As someone living in a blue state with blue friends and professional acquaintances, I don’t think I’ll be able to do effective missionary work for at least a decade. In some parts of the country, an anti-progressive political and social stance is harder to get over than golden plates.

[The Church has] alienated that part of California society that is moderate…we have likely branded ourselves as religious extremists amongst the moderate California population

Because of the lengths the Church has gone through to support Prop 8, or simply because the Church supports Prop 8 through the coalition? Or because the Church has doctrinal religious beliefs about marriage?

Perhaps there are moderates in CA who are supportive of prop. 8? Perhaps those moderates voted for prop 22 (which passed)?

If your basis for “backfiring” is that people will have negative views of the Church because of our beliefs and therefore hinder missionary work, maybe look at it as a preliminary filter.

Frankly, I had never heard of the “Sept. 7″ until this last year thanks to the wonderful world of blogs. I find it hard to accept the asumptions that the events you’ve listed caused some kind of tremendous backfire- Missionary Work in Africa is too good, and ending prohibition caused– nothing.

It may be more accurate to claim that this post tries to point out how the Church has been wrong, and is wrong with Prop. 8? Even then, it would be a matter of perspective(with the exception with the priesthood ban).

And you should provide a definition of what “liberals” means in the context of Sept 7.

I think the Church knows that the tide is against them. I think this is a moment in time to see who is with the Church and who isn’t. I think you’ll see a period in the near future where a lot of Church members start to drift away. And I don’t think the Church minds that.

Call it a “raising of the bar” of membership.

Nasamomdele – thanks for the comments. I think that from my perspective your question 1 is the answer of why overplayed and a negative backlash “Because of the lengths the Church has gone through to support Prop 8″ I don’t think anyone would expect a conservative Christian Church to have doctrinal views that would NOT support Prop 8. I think that the moderates who could be potential converst may or may not support 8 but probably don’t see it as a big issue, but are concered with the apparent religous zealotry involved. Interesting point on the preliminary filter, but I can tell you that the Priesthood ban was the primary reason that we were ineffective in teaching black members of the Church in New York City – anyone who had heard of the ban did not want to speak to us. My guess is the same is true in Africa. Preliminary filter – maybe, but how many people are screened out who don’t need to be?

On ending prohibition – I think there was considerable backlash at the time within the Church between members and leaders. Look at some of the talks from the time – I have heard one person argue that after this failed attempt to influence members votes, the leadership “tightened” the rhetoric on being obedient – I have not seen any data on that, however.

I have not said the Church is wrong on Prop 8 in this post and have not given my personal opinion on Prop 8 here but want to focus on whether the rabid support for Prop 8 is damaging to the Church.

As for “liberals” – I believe that one would define it as a member of the Church who’s politicial/social/religous opinions are not in sync with the majority of Church members.

#8 sometimes you have to throw the money changers out (or take a heavy-duty stand), even if the Pharisees don’t like it :)

What do you suppose the church should win? I don’t think this is about winning or losing. If the prophet supports it, I’ll take it that the Lord has a hand, also. The burden of the backlash is on those who choose to diss the church, not the church.

Don’t you think that ultimately, this issue must be addressed on a national level? One point some people made when I asked about same sex divorce is the problems that arise when one state recognizes the marriage and another doesn’t. We’ve bought ourselves a real can of worms here and I’ll bet it ends up in the Supreme Court.

I know we’re told the Constitution will hang by a thread and that there will be chaos in the last days, but I’m not as excited as I thought I would be about it.

#9 Sam – perhaps, and I prefer to be called an Essene than a Pharisee, but will take Pharisee over Sadducee…

#10 – Steve – thanks Steve – you appear to be in the minority here

#11 – Anne – I think that the “win” here would be taking a stand while not aligning ourselves with the religous right. The Church could come out against gay marriage and state they would like members to donate what they can to support initiatives that ban it and then leave it at that, instead of raising such a ruckus that the press is having a field day portraying the bigoted, ignoramuses who donate money because their Church leaders tell them to (note: this is basically how the press seems to portray us right now). I do agree that it should be addressed on a national level, but I am not discussing the right or wrong of gay marriage here, but merely, has the Church gone too far overboard. To your final point, I really don’t think that Gay Marriage is what is going to hang the Constitution by a thread – that is silly talk.

#12 Jim D – I think the Church has been as level headed as possible on this, but they are aligned with a bunch of nutcases which DOES undermine the Church. While the Church has not made a contribution, the members have and, according to the WSJ done so after being specifically asked to by GAs. So I really think that the Church is fighting with both hands.

Just because some other group shares a particular interest with us doesn’t mean that we’re best buddies, and it’s not worrisome that we’re not. It would be counter-productive to step away from something that matters to the Church because “those people” are working on it too.

This is no different from Christ casting out the money changers from the temple.

Ooh, does this mean we get to use braided whips?

#19 – they have to be handmade :)

“Abinadi, that stuff about ‘how beautiful on the mountains…’ was great and all, but now I think you’re over-playing your hand…”

“Bro. Joseph, that stuff about angels and gold plates was OK, but you’re really over-playing your hand with this polygamy thing…”

When the Church decided to take an official stand on Prop. 8, I assumed that Pres. Monson and the other Apostles prayerfully considered what they should do and were inspired to support it. If that’s true, I don’t believe the Church could possibly “over-play” its hand. Either the Prophet says and does what God wants or he does not. It may not be popular to half of California, or even half of our country. It may make people angry. While Church leaders and members should not go out of their way to make people angry, neither should we recoil from the anger when we are doing what God wants us to do. Those of us who believe that the Church’s support of Prop. 8 is inspired but avoid supporting Prop. 8 for fear of offending others can “not offend” others straight to hell, so to speak.

(disclaimer: I am not condemning anyone to hell. Just paraphrasing and over-simplifying a principle: If we know God’s will and don’t do it, we sin. If we sin and don’t repent, we go to hell.)

“I think it’s also significant that the Church, institutionally, has chosen not to make a financial donation to the effort.”

This is no longer true. Campaign finance records show the LDS church made an in-kind donation of $2,078.97 on October, 25th, via ProtectMarriage.com. Jeff Flint, a co-manager of the ProtectMarriage campaign, says the LDS Church made the in-kind donation to cover the travel expenses of several Utah-based church leaders who went to California for a meeting with the coalition.

How many stake presidents or area authority 70s will be called in the future from those those were actively and publicly against the church’s stance?

Oooooh, if you’re telling me a donation to the Vote No on 8 campaign would make sure I never got a calling higher than primary teacher or librarian, I’d contribute today.

The Church would probably approve of judicial activism if the result were right.

Campaign finance records show the LDS church made an in-kind donation of $2,078.97 on October, 25th, via ProtectMarriage.com. Jeff Flint, a co-manager of the ProtectMarriage campaign, says the LDS Church made the in-kind donation to cover the travel expenses of several Utah-based church leaders who went to California for a meeting with the coalition.

Thanks for the correction, Nick. Nevertheless, the fact that the Church has made a de minimis contribution by shuttling Utah-based coordinators out to California at its own expense does not seem to detract from my overall point, which is that the Church is doing far less than it could be doing.

I am not sure I would include the September 7/academic freedom bruhaha as on par with the societal concerns of prohibition, civil rights, or homosexual marriage, but regardless, I wonder how this episode will look in hindsight.

What I really really wonder is: if this issue is SO SO morally and eternally important, why has the Church leadership chosen CA and not MA or Canada, or the Netherlands or anywhere else the issue is now one of the past? I just wonder.

ESO, I can think of two reasons. The first is that the Church counts 750,000 members in California. It has no comparable resource in those other places you mention. The second reason is that California was much more impact on the American nation and on the world than Mass., Canada, or the Netherlands. Whichever may Prop. 8 goes, I expect it to be a turning point.

