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.

“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.

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

Where’s the love, man?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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?

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.)

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).

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…

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.

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.