actions. As for Equality… I have this overwhelming feeling that you have never truly done anything productive in your life, you probably work for a government agency(if you work at all), and you think that cause of all your schooling you’re a truly gifted and wonderful person. Vainity is a sin, one of the 7 deadly ones… but I’m sure you knew that.

  98. Sister Mary Lisa
    November 7, 2008 at 1:43 pm #

    Something stood out to me as I read the comments from supporters of Prop 8 here.

    ~It continues to amaze and humor me when Mormons fight so vocally about marriage being “right” only when it is between “ONE man and ONE woman.” Too funny. I wonder what my Mormon father thinks of this, considering he is sealed (in other words, married in the eyes of God) to two women right now. Furthermore, he has the freedom in this religion to be sealed to as many women as he desires. And this is perfectly acceptable and sanctioned in the policies and doctrine of the LDS church.

    Interesting that Mormons are so up in arms about non-traditional marriage when not long ago, members believed that non-traditional polygamy was required for exaltation.

    It’s disturbing how some of you feel it’s not your place to question the words, motives, or directives of the top leadership of the church. Imagine if Hitler had had a few more people question his motives and practices and directives. While my example may be extreme, I see no evidence in your words here to suggest that if the prophet made it known that all gays are to be eliminated and God has said so (just look at Soddom and Gommorah) that many of you would feel justified by god to follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, don’t go astray. Follow the prophet, he knows the way.

    Right?

  99. DC
    November 7, 2008 at 1:57 pm #

    Sister Mary….
    You Father who is “Sealed” to two women… let me ask you this… is one of them dead? because if that was the case, then physically he is only married to one at this time.
    Now you’re probably an excommunicated member(since your father is mormon and sealed), or you have yourself left the church. You obviously harbor hatred toward the church, and people who have faith in a living prophet.
    If you’re going to comment, don’t leave out evidence. You’re as bad as those who are saying that the churches should be burned to the ground because you’re giving them the kindling with misleading statements.
    And as far as polygamy, it was praticed in the bible and acknowledged by God. Homosexuallity was punished by God. Furthermore, less then 5% of the church practiced polygamy and when the Gorvernment said no more, we stopped. And you cannot associate the extremist who break the law members. We sustain the leaders and their decisions, this includes polygamy, the word of wisdom, temple marriage, modern day revealations, etc

  100. Juice
    November 7, 2008 at 4:11 pm #

    I guess you’ve forgotten how the Book of Mormon ends: the majority persecuted the minority until the entire society was destroyed. But I suppose that there was no real reason why Mormon and Moroni decided to include that particular lesson in there for us.

    And they lived happily ever after.

    Sigh. Once again, you fail to comprehend my point. I’ve made it very clear that I support majority rule in the context of a peaceful democratic government. But by all means, take that to mean that larger countries should invade and destroy smaller ones. LOL.

    I voted.

    I voted “yes” on 8.

    But can you guess the reason why I voted “yes” on 8?

    And we can’t second guess elections by trying to determine if enough people that “would of, could of, should of” voted this way or that is truly representative of the majority.

    Of course not. But I’m a little weary of those who try to throw around numbers to try and give the impression that the majority of Californians want something to be a certain way when that is not at all true. Less than 1/3 of all eligible California voters we able to enact Propositions 22 and 8 because the other side didn’t do a good job of getting out the vote to counter them in equal numbers. No “majority” was involved. It’s the equivalent of a family of six taking a family vote on where they should go on vacation this year, when three out of four of the kids are not in the room, so mom’s and dad’s two votes are going to beat out the one child’s vote in the room every time.

    I just want everyone to understand just how many people made up the so-called “majorities” you like to use as support for your argument.

    Mark, by your definition, there has never been an election of the majority in the entire US history. You do realize that voter turnout rarely breaks 50% right? Every US president has actually been elected by less than 50% of the entire eligible voter pool. Fancy that. I guess we should pack up and go home, because it turns out the true majority hasn’t ever spoken. Never mind statistics and all that.

    And I’ll end with this: if a voter doesn’t vote assuming no special circumstances like illness or emergencies, he has abdicated his right on the issue and shouldn’t be counted among those who have a say in the matter. So if 40% of the population vote, then in my view that 40% IS ENTIRE THE POPULATION.

    Your family of 6 example? Let me rephrase it correctly. All the kids ARE in the room. 3 of 4 kids are glued to the TV, despite the parents telling them they can choose either Disneyland or get locked up in a dungeon. The kids, nevertheless, pay no heed, still glued to the tv as the parents, exasperated, call the vote…the dungeon wins and suddenly the kids are up in arms about how unfair it is that the dungeon was chosen, that a true majority didn’t decide. They scream and yell, throwing tantrums, protesting this unfair decision, all the while having neglected to simply unglue themselves from the tv and cast their vote in the first place when given the chance.

  101. Melissa
    November 7, 2008 at 4:49 pm #

    This is the second time California has stated that we do not want to change the definition of tradition marriage. Prop. opposers need to realize that, it is not just the Mormon church, many church’s believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I think that everyone needs to move on or move out. Californians took and stand not as hate towards anyone and their action but on what we have as rights already, besides gays and lesbiens still have their rights.

  102. Shelbee
    November 7, 2008 at 5:00 pm #

    Honestly i dont understand why Mormons are constantly targeted in this issue. People need to get over the fact that the LDS church was not the sole reason why Prop 8 passed because of their donations,votes, or prophet. Get it right. Mormons only make up 8% of Californias residents and people really think that just because LDS members were organized in their efforts to preserve a RELIGIOUS belief you can blame them? Not to be racist but 70% of African Americans voted in favor of the proposition, and the majority of of LDS church members in California are WHITE! And these activists target President Monson as the reason why Prop 8 passed because he stood up for the beliefs of his church? Tons of other churches made the same stance, for or against the prop, and how come they arent targeted as well? Why in the heck are religions targeted at all? Just because gay activists are all butt hurt that the prop didnt go in their favor leaves no reason to point fingers at a specific group and try to blame them. I am sure that the LDS church didnt raid your neighborhoods with protest when those 4 Supreme Court judges exercised authority they didnt even hold when they overturned a LAW allowing gay marriages. The majority voice of California has been spoken so get over it!These gay activist child tantrum supporters not only assumed the position and stature of the churchs views and actions but involved deragatory blasphemy. The LDS church does NOT wish to take away rights of homosexual couples but to only protect marriage as ordained by God.Marriage is between a man and a woman and is a RELIGIOUS act, not a civil right. The word marriage has been around since the BIBLE and constitutes itself therefore as a religious commitment. And this whole tolerance ordeal is ridiculous. Society has turned this definition of tolerance into “endorse and support our love” or you are intolerant bigots who are superior to gender preferences and do not support a “natural right” of man to love and be with who they wish. The LDS church as well as numerous churches and religions teach to love the sinner, not the sin and just because they do not endorse it they are displayed as intolerant? Why do people tell me that I can be friends with homosexuals and love them, but that if I make a moral stand against them that I am intolerant of them? They make moral stands against my lifestyle, yet somehow that does not make them intolerant of me. I am tired of this tyranny of “tolerance” that only goes one way and homosexuals playing the role of vicitms. I am tired of being told: “Believe the way I do, embrace my lifestyle, go out and endorse it–or you are intolerant. Since when is tolerance a one-way street? i can not believe that such people who preach and search for tolerance would sink so low as to be hypocrites in their own desires.