“Bro. Joseph, that stuff about angels and gold plates was OK, but you’re really over-playing your hand with this polygamy thing…”

Um, isn’t that a good summary of how correlation treats JS officially?

Jungleface Jake – Just because it’s OK to say no, doesn’t mean that the Church will willingly select leaders in the future who have been shown to oppose its goals.

arJ – I think there will be a difference between gay marriage and the civil rights movement of the 60s, 30 years from now. The difference will be that the Church will won’t have changed their stance on homosexuality relationships and gay marriage.

In a sense, the constitutional amendment would not only prevent “activist judges” from authorizing same sex marriage, but it would prevent an “activist legislature and governor” from doing so.

Wow – where to start amidst a flood of interesting comments..

#16 Jim D – fair point and I will concede that. However, would a huge donation like that by the Church be viewed as ok from a tax perspective? Is there any precedent? I have no idea…

#17 John – Fair, although guilt by association does occur when the church takes a high profile role. So we are effectively getting stinky from the slime we are aligned with – the same slime who would have no problem destroying our Church.

#18 David H – good point – how many of these members would have donated $25K if they were not “invited” to? Likely not many.

#20 Queuno – Please note that I have not said the leadership was wrong to fight this, but I am questioning the ferocity of the fight (but yes, others have said some very unkind things about the Church leaders). If your willingness to donate to a cause makes you eligible for Church leadership then that is wrong.

#30/32- jjohnsen/Jim D – jjohnsen is right that we are starting with the premise that the Church has the right to back Prop 8 based on the doctrine (the doctrinal issues/correctness have been debated ad nauseum). The post is a critique of the strategy, but not of the objectives the Church is trying to attain – those are very different.

#33 ESO – I think that from within the Church the Sept 7th was a tremendous issue, while as you state, not an issue from a broader society view. I think you and ARJ are correct, we may look back in the future and have different views on this… Good question on the silence in other areas – When the issue came up in MA, there was virtual silence here from the Church… However, I think John Mansfield has some valide reasons for why California…

#34 annegb – Phew, I was worried about that – glad I misread your comment (sorry). For California, it is a very organized approach to supporting Prop 8 – read some of the links I link to for more info. It is being driven by SLC and not the locals.

#35 John Mansfield – turning point in what way??? I am interested in your perspective on it.

#38 ARJ – I agree completely and that was what prompted the post.

Sorry about the double block quote there… Oops!

PPP _ see the Wall Street Journal article that is linked above from September 20th, 2008. If you don’t have access to the WSJ, I have pasted the article below:

Mormons have emerged as a dominant fund-raising force in the hotly contested California ballot fight to ban same-sex marriage.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have contributed more than a third of the approximately $15.4 million raised since June 1 to support Proposition 8. The ballot initiative, if passed, would reverse the current right of same-sex couples to marry.

The Mormon Church decision to enlist members on behalf of the same-sex marriage ban has given supporters of Proposition 8 a fund-raising lead. The campaign to defeat the initiative has collected around $13 million so far, said Steve Smith, a top campaign consultant for No on 8, Equality for All. Both sides raised roughly equal amounts in the early stages, said Mr. Smith, but “all of a sudden in the last few weeks they are out-raising us, and it appears to be Mormon money.”

The top leadership of the Mormon Church, known as the First Presidency, issued a letter in June calling on Mormons to “do all you can” to support Proposition 8.

Mormon donors said they weren’t coerced. “Nobody twisted my arm,” said Richard Piquet, a Southern California accountant who gave $25,000 in support of Proposition 8. He said Mormon Church leaders called donating “a matter of personal conscience.” Some Mormons who declined to donate said their local church leaders had made highly charged appeals, such as saying that their souls would be in jeopardy if they didn’t give. Church spokesmen said any such incident wouldn’t reflect Mormon Church policy.

Same-sex marriage was legalized in California after the State Supreme Court ruled in May that an existing ban, enacted by referendum in 2000, was unconstitutional. That prompted opponents to organize the current ballot initiative to amend the state constitution, banning same-sex marriage.

Since then, the fight over the initiative has come to be seen as a crucial battleground: If voters uphold the right of gay couples to marry in the nation’s most populous state, it could give momentum to efforts to legalize same-sex marriage elsewhere.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is bucking the conservative wing of his party to campaign against the initiative. The latest statewide poll, taken at the end of August, shows that 54% of the state’s likely voters oppose the initiative while 40% support it.

The battle has drawn in money from around the country. The Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic group, has given more than $1.25 million to support Proposition 8. Focus on the Family, a nonprofit organization composed mainly of evangelical Protestants, has given more than $400,000. The Yes on 8 campaign has received “more proportionally from the Latter-day Saints Church than from any other faith,” said Mr. Schubert, 35% to 40% of the total.

The Mormon Church encouraged its members to send their donations to a separate post-office box set up by a church member, said Messrs. Schubert and L. Whitney Clayton, a senior Mormon Church official involved in the campaign. Mr. Clayton said the church didn’t keep track of how much individual Mormons donated, just the cumulative total. He said members bundled the donations and forwarded them to the campaign.

A Web site run by individual Mormons, Mormonsfor8.com, has tracked all donations to the Yes on 8 campaign of $1,000 or more listed on the California secretary of state’s Web site. The site’s founder, Nadine Hansen, said they have identified more than $5.3 million given by Mormons but believe that donations from church members may account for far more than 40% of the total raised.

Robert Bolingbroke, a Mormon who lives near San Diego, said he and his wife decided on their own to donate $3,000 in August. Later, he was invited to participate in a conference call led by a high church official, known as a member of the Quorum of Seventy. Mr. Bolingbroke, a former president and chief operating officer of The Clorox Co., estimates that 40 to 60 Mormon potential donors were on that call, and he said it was suggested that they donate $25,000, which Mr. Bolingbroke did earlier this month. Mr. Bolingbroke said he doesn’t know how he or the other participants on the call were selected. Church leaders keep tithing records of active members, who are typically asked to donate 10% of their income each year to the Mormon Church.

Same-sex marriage hits at the heart of Mormon theology, said Terryl Givens, a professor of literature and religion at the University of Richmond. According to scholars and documents on the Mormon Church’s official Web site, couples married in a Mormon temple remain wedded for eternity and can give birth to spirit children in the afterlife. Most importantly, Mormons must be married to achieve “exaltation,” the ultimate state in the afterlife. Mormons also believe they retain their gender in the afterlife.

“This all explains the Mormon difficulty with homosexuality,” said Mr. Givens. In a theology based on eternal gender, marriage and exaltation, “same-sex attraction doesn’t find a place.”

The church, which typically stays out of political issues, has occasionally entered the fray. In the 1970s, for example, it opposed the Equal Rights Amendment.

The prominence of Mormon donors in the Proposition 8 fight has also led to alliances with evangelical Protestant groups and other Christian religions, some of which have deep theological differences with Mormons.

Jim Garlow, pastor of the evangelical Protestant Skyline Church near San Diego and a leading supporter of Proposition 8, said, “I would not, in all candor, have been meeting them or talking with them had it not been for” the marriage campaign. Rev. Garlow said he had developed a “friendship” with the Mormons he met, although he feels the theological differences remain “unbridgeable.”

But he noted how Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants have formed tight bonds through their joint work against abortion, and he said a similar process might occur with Mormons.

Asked if working on Proposition 8 might improve the standing of Mormons in the eyes of evangelicals, Mr. Whitney said, “That’s just not been on our radar.”

He said he would be happy to work with “anyone else who would be willing to roll up their sleeves and go to work to try to preserve marriage between a man and a woman. That’s our interest.”

—Suzanne Sataline contributed to this report.

Devyn, oh Devyn.

“A Few Good Men”. Perhaps the consummate Jack Nicholson scene.

I admit, I threw that in just so that I could steal the “You weep for Santiago” line in context.

Some weep for the September Six or Seven or however many there were. But let’s face it — their discipline ultimately has had zero impact on the Church, except for the people who knew them personally. (So yes, one could then argue about how discipline actually benefited the Church.) The people who are actually make the Church run — the people who do their home teaching and serve as ward missionaries and bishops and stake presidents and relief society presidents and beehive advisors and all those — couldn’t care less what the S7 thought. Only in the Bloggernacle, and Sunstone conferences, does anyone weep for the September Seven lost their membership over. They and their defenders act like they are freedom fighters against the iron fist of the Church’s thought police. In reality, no one cares. We’ve moved on.

Did the Church, as an organization, ever oppose the goals of the civil rights movement? True, blacks weren’t allowed to hold the priesthood, but that was a theological matter. My understanding has been that the Church, and President Kimball in particular, was generally pro-civil rights for African Americans. Do I have this wrong?

And I just don’t buy the comparison between gay marriage and plural marriage/blacks in the priesthood. It seems the most convenient method for advocating a new practice that the Church opposes is to assert that it will be looked back upon the same way that [INSERT DISCONTINUED PRACTICE] is looked upon today.

“My understanding has been that the Church, and President Kimball in particular, was generally pro-civil rights for African Americans. Do I have this wrong?”

Three words. Mark E. Peterson.
http://mormonmatters.org/2008/02/09/the-mark-e-peterson-race-talk-and-what-of-women-and-homosexuals-today/

djinn–

Thanks for the helpful cites. I guess the question is whether there was institutional opposition by the Church (such as the opposition to SSM). Maybe there was, I just don’t know.

“My understanding has been that the Church, and President Kimball in particular, was generally pro-civil rights for African Americans. Do I have this wrong?”

To my knowledge, the GAs were pretty much divided on the issue; people on both sides spoke their minds freely. Certainly there was nothing like the unity demonstrated by the current Q of 12/1st Presidency on this particular issue, and I think this level of church involvement is unprecedented. (Back when Mitt was a viable candidate, someone released a rather inflammatory letter that Delbert Stapley once wrote to George Romney regarding Romney’s support for civil rights. I think it hinted something to the effect that the deaths of Lincoln, FDR, and Kennedy were divine retribution for those individuals’ support of civil rights.)

The post is a critique of the strategy, but not of the objectives the Church is trying to attain – those are very different.

But I stand by my assertion that you can’t give an informed opinion on any strategy without understanding what that strategy is designed to attain. Things that would make no sense if the Church were merely trying to look good or cultivate future fields of converts or stop gays from having sex, seem a little more reasonable if the Church’s objective is actually to shape overall culture or legal precedent in such a way as to ensure its future survival.

WMP,

I don’t see how one can separate the priesthood ban from the attitudes of LDS on civil rights. Clearly the institution was teaching that some people were inherently inferior and seen differently by God. It saddens me that our Church didn’t lead on all issues surrounding this.

And you know this from what book, slinger?

I agree with you Devyn, with your basic premise.

And I don’t think I will be a winner either.

As a lifelong member, tithe payer, returned missionary, endowed and temple-married Latter-day Sinner who has constantly attended my meetings and carried out my assignments, and as one who has lived through some of the changes mentioned above, I fear that I see my faith flagging–not in Heavenly Father or the whisperings of the Holy Spirit to me, but in the possibility of asking, seeking, and trying to find out what I do not understand from His servants without facing embarrassment and retribution.

When, as a young man, I deplored the stand of the GAs during the 60s and 70s, I admit that I was afraid to ask, to seek, and to find out what I didn’t understand; all the while, I silently championed those who had the courage to ask, seek, and find out. I thought it was wrong to do so, and besides, it would lead to ugly consequences to me and, hence, to my family and friends. I rejoiced on my birthday in 1978 when I heard the news about blacks and the priesthood.

P8 is about is sexual intercourse and its attendant activies. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. It weakens marriage and the family, the basic refuge for children. Okay. So P8 would take away marriage, propagate sin, and weaken the refuge of children raised by gays. Everything else is speculation and hypothesis, some of the same type of thing some of the September Sixers engaged in that got them in trouble.

Oh, and Charlie, the Church doesn’t have a doctrine on homosexuality. It has a doctrine on sexual intercourse and its attendant activies.

No, the Church won’t win. And neither will I. And neither will you.

“We,” I know it because the church doesn’t excommunicate someone for personal apostasy even when it includes total inactivity. You have to publish and promulgate an apostate teaching, and make some kind of effort to lead people away, and then continue to do so after you’ve been warned.

Also, by what the Sept 6 actually wrote (ive read some of it), and what some of them said later, as evidenced by vids on Mormon Stories. They were publishing against the doctrines of the church, and doing so in a way that tried to get others subscribed to their belief. They actively advocated for things opposite church teachings. One of the things that came to mind was Margart Toscano’s advocacy for women to hold the priesthood.

It’s one thing to tell your bishop or Stake pres in private that you don’t believe in the church, or to say to them in private that women should hold the priesthood. But to engage in a compaign to recruit others to believe against the church is what gets anyone ex’ed for apostasy.

Members DON’T GET EX’ed for the sole reason of apostasy. You don’t get ex’ed for not believing, or for not ever having believed.

Academic books can be written to explore issues and find new views of hsitory. But to actively promote an antithetical (is that the right word?) view is what can bring excommunication.

When I heard Margaret Toscano on the PBS special “The Mormons”, I was hoping that the producers just cast her in a bad light, because if I were to take what she said at face value, I would have to conclude that not only was she working against the church, she still, years later, didn’t understand how it was her _advocacy_ of contrary doctrine, not academic freedom, that got her in trouble.

She came across as bitter and clueless. Not as an intellectual, nor even as intelligent, but as a self-important blockhead who didn’t understand the system of a church, any church, in matters of doctine, let alone the fact that the true church is not and cannot be a democracy where doctrine and policy are publicly debated, weighed and voted on. I’m hoping that that bad picture of her was the fault of the producers, and is not accurate.

——

In general, I’m rather troubled by the lack of confidence many commenters here have in the inspiration of our prophet and apostles.

As others have commented, when they make public declarations in unanimity, I think we should take that as the mind and will of the Lord, like it says in our scriptures, and as we indicate we will do when we sustain them as prophets, seers and revelators.

Pointing out how some individual apostles were apparently wrong in the past is irrelevant. (And many so-called examples of them being wrong are often only examples of them being not-politically correct.)

Pointing out how previous leaders were sometimes operating under limited light and knowledge in the past has no bearing on current issues. God continues to give out new light, so we will always be able to look back to times when we understood less.

There has been such a politically-correct agenda obvious in the statements of many who “tut tut” the utterances of apostles such as Mark E. Peterson or Bruce R. McConkie. Yes, some of what they said makes us cringe today, but please realize that most of us are just as biased by political correctness to read more into their statements than what was actually there. It is at least uncharitable, and possibly worse, to look for code-words in past utterances in order to ascribe the same motives to the propehts of God as were held by violent hate-filled people who committed lynchings.

In a future world when we can put aside our politically-correct biases, we might end up realzing how accurate official prophetic utterances had been, and we’ll realize that we misunderstood much of what they meant.

As I understand it, President Hinckley, throughout his life, continued to state that prior to 1978, the Lord really didn’t want blacks to hold the priesthood, and that he doesn’t know the actual reasons why. The “Less Valiant Theory” did seem to hold sway, but it was never binding doctrine.

(IE, I believe one could publish against the “Less Valiant Theory” and not risk ex-communication, but one could not publish saying “The brethern are wrong about withholding the priesthood” without risking church discipline. At least that’s my understanding.)