    Marriage is a religious term which defines covenants between a man and a woman in religious freedoms, just as the word Christ or God is defined as the supreme being in a christian based faith, or Budda as a supreme being in Buddhism. IF homosexuals had tolerance for religious rights and beliefs of others, they would get off the mormons backs and change their term for marriage.I fully support any homosexual couple to be together but not have it be called a marriage but a union with all the same rights and priveleges of married couples. Even if the definition of marriage was changed to allow domestic couples, they would never be equal to traditional marriage. Married couples can produce life, which is Gods purpose to get married in the first place and is therefore not fundamental or substantial to a couple who can not partake in the development of offspring in society.If homosexuals feel the desire to change that, have them form their own religion along with its own terms of beliefs.

  103. James H
    November 7, 2008 at 6:29 pm #

    wow, if the anti prop 8-ers are trying to hurt their own cause, they’re doing a great job. Their constant arguments for tolerance and love and respect are ironically exploding in their faces.

  104. Carborendum
    November 7, 2008 at 7:13 pm #

    Gosh, Equality (or can I call you EEEEKKK)

    I’m out of it for a little while and you get delusions of grandeur.

    Like I said; I gave it a shot.

    Your MO is to cherry pick specific lines from my dissertation to form your own private interpretation which you mandate MUST be negative. And you specifically ignore those lines which I wrote to show that it was not BLIND faith, but real, spiritual & rational FAITH. Do you even know the difference?

    Well, why should I bother trying to get a deaf man to hear?

    If the sign of an educated mind is one who can entertain an idea objectively, and still be able to unemotionally, and rationally reject it, then you’ve just proven how uneducated you are.

  105. sara
    November 7, 2008 at 7:51 pm #

    Are these people unaware of the many other churches and organization that actively supported prop8? Will they be sending postcards to them too?

  106. SilverRain
    November 7, 2008 at 7:59 pm #

    People, please, please stop arguing! You are doing the Church no favors, President Monson no favors, and the Lord no favors by increasing the contention. People are hurting with reason. Have compassion for them. Let them be angry. Don’t make the accusations of hatred a reality.

    Please stop. Just . . . stop.

  107. Leeroy Jenkins
    November 8, 2008 at 2:05 am #

    I guess I should preface this: I was an atheist for awhile. Then I turned to a mainline protestant denomination, which, I’ve been told, is “better than nothing.”

    A healthy, rational discourse is totally possible between faiths, but it’s tough. It’s really, really tough to posit that, in my estimation, Jesus wouldn’t care about Proposition 8 at all. I could make the argument, derived mostly from Matthew 19 and multiple instances in Paul’s letters, that Jesus considered marriage a distraction from what’s really important: following God.

    This has never been a popular message: I don’t recall a single sermon which espouses this point of view. Maybe it wasn’t translated properly.

    But I do care about Prop 8, from a civil liberties standpoint. Marriage in the last 200 years means something: it means you love one person enough to say that you will be together as long as you both shall live (or, depending on your religious stripes and which building you get married in, forever).

    And to give that distinction to couples who can’t bear children (infertile people, the very old), speaks volumes to what marriage is about. Not children – not in this post-romantic, post-modern world.

    Love. Marriage is about love and commitment. To one person. You don’t need to be married to have kids. Single parents across the country and the world are doing a bang-up job right now instilling values into their children by pulling double-duty, and being the father/mother who isn’t there.

    And to take that away from people, on the slippery slope of tradition, also speaks volumes. The Mormon church is being singled out because ecclesiastical leaders have indirectly funneled millions of dollars into the campaign by igniting their base – the faithful. When the Prophet speaks, people listen, right? If you don’t follow the Prophet, boy howdy, things may get rough. You’ll be lucky if you can’t afford not to tithe.

    From a generic Protestant standpoint, I haven’t heard anything over the lectern about Proposition 8. Maybe my pastor was playing it safe. Maybe he was the type of pastor Kierkegaard railed against when he “attacked” Christianity (because he loved Christ, and the church was headed in the wrong direction). God loves him anyhow. Even if he’s all leading us into quiet complacency.

    When a church is wrong, the leaders will never stem the tide. It’s up to the Kierkegaard and Boenhoffer types to do it on behalf of the church.

    I am against Proposition 8, and I voted against it, and Jesus will keep on loving me even if I am entirely wrong.

    I firmly believe marriage is a social institution, not a religious one. And in today’s society it means you love someone, you care for someone, you will be with someone NO MATTER WHAT – rich, poor, in good times, in bad times, irrespective. To have and to hold. To love, honor, and cherish. As long as you both shall live.

    I’m Protestant so I firmly believe that death is only the beginning of a relationship founded on love. I firmly believe that God wouldn’t take away what man easily takes away, because of tradition, because a Prophet sent a letter, but didn’t give it the weight of prophecy by placing an addenda in official church literature. If my pastor told me marriage is between a man and a woman I’d default to Christ’s position: marriage is a distraction to discipleship – and I will value my pastor’s learned opinion, and do what I could to live up to that impossible standard – and if I heard him say that marriage is a relationship built on love and commitment, I’d simply smile and nod, because we’d reach some kind of synergy.

    Based on my knowledge of the Bible, and a smattering of Greek and Hebrew I’ve picked up, I can have all kinds of official disagreements with my church while still being a member in good standing, and I’m grateful that the entire Protestant tradition is built on this freedom.

    So I know there’s two sides to the issue. I will uphold one – Prop 8, in my estimation, gives equal rights to a much maligned group of citizens in the great state of California, and respect the other – Prop 8 puts families in jeopardy. I respectfully disagree with this assertion. If that puts me and other churches at a crossroads, I welcome a chance to dialogue. There’s no wars waging right now against us, and no stakes for us to be burnt on anymore. We can afford to talk it out.

  108. Juston
    November 8, 2008 at 7:05 am #

    The day after the protest Lori Jean signed an email letter put out by the No on 8 campaign with these words in it: “We achieve nothing if we isolate the people who did not stand with us in this fight. We only further divide our state if we attempt to blame people of faith, African American voters, rural communities and others for this loss. We know people of all faiths, races and backgrounds stand with us in our fight to end discrimination, and will continue to do so. Now more than ever it is critical that we work together and respect our differences that make us a diverse and unique society. Only with that understanding will we achieve justice and equality for all.”

    Food for thought, signing this one day after her press conference at a protest at the LDS temple.

  109. Juston
    November 8, 2008 at 7:09 am #

    If marriage should be based on what people are calling “love” then others may want marriage extended to them. Polygamists, people who love their cousin, their sister, their mother, a minor, their dog. There comes a point where society decides what it will sanction and condone by recognizing it as marriage.

  110. Leeroy Jenkins
    November 8, 2008 at 8:34 am #

    Justin:

    Here’s the benchmark: two consenting adults not directly related by bloodline. This destroys your “I married my momma and my sister and my dog” argument.