As I understand it, Preisdent Hinckley continued to affirm that the Lord’s will was to have the saints oppose the Equal Rights Amendments. I don’t think he ever apologized for that

And as I understand it, President Hinckley being in the first presidency, would have affirmed, or at least consented, to the excommunication of the Sept 6 as being proper. I can’t prove the First presidency was aware of all the issues, but it seems likely to me.

No. 56: DavidH, I see now, you are right, I should asked, why didn’t the legislative process work.

I would add that a judge is an “activist” only when he interprets a law to force an outcome different that what the law originally intended. You can never take an issue out of the hands of the people’s representatives, because they make the law (therefore, I have trouble with the term “activist legislature”). Democracy is the rule of the majority. I would vote (if I lived in CA) against homosexual marriage because I think it is morally wrong. But if I am in the minority, accepting the rules of the game of our democracy, I must concede the issue. If I still feel strongly about it then I can turn to grassroots organizing to change people’s minds.

No. 46: Devyn S. – I must say your comment about attorneys stung a little bit. Remember, “There are many lawyers who are very excellent men.” Brigham Young, JD. Vol. 15:224.

Bookslinger,

Well said. It is disheartening that there seems to be very little faith in our leaders. It is so easy to think of these kinds of issues on one or two levels- intellect and/or sympathetic response- when there is another level we ought to prescribe to- the spiritual.

I think the prophet has always been a fallable individual, never perfect. But that does not mean the prophet is wrong. Personally, I believe in revelation and the metaphysical miracles of God more than I believe in the combined intellect of mankind or mankind’s capacity for wisdom in bridling emotions or having a heart and mind sufficiently open to revelation.

If there were no God or Gospel in my life, there would be no reason to support the prop, but those things exist. So it’s easy for me to support the prophet, though I do ask questions and have concerns. It’s a wholw ‘nother beast to challenge his authority.

I generally agree with the thrust of the OP.

I’m not sure what’s more odd/worrying: (1) church leadership is tracking the political activity of members to weed out those for future leadership callings; (2) lay members are tracking leaders’ previous participation in political causes and subsequent calling to a leadership position. I mean, who really has the time and inclination to engage in this type of analysis? I suppose the institutional church, to some degree, needs to know about the background of people who will lead branches/wards/stakes. But, for general lay members to engage in some kind of parlor game about politics and selection for a leadership position is kind of funny and also a bit disturbing. To those lay members, I suggest taking up a different more fulfilling hobby horse like, say, analyzing whom the Phillies should sign for their second, consecutive World Series run (re-sign Burrell and pass on Manny) instead of whether Brother so-and-so was lukewarm on Prop 8 and thus his church career prospects are doomed to nothing higher than Mormon mid level management. Surely, your lives aren’t so empty that you have time to waste on divining career boxes to check in order to rise in Mormon management.

While CA sure seems like a nice place to live, I am glad I live on the other side of the country at the moment. From here, this seems like a real tough issue for CA Saints on both sides of the issue.

annegb
“I still wonder if a lot of the fund raising (ie the conference call) and other efforts are not the product of overzealousness on the part of individuals and not a concerted effort directed by the First Presidency.” This is kind of the question I posed earlier in this post. Though my questioning is really about the reliability of the source. But it would seem unusual to me to have the First Presidency so involved. Aren’t they kind of busy guys?

“The purpose of the church is to bring souls to Christ. Those who exercise unrighteous dominion to force members of the church to conform are in the wrong. AMEN! I think I would have told that RS President to go take a hike (though probably less politely) and then asked her to re-read her handbook. One of my greatest concerns when serving as RS President was following the handbook as closely as possible while still encouraging memebers to reach out to the less active and non-members around them to build our ward. The Bishop I served with was also very concerned about following policy and it took us about a year to get the old-fashioned, New England ward we served back in line with the guidelines of the church. Traditions are not always good and when they come from a place of wanting everyone to fall in line for no particular reason, they can become detrimental to the well being of our members.

“I’m mad at my stake because women aren’t allowed to open a meeting in prayer. That’s clearly not church policy, it’s small-mindedness and I believe that blindly following a leader of a ward or stake can be dangerous in tons of ways.” Not to redirect from all the politics but did you see my follow-up post to Tagore’s original note about this “policy”? I found an excellent comment from President Kimball (in the Ensign) that states this should not be a policy in the church.

In 74, Chino wrote:

At this point, any member who can push back against the frenzy in California is probably doing the Church a favor.

No, I’m not kidding.

You’re committing the fatal mistake of confusing individual members with the institutional Church.

If this thread is going to turn into enumerating the sins of the membership and how the membership is overplaying their cards, sure, I’ll grab a pitchfork.

But the institutional Church and its leadership have led a very focused support of Prop 8 in a way that serves its purposes.

I’d like to suggest ya’ll go read Kathryn Lynard Soper’s post at T&S about it being ‘cool’ to experiment with homosexuality, and how it’s being glamorized in the media. I think her post lends credence to what I’ve written on the issue of how normalizing homosexuality and removing the societal taboo will tend to increase homosexual experimentation by teens.

Kathryn points out: It’s already here. (As did a friend of mine who is in the stake YW presidency who also mentioned this particular popular hit song.)

So I’m not a lone crazy voice crying in the wilderness. A real live Mormon mom, published author even, and a popular bloggernacle figure, seems to concur, somewhat.

Also,

ERA, Sept 7, the most recent political/cultural battles had very very little impact on anybody in the mainstream church. The protagonists are usually outside the bloggernaccle seen as very unsympathetic characters.

I agree the the PH ban was much more difficult and its been the source of frustration for many members since. esp younger ones

#70 Charlie – ok – now you are speculating about sex in the next life – any data on that? I don’t think so.

#73 John Marshall – just kidding – wanted to welcome you to MM properly!

#74 Chino Blanco – yep, nothing worse than a coverted zealot is what one of my friends says

#75 nasamomdele – no one is questioning the rightness of supporting Prop 8 but how much support the Church is pushing.

Devyn S., you asked what I meant about Prop. 8 being a turning point. Here are the two scenarios that seem likely to me:

Prop. 8 fails. Marriage between homosexuals is established as a fact in California, home to one out of every nine Americans. New York follows, and a few more states as well, to the point that over a quarter of Americans live in states with marriage between homosexuals. Meanwhile, such marriages remain unconstitutional in half the states. The U.S. Supreme Court, with President Obama’s five new justices on board, steps in. (The Democratic Congress approved expansion of the court, succeeding where FDR failed.) Civil war erupts. Hilary’s Rough Riders tear a swath of carnage across Utah and Alabama so horrific that the nukes used to cover it up seem a mercy.

Prop. 8 passes. After three decades of “gay this” and “gay that,” not even California has been moved to sanction marriage between homosexuals. The movement is no longer trendy. Exhausted, people move on to the “Free Tibet” of 2010, hopefully something with a sexy angle that can make prudes feel uptight. Marriage between homosexuals remains as an old-fashioned Bay State quirk, like candlepin bowling. Chinese researchers identify the gay gene, and homosexuality goes the way of Down’s Syndrome.

Devin said to Charlie: “ok – now you are speculating about sex in the next life – any data on that? I don’t think so.”

Section 76, along with Section 132:17 are pretty clear. Those of the Telestial Kingdom, Terrestrial Kingdom, and the lower 2 sections of the Celestial Kingdom, all live “separately and singly”, not married. Hence, no sex.

Now if you want to speculate on those who are “separate singles” then start something about “TK smoothies”, and quote Joseph Fielding Smith’s Doctrines of Salvation.

But seriously, as far as I know, the idea of the exalted ones being the only ones who can have sex is pretty well established and accepted.

For everyone else, hopefully, there will be chocolate, at least in the Celestial Kingdom. (I’ve heard some women say if there’s no chocolate in “heaven”, then they’re not going, because it would be hell anyway.)

Devyn, Ok, I think we’re more or less in agreement. To get to more details than what is in canonized scripture, one either has to go to non-binding statements by early church leaders, or use a lot of inference and extrapolation on what has been officially taught.

—–

(I forget who I’m replying to now, or if I’m on the right thread. )

But isn’t the church in the business of using persuasion to get people to change their minds about Heavenly Father, Jesus, the commandments, repentance, sin, obedience, etc.? The church is all about public advocacy. It’s just been done one individual or one family at a time for most of this dispensation.

The church has a mandate to preach repentance and the keeping of commandments. And apparently, perhaps now is the time to go beyond using just 19 and 20 year olds talking to individuals and small groups of non-members.

“The LDS church has become inextricably connected with Yes on 8. Atleast in the circles that I associate with that isn’t considered a positive thing.”

There are a few people who do think it is a positive thing. Maybe you can associate with them sometimes. The first presidency, and maybe even God. Or maybe political conservatives in those flyover states?

Devyn, as for fighting “too hard” for Prop 8, I don’t agree. The church specifically did not ask members in other states to fight for this. As much as I (half-heartedly) wish I’d been called to action, I think it was wise for them to leave it to Californians to take action.

Devyn S., your last comment is the first time I’ve read the suggestion that the Church could give more emphasis to member missionary work. Church members have raised something around $20 million for Prop. 8, which is a lot, yet it’s just a tiny fraction of the resources that go to the routine work of the Church every year. Our 50,000 missionaries take around $20 million to maintain each month.

#97 John Mansfield – I was not thinking of missionaries, but focus on member missionary work. If I was asked to participate on a conference call with a GA who asked me to donate 10 hours a week to member missionary work, that would make a difference…

#98 Bookslinger – Agree that taking a stand is fine, but not sure the veracity of the stand is warranted, nor does it seem to cause any good. I am not going to comment on your opinion of homosexuality since that is not the point of the post, but thanks for the link.

“Either the Prophet says and does what God wants or he does not.”

Some members of the Church are fond of saying things like this in almost any context, but this is really a false Dichotomy. The fact is that we have never subscribed to the concept of prophetic infallibility, so it is always true that the prophet sometimes says and does what God wants and sometimes not. We have to seek our own personal revelation to know which is which. If we do not choose to do so, there seems to me to be no particular virtue just following along for the sake of following. Our faith is supposed to be in Christ, after all, not men or the Church, however well-intentioned they might be.

“I’m afraid too many members, and religious people of all stripes, and even righteous agnostic/atheists, have not realized the consequences, both divine and natural, of wholesale societal acceptance of homosexual acts as normalized. Whether one wants to take the “God’s going to smite us” route, or the “how is this going to affect people’s emotional and sexual development in the next generation?” route, the outlook is not good from where I’m sitting. So therefore, yes, the intensity and scale of the pro Prop 8 efforts seems justified to me.”

This implies that you do know the consequences, and that they are very negative. How do you know?

#100 Bookslinger – sorry meant ferocity or intensity will do. When I say it does no good, I am thinking from the perspective of watching others I care about who have felt a lot of pressure and seen a lot of negative outcomes from the Church’s approach thus far.

The reason I was not going to comment is that I did not want to start a discussion on the right or wrong of Homosexual marriage. I actually am against Prop 8 – while I don’t think that Homosexuality is particularly appealing to me and it is a sin according to our doctrine, I don’t think that society should withhold rights to a group – it smells too much like laws against interracial marriage, polygamy, etc. Somewhat ironic that Mormons are full-on behind this, when the shoe was on the other foot 100 years ago. Again, here in Mass, homosexuals have been marrying for a few years and, you know what? It has not made a bit of a difference in my life, nor in the lives of any Church members here and our society has not unravelled.

#101 MCQ – well said.

#102 MCQ – God bless Hugh B Brown – he was an amazing man and a socialist to boot…

#104 Mark N. – thanks those were exactly the types of things I was thinking about. Referring to the OT for anti-homosexual rhetoric is a fairly weak argument in my mind.

Bookslinger, I have viewed “human nature and the trends of society” too, though admittedly not as long as you, but I don’t have the same bleak view you do if SSM is allowed to become part of our social and legal structure. People are already treating gay people as normal and acceptable in the popular culture and that has been happening for many years. Is that just as bad as allowing gays to marry or is it ok? We don’t seem to be fighting those things in an organized campaign, just the marriage issue.

I can’t say can remember ever having been indoctrinated about homosexuality at all, especially in school. If one vacuous pop song by Katy Perry is having a measurable effect on our young girls, we are in a lot more trouble than prop 8 can fix.

The church is fighting for its life.

The true Church of Jesus Christ has something to fear from the world?

“I think it is pure paranoia and bigotry…”

It’s bigotry to disapprove of an action? The people aren’t the problem, the attraction isn’t even the problem, it’s the action that is the problem. The word bigotry used to mean something, I don’t think it does anymore.

Actually someone from Utah just donated a million dollars, so donations from Utah now total about 1.9 million dollars. Getting close to a dollar for each man, woman and child there. Mormons donations account for over 13 million dollars of just the large donations (over $1000) Large donations are reported nightly, so they can be tracked much more quickly.

AnneGB, there was a letter from the First Presidency in June asking members to do all we can to support Prop 8. Perhaps local leaders are pushing more than church leaders intended, but I don’t think so– there was a satellite broadcast earlier this month from SLC asking for more volunteer time, etc.

Someone referred earlier to Bob Bolingbroke and seemed to me to be hinting that he was anti-mormon for talking to the WSJ. He’s in my stake, and he’s a nice, kind guy who is on the high council. He’s telling the truth. If you take a look at mormonsfor8.com, you’ll see these entries that match up to the information given in the WSJ article:
ROBERT A. B RANCHO SANTA FE CA / 92067 CA $25,000.00 9/5/2008 Yes $25,000.00

ROBERT B RANCHO SANTA FE CA / 92067 CA $3,000.00 8/21/2008 Yes $3,000.00

The GA on the conference call was Whitney Clayton, and if you look down the list of donors, you’ll notice that many LDS people donated large amounts about the same time as the $25,000– the conference calls at work.
Or use your browser’s find tool to find his name here:
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1302592&view=late1
It’s a long list. YOu’ll have to be patient while it loads. (Mormonsfor8 is removing last names of those IDed as mormons, so that donations are still documented, but names are not quite so public.)

Wow, I cannot believe some of the comments here. I cannot believe the original post.

Is this post authored by an active faithful member of the Church? Who wrote this?:

“In my mind, the Church… should play a lower profile. As it stands, after the vote next week, I don’t think the Church will be a winner either way despite the vote outcome.”

Perhaps we should review from chapter 11 of this year’s lesson manual. (It seems that at least one of us missed the Priesthood and Relief Society lesson that Sunday.) I will not quote from the lesson, as the chapter’s title should suffice: “The Organization and Destiny of the True and Living Church”. The chapter can be read here

I don’t even know where to start now. It is so frustrating to see so many commenting as they are. Let’s start here… Elder Maxwell, in 1978 prophesied from the pulpit. (This is during some of that civil rights movement that many posting here seem so critical about.) So this is what he says 30 years ago:

“Discipleship includes good citizenship; and in this connection, if you are careful students of the statements of the modern prophets, you will have noticed that with rare exceptions–especially when the First Presidency has spoken out–the concerns expressed have been over moral issues, not issues between political parties. The declarations are about principles, not people, and causes, not candidates. On occasions, at other levels in the Church, a few have not been so discreet, so wise, or so inspired.

“But make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters; in the months and years ahead, events will require of each member that he or she decide whether or not he or she will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions (see 1 Kings 18:21).

“President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had “never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional, or political life” (CR, April 1941, p. 123). This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ.”