  111. Leeroy Jenkins
    November 8, 2008 at 8:44 am #

    And I completely agree that there has to be some arbitrary line drawn. Minors cannot and should not get married: even if human history is chock full of examples of teenagers marrying – lifespan and culture have made this unfeasable – unless the age defining adulthood is lowered, and if that’s the case, ALL rights should be extended: voting, etc. I don’t believe this is part of the slippery slope. I think same sex couples don’t want to marry so that they can open floodgates of unlimited possibilities and make it possible for a brick to marry a toaster.

  112. Juston
    November 8, 2008 at 9:24 am #

    Leeroy,

    Your benchmark is in a different location than mine as to where to draw the line on what is called marriage. You didn’t come out and directly say it but your argument suggests that you would support polygamy. That would involve consenting adults not related by blood.

  113. Juston
    November 8, 2008 at 9:40 am #

    Or would you be against polygamy because it involves more than 2 people, even if they were consenting adults? Are you relying on a traditional definition of marriage as being between two people? Why would you limit consenting adults to 2 in a marriage? Aren’t you “imposing” your definition of marriage on the consenting adults, just like the Prop 8 people are? If the standard to allow gays to marry is consenting adults then polygamists meet this standard.

  114. Juston
    November 8, 2008 at 10:31 am #

    Leeroy,

    I apologize if I have been disrespectful. If you believe what you are saying I don’t follow your reasoning. What makes gays OK to marry and others not OK? Is it love (no was your answer), is it consenting adults, is it something else? Why the number two? Is it biblically based? Is it up to society? I’m not seeing a consistent thread of thought that explains your beliefs of 2 consenting adults, any gender, and maybe you can help me to understand what your foundation of belief is that supports your position.

    Thank you.

  115. WhiteKnight
    November 8, 2008 at 11:21 am #

    For all those fence sitters, who have yet to deploy their critical thinking and analysis skills, who feel this issue is simply this single issue, I invite you to consider the following . . .

    …essay printed in the February 15, 1987 issue of the homosexual newspaper Gay Community News by Michael Swift, and was reprinted in the 15-21 February 1987 Congressional Record. The ideological foundation is Leninist philosophy adapted to gay advocacy.

    This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.

    We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies.

    We shall seduce them in your schools

    , in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.

    Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too and only man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand with depth and feeling the mind and body of another man.

    All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.

    All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically, and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.

    If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.

    We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads.

    Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.

    We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators, your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.

    There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled.

    We shall raise vast, private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you. We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are as invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers. The family unit — spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy, and violence — will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in a communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.

    All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and aesthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.

    The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.

    We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man.

    We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution.

    Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks!

    We simply need to OPEN OUR EYES and see that many of these sold called “cruel fantasies” already have and continue to take place. This is not a civil rights issue, nor is it singularly a morality issue, THIS IS OUTRIGHT WAR against family, church, and God.

    Remember . . .

    “In our dealing with these subversive forces, we react like frogs. I am told that a frog dropped suddenly into a pan of hot water will immediately jump out; but that if he is put in a pan of cold water and placed on a stove, he will stay in it until he boils to death.”

    Consider another point if you will. While the following statement may currently be “dropped suddenly into a pan of hot water” for some presently (those who have been sleeping in the watchtower), it is simply an obvious repeat of history for anyone willing to do some research on civilizations who allowed such immorality to be commonplace.

    I predict in the coming generations that descendants will spring forth that openly support adult-child relationships as a “civil right”. They will shout that they are hated, abused, misunderstood and oppressed. It’s not about morality, it’s about choice, it’s about rights . . . “sexual freedom for all.” Who is anyone to stop the “love” of two people, regardless of age or gender?

    The effort to abolish “age of consent” laws has been a long-time goal of homosexual activists. The 1972 Gay Rights Platform, for example, called for the abolition of all laws prohibiting sex with children. The platform demands: “Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.

    After all, wouldn’t it make sense if one is old enough to have a driver license, to take their life and that of the surrounding public in their own hands, that they are old (responsible) enough to decide sexual and gender preference? Let’s begin their and work down, let’s use religious doctrine against them by supporting their age of accountability . . .

    It’s already taking place if you open your eyes and do some research. The greatest propaganda machine of all, Hollywood and media, are already slowly and subtle indoctrinating society to be open and “tolerant” to the very issue. Read reports of teacher-student relationships; you shall soon discover that it is commonplace they include an emphasis or outright focus on the “outreach of support” and “tidal waves of letters from sympathizers” and mention nothing of morality.

    Know not that there are societies that exist for this very purpose, this very moment, such as the North American Man/Boy Love Association and others in this very country?

    These societies resolve to “end the oppression of men and [children] who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships“.

    Watch how cleverly NAMBLA utilizes their “devices of wit” by declaring “the adoption of laws that both protect children from unwanted sexual experiences and at the same time leave them free to determine the content of their own sexual experiences.

    Could it be possible this is where “tolerance” and fence sitting will lead us?

    No not that this enemy believes . . .

    “Your child belongs to us already… What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community” and “time is everything, man is nothing: he is at the most time’s carcass.”

    Read this article and awake to our awful situation.

    Let us combine efforts and focus on proactively supporting and passing laws that provide protections and exemptions to religious organizations. To protect our children from being taught this filth in schools and in the media.

  116. Leeroy Jenkins
    November 8, 2008 at 1:58 pm #

    Juston: My feeling on the matter is that any two consenting adults in love who wish to be married should have the freedom to do so. Churches that disagree are equally free to disregard these marriages, or not to perform them. You bring up the slippery slope of Polygamy, but I don’t necessarily see a one-to-one correlation. I don’t believe tacitly approving same sex marriages will ultimately lead to one man marrying a woman who’s already married to two other men. So it’s a moot point, for me, or at the very most, a bridge that people should cross when it becomes an issue, and not a bridge that needs be crossed now.

    “Marriage is between one consenting adult and another” doesn’t really have a nice ring to it, and I choose the number two because it’s part of the western ideal. Marry once, marry for life, marry the person you love. Not marry once, marry for life, marry the person you love, and her sister.

    Again, a bridge to be crossed when we get there. I’m not afraid that polygamy will once again rear it’s ugly head simply because two people in love want a scrap of paper that verifies this simple fact. Polygamy is, for all intents and purposes, a failed experiment that doesn’t need a second round. If people want to try it again, I’ll raise any children I have with enough sense in their heads to know it can only end badly, if they choose to get involved with people who’d get into that racket – and love them anyway, regardless of the choices that they make in life.

  117. Juston
    November 8, 2008 at 4:52 pm #

    Thanks for taking the time for this post Leroy.

  118. food for thought
    November 10, 2008 at 9:43 am #

    I just thought that I would share one of the definitions for polygamy used in zoology (not a direct quote) to have sexual relations with multiple partners. By this definition polygamy is alive and well.

  119. Equality
    November 10, 2008 at 11:59 am #

    Juice (#89):

    In the United States, we do not live in a pure “majority-rule” democracy. We live in a republic with a Constitution. The majority can rule (through its elected representatives mainly, and in accordance with the constitutional system of checks and balances devised by the Founders specifically to counter the extremes of mob rule on the one hand (democracy run amok) and dictatorship on the other (concentration of power in the few or the one). It is appropriate for a minority’s will to rule over the majority’s when the majority’s course of action would infringe upon a minority’s rights. Thus, we don’t let the majority here in Texas establish the Baptist Church as the state church. Why not? Because freedom of religion (and freedom FROM religion) is a fundamental right that should be enjoyed by all people, regardless of whether the majority agrees with it or not. We have constitutional protections built in to prevent the majority from exercising its will in contravention of minority rights.