O.K., so that’s the preface. It’s message should be clear – straighten up, and follow the Brethren. Here’s the prophecy, that many of you are sadly fulfilling (emphasized in bold):

“Brothers and sisters, irreligion as the state religion would be the worst… Its orthodoxy would be insistent and its inquisitors inevitable. Its paid ministry would be numerous beyond belief. Its Caesars would be insufferably condescending. Its majorities–when faced with clear alternatives–would make the Barabbas choice, as did a mob centuries ago when Pilate confronted them with the need to decide.

“Your discipleship may see the time come when religious convictions are heavily discounted. M. J. Sobran also observed, “A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it” (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, p. 58). This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain of people’s opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will soon be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened.”

Well, the Brethren are still concerned about the institution of the family. And we now see, even among the Latter-Day Saints (if they can be called Saints) that this “[c]oncern over the institution of the family [is] viewed as untrendy and unenlightened.” How can the membership of any church so “heavily discount” religious convictions, let alone the only true Church upon the face of the whole earth.

The notion that the Prophet of God and his inspired counselors are out of touch with society shouldn’t concern us. We’ve been spoiled this past decade, it seems. For the entire dispensation thus far the Church has been quite unpopular with the world and its ways. We get going with the humanitarian efforts a little bit, and our prophet shows up on T.V., get a Mormon candidate, and couple of senators, our exposure stays pretty positive, and we forget that we are actually a peculiar people – at least we are supposed to be. Part of the intended peculiarity of God’s people is that their devotion to revealed principles and actions is cherished above their popularity and pride.

So what’s the issue here? You mentioned Prohibition. I’m glad you did. Let’s bring the prohibition of alcohol into a modern context. Just 5 years ago, Gordon B. Hinckley, in General Conference spoke to the Priesthood. He brought up the issue of Prohibition just to make a bigger point. That point answers the questions at the beginning of the paragraph. Here’s what our late Prophet said:

“I have now served in the general councils of this Church for 45 years. I have served as an Assistant to the Twelve, as a member of the Twelve, as a Counselor in the First Presidency, and now for eight years as President. I want to give you my testimony that although I have sat in literally thousands of meetings where Church policies and programs have been discussed, I have never been in one where the guidance of the Lord was not sought nor where there was any desire on the part of anyone present to advocate or do anything which would be injurious or coercive to anyone.

“The book of Revelation declares: “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

“So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth” (Rev. 3:15-16).

“I make you a promise, my dear brethren, that while I am serving in my present responsibility I will never consent to nor advocate any policy, any program, any doctrine which will be otherwise than beneficial to the membership of this, the Lord’s Church.

“This is His work. He established it. He has revealed its doctrine. He has outlined its practices. He created its government. It is His work and His kingdom, and He has said, “They who are not for me are against me” (2 Ne. 10:16).

“In 1933 there was a movement in the United States to overturn the law which prohibited commerce in alcoholic beverages. When it came to a vote, Utah was the deciding state.

“I was on a mission, working in London, England, when I read the newspaper headlines that screamed, “Utah Kills Prohibition.”

“President Heber J. Grant, then President of this Church, had pleaded with our people against voting to nullify Prohibition. It broke his heart when so many members of the Church in this state disregarded his counsel.

On this occasion I am…going to talk about uncompromising loyalty to the Church.

He then continues with his talk entitled “Loyalty”. This is the issue here. Of course same-sex marriage is a moral issue, it is a religious issue, it is a political issue, obviously – but for the Saints it is a loyalty issue, perhaps more than anything else. This intellectualizing on the degree and extent and effect and future of the Church’s position and involvement in Proposition 8 is sickening. Maybe the “Religious Right (who hate us by the way)” will end up liking us, (by the way). The moderates (fence sitters, at least on this issue…) can, perhaps, topple over to the other side, but perhaps instead they’ll be attracted by the energy and conviction of God’s prophets and His restored Church of Latter-Day Saints. President Hinckley already recited it above, I’ll do so again: “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.” This “luke warm” routine isn’t what the Lord wants from Israel – He never has. This one-foot-in-Babylon business certainly isn’t going to work with the Saints on this, or any other issue. “Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.” Going back to President Hinckley’s conference address, he continues:

“Each of us has to face the matter–either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.”

And so it is. I really wished we would spend more time defending and discussing the principles and the doctrines of the restoration itself, rather than intellectualizing and talking about the long-term effects and outcomes of the Church’s behavior and involvement in dispensing that doctrine. It’s as if we forgot President Packer’s famous words: “I have long believed that the study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than talking about behavior will improve behavior.” And then, as if he thought we would discount his remark as his mere opinion he declares it again in more clear terms: “Doctrine can change behavior quicker than talking about behavior will.”

So what is the point of this blog? To confuse, or distort, or distract from the real issue here? Why are we so concerned with talking about the behavior of the Church on this important issue? Let’s talk about the issue. Let’s study and discuss the doctrine. Let’s cite the “The Family: A Proclamation to the World”, out of the over 100 comments only Charlie (#70) referenced it. I invite all to read it (link here). I testify that it is true. I know and understand why the Brethren of the Church are active in opposing legislation that is inspired by Satan and seeks the disintegration of the family. It doesn’t seem out of character or out of line or harmful at all. Instead, it seems normal and right and good for God’s prophets and people to oppose confusion and the wickedness of the world. Read what Paul has to say about it, he says (and I’m paraphrasing, generously) “put on your armor – this isn’t a tea party with the enemy, this is spiritual warfare.”

Well, although I am sad to see the direction here less than optimal (in my estimation); I am thrilled to see the subject bought up and discussed at such a crucial time as this. I am happy to see that queuno is a Mormon after all (#5 – well said) and that Charlie brought in the proclamation on the family (#70). (Sorry, I did not reference well in this comment.) I look forward to more discussion.

Kent, when you use the notion of religious faithfulness as a weapon to enforce political uniformity, you distort the nature of religion, you bruise the message of the gospel, and you make our church look like a cult.

I don’t agree with the ideas that Devyn puts forth in this post, but I find the idea of using his feelings about these issues as a gauge of his faithfulness to be despicable.

Kent, the way you talk, full frontal lobotomy should accompany baptism.

HammerHead, I suppose I’ll let your decided username stand for itself, you certainly seem to live up to it. There is no reasoning with you. Every single contention you brought against me was already answered quite thoroughly in my recent comment. Just in case you were skimming my comment, and not actually reading it, I will rebuttal by recitation.

You said:

“Periodically members and leaders of the church undertake to deprive or continue depriving people of equality before the law.

“This…is about depriving people of equality. The church has been in that position many times before. With women, with blacks, now with gays.”

And you said this because either you didn’t read what was written or you didn’t believe that what was written was actually true. I’ll repeat it again:

President Hinckley’s words: “I have now served in the general councils of this Church for 45 years. I have served as an Assistant to the Twelve, as a member of the Twelve, as a Counselor in the First Presidency, and now for eight years as President. I want to give you my testimony that although I have sat in literally thousands of meetings where Church policies and programs have been discussed, I have never been in one where the guidance of the Lord was not sought nor where there was any desire on the part of anyone present to advocate or do anything which would be injurious or coercive to anyone.”

Let me translate (i.e. repeat it again): in the last 50 years (since 5 years have passed since President Hinckley said this) there has been no injury or coercion advocated or done, neither was there any time where the Lord’s will wasn’t sought after by the Brethren on any matter. That’s President Hinckley’s testimony. It is mine as well. Please stop pretending that you are so progressive in your thinking, or so advanced in your intellect, that you have out smarted God’s prophets; and that “eventually [they will come to] understand (as you apparently do)that this [their actions on this matter] is unrighteous dominion and is contrary to the will of god.” (your words, paraphrased). And by the way, in those 50 years, the First Presidency has addressed the issues of women and the priesthood, blacks and the priesthood, and other civil rights issues. They never got it wrong. And again, as was stated already above, President Hinckley “..make[s us]a promise, my dear brethren, that while I am serving in my present responsibility I will never consent to nor advocate any policy, any program, any doctrine which will be otherwise than beneficial to the membership of this, the Lord’s Church.” I have no reason to believe that President Monson would do any differently than that.