    If a majority of Californians voted to amend the constitution to define marriage in a way that excluded Mormons, I’m guessing you wouldn’t take too kindly to it. I imagine many of the people who were carrying those Yes on 8 signs would suddenly not be so enamored of “majority rule.” They might even argue that such a proposal was motivated by religious bigotry, ignorance, and persecution.

  120. Michael L. McKee
    November 10, 2008 at 2:41 pm #

    Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind (suddenly) it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord. And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord (D&C) 112:24-25).

    President Joseph F. Smith emphasized that if Latter-day Saints fail to live their religion, they cannot expect to avoid the Lord’s judgements: … I further testify, that unless the Latter-day Saints will live their religion, keep their covenants with God and their brethren, honor the Priesthood which they bear, and try faithfully to bring themselves into subjection to the laws of God, they will be the first to fall beneath the judgements of the Almighty, for his judgement will begin at his own house (Conference Report, April, 1880, p. 96).

    Once again many Americans are witnessing with fearful trepidation the scenes of pending conflict within our own borders. While much of the conflict has been, for the most part, rhetorical and confined to specific issues of so-called Constitutional rights, we will soon be experiencing civil unrest of a much more violent nature. If you are among those who believe that we will work through the current economical strife which has been foisted upon us, you should reconsider your position. The masses are restless and uneasy and those who have no guiding principles similar to those held by the followers of Christ will resort to survival instincts. If you are not prepared to act, you may be acted upon in such a way as to find yourself in a precarious position not knowing which way to turn. The time is near at hand when we will be required to boldly proclaim our allegiance to Christ or we may opt for one of the many forms the world has to offer.

    … the people began to harden their hearts, all save it were the most believing part of them,… and began to depend upon their own strength and upon their own wisdom…. And they began to reason and to contend among themselves, …
    (Hel. 16:15, 17-18).

    While most of the preceding extractions were gleaned from the text of a book entitled “Prophetic Statements on Food Storage foe Latter-day Saints” by Neil H. Leash, I find them appropriate considering many of us are distracted by the world and the calamities inherent with a perverse and wicked people to fully comprehend the greater need for spiritual preparedness. I have recently discovered that although I am quite prepared temporally, I was severely in short supply of the more important commodity which is only available through the Holy Ghost and the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

    It is my prayer that we who are members of the Lord’s Church will redouble our efforts to follow the Prophet and pray more fervently for his protection and support. Thomas S. Monson is the Lord’s mouthpiece at this time and when he speaks prophetically, he speaks for all who currently inhabit this fallen sphere. Unfortunately, many involved in this current strife do not realize the knowledge the Prophet may possess concerning the fate of the land mass known as the state of California should the majority of the people who reside their continue to reject the Lord’s commandments. I believe President Monson has compassion for those who have been subjected to the insidious agenda of those who work feverishly to divide the people and destroy our Constitution.

  121. Sister Mary Lisa
    November 10, 2008 at 2:52 pm #

    DC in #100 wrote:
    Sister Mary….
    You Father who is “Sealed” to two women… let me ask you this… is one of them dead? because if that was the case, then physically he is only married to one at this time.,

    Nope. He was eternally sealed to two living women for years until one killed herself. He’s still sealed to two women in the eyes of the church. Whether they are alive or dead is irrelevant. He was sealed to two living women simultaneously for over 5 years. This is an acceptable practice and doctrine and still listed in the Doctrine and Covenants as required by God for exaltation in the celestial kingdom. That’s why it’s so humorous to hear LDS people on here claim so strongly that the only acceptable version of marriage is one between ONE man and ONE woman. Countless members today are sealed (or married in heaven, essentially) to more than one woman in the eyes of the church and God. Don’t we have an apostle who is even now enjoying this ability? Dallin Oaks, right?

    Now you’re probably an excommunicated member(since your father is mormon and sealed), or you have yourself left the church. You obviously harbor hatred toward the church, and people who have faith in a living prophet.

    Not sure why you think if my father is “a practicing Mormon and sealed” that would mean I’m excommunicated. Sorry to disappoint. I’m still listed as a member of your church. But not for long, now that the leaders have pushed me beyond my limit by using their power and influence to get members to donate money to a cause that in no way threatens heterosexual marriage…a cause which takes away a basic human right from my brothers and sisters in California. I stand against any organization that uses its power and influence to promote bigotry in its membership. I am sorely disappointed and will no longer have my name associated with such an organization.

    I harbor no hatred for members of the church, or of the church itself. I harbor disillusionment and disgust for leaders who promote bigotry and for members who defend bigotry without question, simply because the prophet has spoken.

    If you’re going to comment, don’t leave out evidence. You’re as bad as those who are saying that the churches should be burned to the ground because you’re giving them the kindling with misleading statements.

    What are you talking about? Please clarify. You make no sense, and I’m sure you meant to make some sort of point here. What evidence do you seek?

    We sustain the leaders and their decisions, this includes polygamy, the word of wisdom, temple marriage, modern day revealations, etc”

    This is what I’m talking about. Sustaining leaders in all decisions without questioning is dangerous. Very dangerous. When you start believing that when a prophet speaks, the thinking has been done, then you’re in very dangerous territory. Where were the throngs of followers who should have questioned Hitler and his directives? I wish more members were willing and ABLE (which we all know is not a freedom Mormons enjoy without a real risk of serious repercussions by the leadership) to question what the leaders say and do in the name of God.

    I find it deplorable that society still clings so tenaciously to this “acceptable” form of bigotry and discrimination. Once upon a time society felt that Blacks and women didn’t deserve the same basic rights as everyone else, either. Once upon a time the proponents of such bigotry clung to it fiercely, saying God approved of segregation and God wanted women to stay at home and not involve themselves in political matters that were better suited for men.

    And once upon a time proponents of the LDS church felt God approved of denying homosexual brothers and sisters the right to legally commit themselves to the one they love. I am seriously ashamed I’m still Mormon now.

  122. Connor
    November 10, 2008 at 3:02 pm #

    That’s why it’s so humorous to hear LDS people on here claim so strongly that the only acceptable version of marriage is one between ONE man and ONE woman. Countless members today are sealed (or married in heaven, essentially) to more than one woman in the eyes of the church and God.

    First off, the acceptable version of marriage is what God says it is. Second, the Church—to my knowledge, and from all the sources I’ve read—has never supported any initiative promoting marriage as being between one man and one woman. Instead, we support marriage being as between man and woman, thus allowing “wiggle room”, if you will, should God ever command the reintroduction of polygamy.

    …a cause that in no way threatens heterosexual marriage…

    You know, I’m starting to chuckle a little every time I hear this line. The persistence of same-sex marriage advocates to claim that it will in no way affect (negatively or otherwise) current and heterosexual marriages is downright laughable. Changing the very definition of a word, and reclassifying a long-standing cultural tradition to neuter all previous meaning and understanding is only the first step in affecting what others have long understood and believed marriage to be. You’ll help your cause by not pretending that gay marriage in no way affects marriage itself.

    I stand against any organization that uses its power and influence to promote bigotry in its membership.

    Two chuckles in one comment! Yes, I’m beginning to snicker every time I hear the accusation of bigotry applied to those who believe marriage to be sacred and heterosexual. Bigotry for believing in a certain definition of a word? Hardly.

    Sustaining leaders in all decisions without questioning is dangerous.

    Ah yes, those who follow the Prophet have not questioned the position… We are all lemmings, blindly following our Leader until we will soon all fall of the cliff together. Entrenched in our allegiance and proud of our ignorance, we stand behind our Leader, ready to support his every word!

    Oh wait, I just described most Barack Obama supporters…

  123. Sister Mary Lisa
    November 10, 2008 at 4:26 pm #

    Connor writes:

    “First off, the acceptable version of marriage is what God says it is.”

    Let’s be even more precise, shall we? The “acceptable” version of marriage is what your church claims God says it is. The “acceptable” version of marriage in any religion is what the leader tells his members that God is telling him. And members then feel this is truth when they get confirmation from God himself by way of warm feelings of rightness in their hearts. This happens to people across the world, across time, across many varying forms of religion from varying gods and goddesses–about varying “right” ways to marry.

    “Second, the Church—to my knowledge, and from all the sources I’ve read—has never supported any initiative promoting marriage as being between one man and one woman.”

    Note how I wrote “it’s so humorous to hear LDS people on here claim so strongly that the only acceptable version of marriage is one between ONE man and ONE woman.” Would it be helpful for me to go back and find all the people on here who argued that position in this thread?

    “Changing the very definition of a word, and reclassifying a long-standing cultural tradition to neuter all previous meaning and understanding is only the first step in affecting what others have long understood and believed marriage to be. You’ll help your cause by not pretending that gay marriage in no way affects marriage itself.”

    Lots of people were threatened similarly when slaves were reclassified to equal status from the long-standing cultural tradition, neutering all previous meaning their lives had.

    “Two chuckles in one comment!”

    I’m gratified we find each other funny. Life’s short. Laugh a little.

    “Ah yes, those who follow the Prophet have not questioned the position… We are all lemmings, blindly following our Leader until we will soon all fall of the cliff together. Entrenched in our allegiance and proud of our ignorance, we stand behind our Leader, ready to support his every word!”

    You’ve got some serious skills with putting words I didn’t use or even imply into this. I know lots of visionary, smart, classy Mormons who don’t follow the prophet in supporting Prop. 8. They are people I admire and applaud for their courage and commitment to equal rights for all.

  124. Sister Mary Lisa
    November 10, 2008 at 4:37 pm #

    How does allowing gays to marry threaten heterosexual marriage? I’ve never seen someone actually say HOW this will damage heterosexual marriage. I can’t even imagine how it would damage anything in society. Anyone care to answer this?

    Gays being allowed to marry in California does nothing to threaten the church itself, which is free to set things up however it wishes or deny membership to anyone who disagrees. Why is it so scary to give gay people the right to marry each other?

  125. food for thought
    November 10, 2008 at 4:39 pm #

    Nope. He was eternally sealed to two living women for years until one killed herself. He’s still sealed to two women in the eyes of the church. Whether they are alive or dead is irrelevant.

    Was he divorced? because if so it is possible to do what you say however, if one or both of the women he was “sealed” to decide they don’t want him because he was a looser then he is “sealed” to no one. Also one other point is that the law of chastity states that an individual can only have sexual relations with someone that they are legally and lawfully married to. So Mormons that say a sealing and a marriage are the same are wrong.

  126. Sister Mary Lisa
    November 10, 2008 at 4:43 pm #

    What difference does that make in Mormon doctrine, food for thought? The fact is, Mormons believe that when my dad dies, if both his wives (including my mom who wanted a temple divorce but wasn’t granted one because my dad wanted to remain sealed, and males are privileged over women in matters like this) are there, he is sealed to them both. Mormons believe that if a man like Dallin Oaks is sealed to his first deceased wife and also his second living wife, when they all three die, they will enjoy a life together in the eternities where he gets to enjoy the law of celestial chastity where it says it’s ok for him to procreate with ALL of his wives.

  127. food for thought
    November 10, 2008 at 5:11 pm #

    What you also do not understand is that a sealing is more than just a joining of a man and a women it is also a joining of man to God and women to God. That is why the sealing was not allowed to be broken. It was so your mother would be sealed to God and like I said your mother will not be with your father if she does not want to it does not matter if she is seal to him or not. However, by not allowing the breaking of the seal she is still seal to God and is promised a place in heaven because of it. Oh and by the way men are not privileged over women in matters like this and if you think otherwise that is your option but you are still wrong.

  128. Sister Mary Lisa
    November 10, 2008 at 5:23 pm #

    food for thought wrote, “Oh and by the way men are not privileged over women in matters like this and if you think otherwise that is your option but you are still wrong.”

    Huh. I’m completely astounded you think so. Perhaps my knowledge of this (which is not wrong, sadly) is informed by my experience in the Mormon church that gave my never-Mormon husband the power to grant me permission OR NOT to attend the temple and take out my endowments. The bishop called my never-Mormon husband in to MY temple recommend interview and blindsided me with the directive from church policy that required him to give me written permission before they’d allow me entrance to the temple to complete the required ordinance of the endowment to gain my entrance into God’s presence in the next life.

    When he refused to grant said permission, the church was not willing to allow a faithful, tithe-paying, righteous Mormon woman a recommend to attend the temple in full.

    Even NON-MORMON men are privileged over LDS women.

  129. food for thought
    November 10, 2008 at 5:35 pm #

    what you don’t understand is that if it were your husband that wanted to go to the temple rather than you and you said no then your husband would have been told no just like you so like I said “men are not privileged over women in matters like this and if you think otherwise that is your option but you are still wrong.”

  130. Sister Mary Lisa
    November 10, 2008 at 6:31 pm #

    This is completely off topic, food for thought, and I apologize for this threadjack. Women and men are not equal in the LDS church, and anyone who attempts to deny or defend the rampant sexism in such a blatantly patriarchal organization like the LDS church is engaging in some serious futility.

    At the time I was denied permission to the temple, the church handbook of instructions stated only that women must seek permission from their husbands. It did not say member husbands had to gain written permission from their non-member wives in order to attend the temple. Perhaps that has changed in the verbiage. Although I’m not sure why it would. Men preside, right? In the home and in the church. In heaven too.

    At the time my mom was denied having her sealing to God/Dad broken, she was seeking it so she could be sealed to another faithful, priesthood-wielding man in the church to whom she was married. So your reason doesn’t exactly fit.

    Back on topic. Maybe you can tell me what is so threatening about gays marrying.

  131. food for thought
    November 10, 2008 at 9:21 pm #

    Sister Mary Lisa I can see that you are bitter toward the LDS church and from the sounds of it justifiably (not the same as correctly). However that bitterness has tainted your view and made it impossible for you to see any view other than the one you currently have. I pray for you that one day through the atonement of Christ you will be healed of the wounds caused by your experience and that you will have true joy and happiness.