Lastly, this is a ridiculous statement: “The church has no role in politics, only in the pulpit.”

Really, where did you come up with a statement like that? I just heard, from the pulpit no more than 2 weeks ago a letter read from the pulpit that was read from every L.D.S. pulpit in the U.S. during Sacrament meeting. The usually political neutrality was stated, and then the last sentence was read something like this: “However, the Church does reserve their right or prerogative to speak out on political issues nonetheless.” So why don’t we actually hear more than we do in the area of politics. Reid E. Bankhead and Glenn L. Pearson give us the probable reason:

“To the world and to apostates, a prophet is a good fellow as long as he is dead or minds his own business. If he is dead, those of the world can play with his words and make them say anything they want them to say. They can “pick and choose,” keeping only what pleases them. But if he is living, he doesn’t always “mind his own business,” doesn’t always oblige by restricting himself to speaking on “religious” matters. He may even correct us and tell us what he really meant when we twist his words. At election time, for example, some want prophets to keep still even though they acknowledge from time to time that elections are extremely important to the survival of the Church and to our individual lives as Saints. They do not want to believe God unless he tells them what they want to hear. We more or less permanently silenced the prophets on political issues at election time several decades ago. It is an example of the “law of Moses principle”: if you refuse the greater law, you get the lesser law.

“Some especially get upset if the prophets tell us what is true or false in the academic areas. We may think they are not qualified to speak-at least “not in our field.” Some experts on political science want the prophets to keep still on politics. Some experts on evolution want them to keep still on evolution. Some experts on Bible interpretation want them to keep still on Bible interpretation. We hear voices which say things that mean this: “Aren’t there enough things for the prophets to do without sticking their noses into our business? Let them see to their welfare programs and to the problem of sin. We will take care of the rest.” So say the present-day lovers of dead or silent prophets. In the meantime, those who truly love the prophets are building up the kingdom at an accelerating rate under the direction of the prophets.”

I’ll let that those statements sink in. Moving on…

The full frontal lobotomy that annegb sarcastically suggests is, actually, addressed by Alma (and he doesn’t reduce it to such terms): He asks: “And now behold, I ask of you, my brethren of the church, have ye spiritually been born of God? Have ye received his image in your countenances? Have ye experienced this mighty change in your hearts?… I say unto you, can ye look up to God at that day with a pure heart and clean hands? I say unto you, can you look up, having the image of God engraven upon your countenances? Instead of a nasty scar on the forehead, and a section of one’s brain removed, perhaps it would be more expedient, at baptism, to simply receive Christ’s image into one’s countenance by voluntarily submitting one’s own desires, opinions, etc. to the Lord’s. However, this would actually require, as already mentioned above, the acceptance of “… a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ.” (Elder Maxwell) I do not understand why being loyal to the Brethren (which is being loyal to Jesus Christ) and maintaining a testimony that these men of God actually lead the Church aright is such an extreme notion as I am accused of holding. It is straight out of chapter 8 through 11 of the “Teachings of the Living Prophets” student manual (religion 333). I recommend a study of these chapters, and I’ll pray for a subsequent reduction in resisting the message of these chapters – which is a clear message.

Lastly, to Eric Russel (#122): The ironic thing is that the vast majority of what I wrote wasn’t mine at all. So when you say “Rhetoric such as his”, do you mean Marion G. Romney, Neil A. Maxwell, or Gordon B. Hinckley’s so called “rhetoric”? Or maybe your talking about the “rhetoric” of the modren leaders and their actions pertaining to Proposition 8. Any rhetoric of mine is quite limited, and intentionally so. I have simple presented what has already been said by men much wiser and more inspired than I. I invite you, instead of criticizing one that supports the Prophets and defends their words, read the prophets and come to your own conclusions, and then criticize them directly if you feel so to do. But please don’t focus your aggressions about what they said against me, for simply repeating their words – that’s nonsensical.

I hope to hear from more people soon. Oh yeah, DKL (#119). I stand corrected (from your second paragraph. You are right. And to Devyn S., I apologize. I should not have questioned your loyalty or faithfulness on a personal level. And it was never my intention to do so, I wasn’t being as careful as I should have been. I am simply surprised to find so many things in this post and among the comments above that are irreconcilable for me. If they are for you, so be it.

Now, to DKL’s first paragraph:

“Kent, when you use the notion of religious faithfulness as a weapon to enforce political uniformity, you distort the nature of religion, you bruise the message of the gospel, and you make our church look like a cult.”

I am not aware of the notion you refer to here. However, on that note, I recommend a reading of the Book of Mormon – the whole thing. There is much to be learned about the value of enacting laws that protect truth and righteousness. We live under, by the way, a Judeo-Christian Constitutional Republic. We understand that legalizing immorality – in all forms – is tantamount to ruining society as a whole. How do you defend the obviously good idea of making drug use illegal without taking a moral or religious stance? Why not protect marriage and family from the obvious consequences that would affect all of society if we were to embrace or support the legality and validity of same-sex marriage? However, I am uncomfortable asking these questions, because I find more value and comfort in quoting from the Brethren and the scriptures. I do not want to find myself participating in the useless intellectualizing that sometimes accompanies rhetorical questions. The Lord has already erected the standard of truth. I was hoping we would just look to that more often.

DKL,

“God doesn’t get to vote.”

Maybe not, but thanks to ACORN he’s probably registered, multiple times!

Acorn not only registers voters, but does its best to point out problem voters. It’s Acorn itself that pointed out the possible voter registration frauds. Here’s a youtube clip about McCain delivering the keynote speech for Acorn in 2006.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV9HX1Tjhyw&feature=related

Har, har har!

Wow, dragging in Kant to the round table of apostate delights, a real stroke of genius. Maybe if you had quoted someone else, it would be more difficult to identify the admixture of “the philosophies of men mingled with scripture”. Although, truth be told, there was very little “scripture” involved in any of your discourse, so maybe that is where you hoped we might not catch on.

DKL, you’ve outdone yourself. When I use that last slap-down against my many ideological foes in the future, do I have to give you vocal attribution?

AB

Aaron, Most certainly!

#113/114 mimosa – Thanks mimosa that is interesting information and good to know that someone is willing and confident to say no (e.g., Steve Young).

#116 Eric Russell – exactly my point on ridiculous – there will not a be a civil war over this issue…

#117 Kent – I wrote the post and, sorry, I have not been able to comment until now, but DKL and Hammerhead had my back. I really don’t think commenting on your studip comment is worthwhile. Blind obedience is NOT a part of this Gospel. I do happen to be an active member and have served in various callings at the HP level since my mid-twenties – not that any of that matters.

#118 – Hammerhead – well said

#119 – DKL – thanks for getting my back. And, I agree with you, even though we usually don’t agree on most things :)

#132 – Kent – ok lets look at agreement and disagreement here. I answered in all caps to distinguish my answers from yours since I am a novice at this web thing.

1. I believe acting upon homosexual feelings is wrong. YES I BELIEVE THAT AS WE NOW DEFINE OUR COMMANDMENTS, THIS IS AGAINST THE COMMANDMENTS

2. I believe that no one should persecute or bring harm upon a human being, no matter his sins. However, I also believe that suppressing immorality’s reach in a society through means of government is not persecution and is appropriate. I AGREE WITH THE FIRST STATEMENT. THE SECOND STATEMENT IS MORE TROUBLING TO ME. I DON’T BELIEVE THAT GOVERNMENTS ROLE IS TO LEGISLATE MORALITY BUT TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO HAVE FREE AGENCY AS LONG AS THOSE CHOICES DO NOT DIRECTLY HARM OTHERS (E.G., VIOLENCE, CRIMES, ETC.). IN THAT REGARD, I THINK THAT HOMOSEXUALITY AND ABORTION ARE TWO MORAL ISSUES THAT ARE NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT’S BUSINESS EXCEPT TO INSURE THAT PEOPLE’S RIGHTS ARE NOT TRAMPLED ON.