    Back to topic indeed; why is it threatening? Well it is no more threatening to me than if an individual were to teach that murder was ok because an individual has a “right” express their emotions. Or that a woman has a “right to end a child’s life by abortion because she failed to choose to keep her pants on in the first place (I recognize valid reasons for abortion by the way such as rape incest and health of child/mother in jeopardy). I find it threatening because something that I view as fundamentally wrong is being taught to my children as right, ok, and natural. So let me ask this would you sit by and let a political group teach that something like murder was morally ok if you felt it wrong? What if it were even popular for murder to be considered natural and ok? I know what you may be think “that’s not the same” “you can’t compare the two” well to me they are the same and I can compare the two. I feel I have an obligation to make my values known and to declare right and wrong so that none can say I didn’t know, so than none can say if only someone had told me. Voting and supporting things like Prop 8 is one way in which I can say wrong is wrong and right is right.

  132. Sister Mary Lisa
    November 10, 2008 at 9:34 pm #

    To me, it seems that what consenting adults choose to do sexually in their bedroom is not something that should be discussed with any child. Talking about love, commitment, and keeping vows with another person you love is a noble thing, and not any different than the vows you say to your heterosexual partner. The feelings they feel toward each other are not any different than the feelings and devotion you feel to yours.

    A better comparison you could give would be to say that marriage between two people of different races is fundamentally wrong and should not be taught as OK in the schools to your children. At one time in the history of your church and the history of our nation, this was the belief and thought process. Some states made it illegal and considered it morally depraved for a white person to marry a black person.

    Supporters of Proposition 8 are saying that the right of one adult to commit to another adult in the eyes of the law should not be allowed. Why is that something tantamount to murder in your eyes? Wow. Seriously? I mean. Wow. The difference between two gay people committing themselves to one another for life through marriage and murder is that in gay marriage, nobody’s right to life is being harmed. Nobody is being hurt or killed at the hand of another against their will. The two are not the same thing whatsoever.

    Gay marriage harms nobody. Just as marriage between a white and black person harms nobody. Just as marriage between a man and woman harms nobody. It’s all about love. That you’d compare murder to a loving act like marriage says something disturbing, to be honest.

  133. Sister Mary Lisa
    November 10, 2008 at 9:40 pm #

    Oh, and I’m not bitter OR wounded, but thanks for the concern. I’ve never in my life been more happy and my capacity to love all others has increased exponentially since I stopped attending church and was able to focus my energy and time on things that truly matter like loving and accepting others and treating others the way I want to be treated.

    It feels so good to be happy and know what true happiness really is. I am comfortable in my own skin, and that allows me to let others be who they are around me without censure or judgment or fear.

    I wish true happiness and love for everyone, no matter what they look like or who they are attracted to. People should know true love and enjoy it freely like I am able to. It’s priceless.

  134. Connor
    November 10, 2008 at 10:09 pm #

    Sister Mary Lisa,

    Thanks for stopping by, but I’ve grown weary of your anti-Mormon rantings. Back to “the Foyer” you go.

    And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming…

  135. Brandon
    November 10, 2008 at 11:14 pm #

    Connor,
    Why do you kick people you disagree with off your blog? Do you not write on such controversial topics to draw in a wide variety of opinions? I didn’t see anything in Sister Mary Lisa’s posts that was rude, dishonest or inappropriate. She simply has a different opinion about the church than you. I am serious, what are you trying to accomplish with your blog?

    Also, why do you classify her as anti-mormon? Is the definition of anti-mormon “anyone who disagrees with a mormon, or with mormon orthodoxy, or has recently left the church”? I have often felt that calling someone an anti-mormon was just a way to discredit their arguments through character assasination. Call someone an anti-mormon and immediately you are allowed to discount their opinion. Afterall, they are an anti-mormon, decieved by the devil and blinded by the hatred of the church. See, now I don’t even have to think about any criticism of my faith, because I just label the criticism “anti-mormon” and Voila, the crticism has been de-legitimized.

    If anything, you should kick off Food for Thought for offering up such offensive logic. You can think homosexuality is wrong, but you are ridiculous if you think consensual sexual acts should be compared to violent destruction of human life (and still people wonder why prop 8 and its supporters were called hateful by some).

  136. Connor
    November 10, 2008 at 11:55 pm #

    Why do you kick people you disagree with off your blog?

    Disagreement is not a qualifier for being banned from my blog. Indeed, I enjoy the discussion that disagreement produces, so long as that discussion is productive, fair, calm, and enlightening.

    I didn’t see anything in Sister Mary Lisa’s posts that was rude, dishonest or inappropriate.

    What I saw in her comments was an example of the idea that dissenters who leave the Church can’t leave it alone. Rehashing old and unrelated arguments, making wild accusations that I find unproductive to the point at hand, and incessantly harping on a doctrinal issue that devolves into “casting pearls before swine” (or, rather, treating lightly and negatively certain doctrines and principles I value as sacred) will, when repeated and compounded, lead me to consider pressing the ban button to mute the noise.

    Most times, I email a commenter directly to express my concern and ask for changed behavior. Usually this request is met with sympathy and agreement, and we can both move on. This time around, I simply grew tired of the arguments (as I’ve been seeing them hundreds of times over the past few days), and made the judgment call to put an end to the cacophony.

    I have often felt that calling someone an anti-mormon was just a way to discredit their arguments through character assasination.

    If Mormon doctrine says that X is true, and an individual claims that X is false, is that not easily classified as being anti-Mormon in nature? Would not the faithful Mormon who believes in the basic and essential doctrines reject any ideas that run contrary to X?

    This isn’t character assassination—good individuals can promote bad policies or ideas. I’m sure that many “anti-Mormons” are genuinely good people, but inasmuch as they are promoting an agenda that is against what I believe to be true, then I will oppose them by standing up for what I know to be right, and battle words and ideas—not people. There’s no character assassination here; it’s more productive to fight people’s ideas than the people themselves.

    If anything, you should kick off Food for Thought for offering up such offensive logic.

    The examples s/he offered were indeed extreme (and commonly understood to be wrong), but I think the underlying argument deserves scrutiny. (Namely, that private actions have public consequences.)

  137. Brandon
    November 11, 2008 at 12:38 am #

    Thanks for your response.

    If Mormon doctrine says that X is true, and an individual claims that X is false, is that not easily classified as being anti-Mormon in nature?

    I understand your definition. The main problem I have with this description is that I don’t believe “anti-mormon” to be a phrase used merely to describe someone as simply not believing in mormon doctrine. I think it is clear that the phrase “anti-mormon” is used to describe enemies, or someone who is seeking the destruction of the church. I have always taken it to be a pejorative to discredit a dissenter (like saying someone is a bigot, racist, sexist, etc). Do you disagree?

    Would not the faithful Mormon who believes in the basic and essential doctrines reject any ideas that run contrary to X?

    This is a good question, and one I have struggled with the last several months. I don’t like the idea of having to reject any idea that contradicts my faith. Why is my faith so special that it is not subject to sctrutiny? Why must I believe in things so fully that I must reject anything that contradicts my belief, no matter what evidence is presented to support the contrary idea. Frankly, this has been my greatest stumbling block to faith.

    This isn’t character assassination—good individuals can promote bad policies or ideas. I’m sure that many “anti-Mormons” are genuinely good people, but inasmuch as they are promoting an agenda that is against what I believe to be true, then I will oppose them by standing up for what I know to be right, and battle words and ideas—not people. There’s no character assassination here; it’s more productive to fight people’s ideas than the people themselves.

    Maybe my use of “character assasination” was confusing. I used those words because I do believe you are saying that if someone is classified as anti-mormon (by you) you are therefore obligated to oppose them or their ideas. This was my point. Once the label is applied, you do not have to consider their words or their logic. You have already determined that their logic/words oppose your faith and therefore you must oppose their position.

    Do you have a different explanation for why the term “anti-mormon” is (or should be) applied to non-believers?

  138. Connor
    November 11, 2008 at 8:48 am #

    I have always taken it to be a pejorative to discredit a dissenter (like saying someone is a bigot, racist, sexist, etc). Do you disagree?

    I think it clearly has that connotation, yes. Those who parade in front of General Conference, for example, are clearly not trying to discuss doctrine or policy with reasoned logic and cooled tempers, and thus I feel they fit the bill. This doesn’t make them pure evil, but based on their actions, they are anti-Mormon. As are individuals who write books and make movies using half truths and lies to try to convince Mormons and others of some other truth they claim. So whether their actions are based in love or hatred, compassion or bitterness, they are, in that sense, anti-Mormon.

    Once the label is applied, you do not have to consider their words or their logic.

    If they change their approach and delivery, I have no problem listening to them. Again, with the criteria I listed above for a good discussion. I’m not going to talk to the guy blaspheming in front of the temple, but perhaps in another setting with cooled tempers, he might try to calmly make a case for what he believes. Christ told us that we’ll know people by their fruits, and I think becoming a good “fruit judge” is part of what life is all about. Discerning between those who are trying to tear down our spirits and build them up is crucial, I think, for keeping our testimony in tact and understanding truth.

  139. Bednar's Pickle
    November 12, 2008 at 9:18 am #

    If Mormon doctrine says that X is true, and an individual claims that X is false, is that not easily classified as being anti-Mormon in nature? Would not the faithful Mormon who believes in the basic and essential doctrines reject any ideas that run contrary to X?

    By your definition, it follows that every person of a faith other than mormonism is an anti-mormon. Every investigator who joins notwithstanding disbelief in certain doctrines, or who does not join, is anti-mormon. Every doubting member struggling to stay in while abandoning a belief in any official doctrine, is by your definition an anti-mormon.

    Do you really believe this? Is your world view that black and white? Is it really Mormons = good and godly, all who disagree = anti-good and ungodly. What scares me, an active Latter-Day Saint, most, is that you might be right.

    If you are, then there is no room for critical thought or discussion in the Church. We say otherwise, but effectively this requires us to treat the brethren as infalliable in any official action.

    I think you have described and believe in a preenlightment authoritarian theocracy. This is not Nauvoo circa 1840. We live in the United States of America in 2008.

    Replace Mormon, insert the word Islamic in your post, and ask yourself, how does that sound?

    You have radically shrunk the tent of Mormonism. Please use the loaded term anti-mormon with a bit more thought.

  140. Connor
    November 12, 2008 at 9:28 am #

    You have radically shrunk the tent of Mormonism. Please use the loaded term anti-mormon with a bit more thought.

    Obviously, the manner in which the doctrines are opposed plays a crucial role in giving context to the situation. Those who are trying to actively convince you of the error of your ways by waving signs and shouting are clearly more “anti-mormon” than the sincere Catholic who simply chooses to believe differently.

    I am not saying that they should equally be opposed and rejected.

    In the literal sense of the definition, any doctrine, program, or initiative that contradicts established LDS doctrine is “anti”, or opposing in its very nature. But the conventional understanding of the word usually includes the pejorative implication, and I’m not necessarily referring to that here.

    If somebody simply believes differently, then that’s great. We can have a productive, enlightening discussion, and at the day part ways amicably. But if somebody is actively opposing that belief, using words or actions based in contention, then the literal “anti-mormon” definition changes to what we commonly understand it to be (picture the protesters outside of each General Conference).

  141. Jeff T
    November 12, 2008 at 9:46 am #

    Bednar’s Pickle,

    Did you mean to imply, in a negative way, that Nauvoo circa 1840 was a preenlightenment authoritarian theocracy?

  142. Rique
    November 14, 2008 at 7:26 pm #

    Jorge–I knew you were gay at BYU and wondered why you stayed.

    God loves all of his children, but he does not condone sin. Homosexuality is a sin.

    You are a friend, but you are wrong. You know this. The still small voice tells you this. The mob shouts you are right, the Holy Ghost tells you are wrong.

  143. Shmuel
    November 18, 2008 at 4:34 am #

    I voted for McCain.

    Did I go out and protest against Obama winning?
    Did I go out and say “this fight is not over” ?

    NO.

    I accepted the decision of the majority. It’s the way the country works.

    It’s called Democracy.

    Get used to it.

  144. Dave
    November 18, 2008 at 8:07 am #

    This is a little off subject but, We should start work on a Constitution propositions in every state, to require all children under the age of 18 to attend public schools, to protect children from physical,sexual and psychological abuse. This would effectively ban privet , religious , and home school which are basically used by the radical right for indoctornation.

  145. Juice
    November 20, 2008 at 12:41 pm #

    Juice (#89):

    In the United States, we do not live in a pure “majority-rule” democracy. We live in a republic with a Constitution. The majority can rule (through its elected representatives mainly, and in accordance with the constitutional system of checks and balances devised by the Founders specifically to counter the extremes of mob rule on the one hand (democracy run amok) and dictatorship on the other (concentration of power in the few or the one). It is appropriate for a minority’s will to rule over the majority’s when the majority’s course of action would infringe upon a minority’s rights. Thus, we don’t let the majority here in Texas establish the Baptist Church as the state church. Why not? Because freedom of religion (and freedom FROM religion) is a fundamental right that should be enjoyed by all people, regardless of whether the majority agrees with it or not. We have constitutional protections built in to prevent the majority from exercising its will in contravention of minority rights.

    If a majority of Californians voted to amend the constitution to define marriage in a way that excluded Mormons, I’m guessing you wouldn’t take too kindly to it. I imagine many of the people who were carrying those Yes on 8 signs would suddenly not be so enamored of “majority rule.” They might even argue that such a proposal was motivated by religious bigotry, ignorance, and persecution.

    Equality, I’m well aware of the how US government functions. I KNOW that Congress, holding office for 2 years were designed to directly reflect majority view, while the Senate, every 7 years to be more insulated from it. I KNOW that the reason SCOTUS judges are lifetime appointments is so that they can be isolated from the majority and make decisions according to their conscience…

    But you also forget, that despite these protections, the Constitution, both federal and state, allow for a direct will (majority) of the people to decide on issues if there is a sufficient momentum to do so. Legislators and judges, despite having some isolation from the people, are still people, still byproducts of society. If its the job of legislators and judges to protect gay marriage, why hasn’t the US Supreme Court ruled in its favor yet? Why are there only 2 states out of 50 that have legalized gay marriage? Where are your vaunted protectors of the minority? The reason, as I said before, they are barometers of the majority, and that majority is not ready for gay marriage, and neither are the people of California.

    As for your hypothetical proposition forbidding mormons to marry, you need not fabricate such a scenario. Mormons, in the 19th century have been subject to persecution for their beliefs. Of course I feel that persecution is wrong and unjust…but as commanded, the mormons were told to follow the law, to remain calm despite the persecution and to use logic, reason, compassion to sway public sentiment in their favor. And guess what, in time, that persecution subsided and disappeared. In time, the majority realized that such persecution was unjust. It just took a little time for people to come around. Of course I wish society’s views could change instantly. But I’m realistic and know it takes even a good person some time to change long held beliefs.

    Gays have great protection with California’s comprehensive domestic partnership laws. They have every legal protection and benefit of marriages. Yes, its true, there remains that last annoying semantics of gay marriage. But I guarantee you that in no more than 5 years, they’ll have it. Vandalizing property, blocking access to business that supported prop 8…these are punitive, violent and illegal means. By all means, pursue your legal options, but at some point, enough is enough. Wait a few years (in the meantime fully enjoy the equally powerful civil unions) and gay marriage will happen. But this constant “filibustering” of the system by the minority in elections, whether recounts, or allegations of voter fraud, questioning the citizenship or patriotism or what toothpaste the winning candidate or proposition uses or whatnot…its ridiculous.

  146. Zak
    November 30, 2008 at 6:25 pm #

    “The first time in our nations history that the people have voted to take rights away?”

    aaaaa…. no… that happened about 150 Years ago when fine Christian folk where chasing the Polygamist Mormons from state to state at gunpoint and enacting anti-bigomy laws by popular vote. This woman needs a history leason.

  147. Ms. Me
    December 19, 2008 at 10:26 pm #

    The United States has fallen, fallen! The great whore who has allowed the vile filth of immoral acts of all kinds to bring it down. Who will weep for us? None! No, none! The good and purity of what God has ordained has been over thrown by those who desire in their heart the fornacations of their vile minds, and say it is right and a good thing. And for those who oppose unrighteousness are killed and slaughterd by the evil rule. Know this, it will not go unpunished, and those who have died and been killed for rightousness sake will again rule and all filth will be sent to the lake of fire. Laugh all you who think this is not true, for your diseases have killed many of you, and still you go like a whore to your death. A greater plague will befall you who practice acts upon each other that is unnatureal, and there will be no cure. See, and watch, for it is now.

  148. Carborendum
    December 19, 2008 at 10:43 pm #

    AAHHH!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!

    You know, I kind of agree with Ms. Me. but, uhh.

    Where’s the love, man?

  149. joe
    December 19, 2008 at 11:24 pm #

    Indeed!

  150. joe
    December 24, 2008 at 10:53 pm #

    Bruce, (comment#16)

    “You’re not a big fan of Jesus are you, given his discrimination of women and gentiles?

    I think everyone should get into heaven; that is the nice thing to do. That whole gospel thing be damned.”

    I heard an interesting story about an evangelical pastor who felt the same way. It took many, many years for him to realize his faith had a lot of problems, and was mostly baloney. He eventually started teaching that everyone will be saved, that hell isn’t real. He called it the gospel of inclusion. He found that church attendance dropped way down.

    It really created a lot of controversy, he was quickly marked as a heretic by other evangelical pastors, and he had even more troubles with attendance and funds to keep his church going. But he stayed with it, and I think its growing, at least this is what they are promoting on his webpage. You might find it if you do a search for ‘gospel of inclusion’. Apparently people aren’t interested unless there is a hell to avoid, it kind of ‘makes sense’ if you are going to be saved regardless, then why bother going to a church? I don’t quite understand the appeal for the anti-gay clause, maybe its because the majority aren’t gay and they write the rules to appeal to themselves.

  151. Kai Cross
    February 28, 2009 at 1:27 pm #

    I am the Kai Cross mentioned in the 2nd AP story.

    Zak is right that the Mormons suffered at the hands of Christians 150 years ago. And yes, there were anti-bigamy laws enacted against polygamists.

    How ironic. Mormons, who were persecuted and denied rights, NOW persecute and deny rights.

  152. jimz
    March 10, 2012 at 9:19 pm #

    This is perhaps the favorite topic at CC. I am I wrong in thinking that not being gay is 99.99% of mormonism? It seems like mormonism is being redefined from external forces.

  153. AV
    March 11, 2012 at 1:07 pm #

    Whats interesting & looked over by almost everyone, is that there are alot more destructive & evil things that nearly everyone has already accepted & embraced in our nation & our Church then same-sex attraction or marriage. Which is just a consequences for our far greater abominations which everyone, except a few, even in the Church, has already accepted as good & ok today.

    Things like divorce & remarriage & birth control & abortion & socialism & whoredoms spoken of in the BoM, etc. Things which most members have long ago come to accept as ok & not sins anymore.

    We, even in the Church, were way past ripe, long before the lesser issue of same-sex attraction & marriage came to be.

  154. jimz
    March 11, 2012 at 2:27 pm #

    Av,
    Some of your comments really cause me to do some research. I found out something surprising. Hormonal forms of birthcontrol are acceptable in jewish law. But forms which inhibit or destroy the passage of semen are not accepted, such as coitus interruptus, condoms and vasectomy. But the use of condoms are accepted for preventing the spread of sexually transmitted disease. So not all forms of contraception are ‘abominations’. I find it rather odd that hormonal forms are accepted, as I tend to see those as more distruptive and intrusive to the health of a female.

    Divorse appears to be discouraged in the torah, but I don’t know if its ever described as an abomination. Further a man can start divorse processes, but a woman can’t. Thats what I have read so far. Its a complex subject, so It might be premature for me to comment on it.

    LDS authorities have some inconsistency in reference to abortion. I am probably not allowed to post the link I found on the topic as it might be considered ‘anti’ at cc. But various LDS authorities have said conflicting things about it.

    Is socialism specifically termed an abomination anywhere in LDS scriptures? I don’t think that can be found anywhere in the O.T. or N.T. Officially socialisms history can be traced to 1789. Later in 1848 it got a big boost with the publication of the Communist Manifesto. I can see how this discription of socialism being an abomination was missed in the O.T. Discriptions in LDS works makes more sense if one realizes the time of publication. It is very likely an anachronism if one maintains lds documents as having origins prior to 1789.

  155. AV
    March 11, 2012 at 4:23 pm #

    Jimz,

    While Jewish law or the Torah or most members & leaders in the LDS Church may ‘allow’ something or consider it ok & not an abomination, that doesn’t mean that God does. I believe that no church leader of any church will ever teach ‘truth’ that is contrary to Christ’s & the Book of Mormon’s teachings. I believe God considers the things I listed as abominations, according to the Book of Mormon & the teachings of Christ.

    The BoM does not use the word ‘socialism’ but it describes it very well speaking of our day & it condemns it as a huge sin for us to fall for & go along with.

    I believe there are some ‘natural’ ways to control or inhibit the birth of children that may be acceptable to preserve the life or health of the mother.

  156. ??????????????????????????
    September 18, 2014 at 2:12 am #

    I am truly grateful to the owner of this site who has shared this enormous paragraph
    at at this place.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Top of the Mountains » Collecting our inheritance - November 6, 2008

    [...] about the gay rights protest outside the Los Angeles Temple this afternoon, which you can watch via Connor’s blog. And most of you have probably seen the completely bigoted anti-Mormon commercial that aired on [...]

  2. Latter-day Commentary · The fight for marriage gets ugly - March 10, 2012

    [...] – Video of protests5. Get Religion – the evolving story6. Photo essay at TJ Sullivan7. Video links at Connor’s blog8. Meridian – In the face of [...]

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.