3. I believe that recognizing a homosexual union as having every legal and social benefit is detrimental to society as a whole. I DON’T AGREE WITH THIS. PLEASE SHOW ME DATA? IN MASSACHUSETTS THERE HAS BEEN NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER FROM GAY MARRIAGE (NOTE I LIVE IN MASS) – THE PEOPLE THAT WERE GAY BEFORE ARE STILL MOSTLY GAY (I SUPPOSE) AND THOSE WHO WERE NOT ARE LIKELY NOT. NOW HOMOSEXUALS CAN ACTUALLY ENJOY RIGHTS ENJOYED BY ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THIS STATE (OR COMMONWEALTH).

4. I believe the Brethren are taking the right course and exerting an appropriate amount of energy on this subject. I believe they are inspired in their conduct and counsel. I DO NOT AGREE HERE – I BELIEVE THAT THE BRETHREN ARE INSPIRED AND ARE WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS TO SEND OUT A LETTER TO MEMBERS ASKING MEMBERS TO SUPPORT PROP 8 BUT WRONG IN HAVING CONFERENCE CALLS, RAISING MONEY, ETC. TAKING A DIRECT ROLE HAS GONE TOO FAR IN MY MIND AND I CAN SEE A LOT OF DAMAGE FROM THIS BOTH WITHIN THE CHURCH AND WITHOUT – NOTE THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL POINT OF THE POST.

5. I believe that those who publish their differences of opinion with the Brethren are under the spirit of apostasy, although I do not believe that those who hold honest differences of opinion are necessarily under such a spirit, although they may be “on the way to apostasy”. Said Marion G. Romney: “[I]t is a great…thing to believe in the living prophets.” PLEASE DO NOT THROW THIS BULLSH@T OUT. I AM SICK OF PEOPLE SAYING THAT ANYTIME YOU DISAGREE WITH THE BRETHREN YOU ARE AN APOSTATE. CARE TO LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH AND THERE ARE NUMEROUS EXAMPLES WHERE THE BRETHREN HAVE BEEN WRONG AND SAID THINGS THAT WERE WRONG. MANY BRETHREN HAVE SAID THAT WE MUST PRAY TO GAIN A TESTIMONY OF ALL THINGS SAID AT THE PULPIT AND YOU KNOW WHAT? SOMETIMES I MAY NOT GET A POSITIVE AFFIRMATION. AND THAT IS OK (IMO). BLIND OBEDIENCE IS A GREATER SIN TO ME THAN ASKING QUESTIONS AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND FOR OURSELVES HOW THE GOSPEL AND DOCTRINE WITHIN IT WORK. WHILE I SUPPORT THE PROPHET AND BELIEVE HIM TO BE INSPIRED, I AM UNDER NO ILLUSIONS THAT HE IS PERFECT – THE CATHOLICS HAVE THIS DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY, WE DO NOT CURRENTLY BELIEVE IN INFALLIBILITY OF THE PROPHET – CONTRARY TO MANY MORMONS BELIEFS.

#137 Devyn S.,

I DON’T BELIEVE THAT GOVERNMENTS ROLE IS TO LEGISLATE MORALITY BUT TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO HAVE FREE AGENCY AS LONG AS THOSE CHOICES DO NOT DIRECTLY HARM OTHERS (E.G., VIOLENCE, CRIMES, ETC.). IN THAT REGARD, I THINK THAT HOMOSEXUALITY AND ABORTION ARE TWO MORAL ISSUES THAT ARE NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT’S BUSINESS EXCEPT TO INSURE THAT PEOPLE’S RIGHTS ARE NOT TRAMPLED ON.

That’s a tricky line to walk. It borders on having your cake and eating it, too. The government’s role is to ensure the “health, safety, and welfare” of its citizens. One could make very good arguments that restricting the widespread use of the term “marriage” ensures the moral health, safety, and welfare of the country. And abortion is a matter of life and death and 3rd party rights.

I don’t agree with a cut-and-dry approach to either of the issues you mention. And I don’t think a church member can wholehearted be for or against prop 8. Falling on one side or the other is understandable.

IN MASSACHUSETTS THERE HAS BEEN NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER FROM GAY MARRIAGE (NOTE I LIVE IN MASS)

“No impact whatsoever”? You must not have school-age kids.

Curricula have clearly been shaped by the decision. I have personally been privy to conversations in which educational administrators have expressed exasperation and shock that some parents are less than enthusiastic about these changes. Just one such direct quote: “It’s legal in Massachusetts, so what’s their problem?”

Btw don’t bother accusing me of being some redneck without exposure to same-sex couples. Our kids have friends at school with same-sex parents whom we have invited over.

From a talk by Mark E. Petersen, at the April 1965 General Conference (Saturday Afternoon session), wherein he provided examples of the direction society was headed even then: “There are moves in at least two states in America to ease up on laws regulating immoral behavior. Legislators are being asked to rule that adultery should no longer be considered a crime that homosexuals and other deviates should be allowed to practice their depravities legally and without restriction…”.

According to Victor L. Brown at the Saturday Afternoon session of General Conference in April of 1970, at least one of the causes of homosexuality was known at that time:

‘Pornography has become a major industry in many parts of the world. The chief psychotherapist at one of Washington’s largest hospitals says, “A normal 12- or 13-year-old boy or girl exposed to pornographic literature could develop into a homosexual. You can take healthy boys or girls and by exposing them to abnormalities virtually crystallize and settle their habits for the rest of their lives.”‘

Interesting stuff.

#138 Aluwid – “We choose our actions. Attraction is beside the point.” I would disagree with you on that one, yes we do choose our behavior but thinking that one can just will oneself to be attracted to someone for whom you have no physical desire is silly. There are a lot of scientific experiments in animals that show that tweaking genes can affect physical desire. In addition, I think no one is clear how much of a role genes play in homosexuality – there is data on both sides of the issue. What is clear is that it is very complicated. You answer is in line with the old view of the Church that gay men should just get married and that will cure them. It is clear that was an abject failure and the Church has moved away from that.

#136 – Aluwid – I still think your statement was very glib and offensive. I also don’t think that anyone here is saying homosexuality is right, but that the Church’s wholehearted fight for Prop 8 has gone overboard. Again, I would expect you would not have used that tone in front of someone who was a homosexual – that is why I labeled it bigoted. Ok, I am sorry I inferred you had never met a homosexual. I did not feel attacked by you, but felt you were unfairly attacking others who are not part of the discussion.

#139. nasamomdele – you have a very fair point and it is a tricky like to walk (something I don’t do a great job of doing).
“One could make very good arguments that restricting the widespread use of the term “marriage” ensures the moral health, safety, and welfare of the country.” I could also argue the opposite as well.

“And abortion is a matter of life and death and 3rd party rights.” Only if you believe the 3rd party has rights – which is I think the crux of the abortion issue.

“And I don’t think a church member can wholehearted be for or against prop 8. Falling on one side or the other is understandable.” absolutely agree with you. I think it is fair for individual members to behave how they feel appropriate, I just have an issue with the approach the Church has taken.

#140 nasamomdele – that is a nice quote – is it yours?

#141. moron mentality – nice name and play on the sites name – I would give you a gold start for that if I had one. I would be interested in knowing how the curricula have been altered in your school system as I have seen no impact where we are. I won’t call you a redneck unless you want me to as you did not say anything particularly inflammatory or ridiculous – you just stated the facts in your jurisdiction.

Devyn,

“thinking that one can just will oneself to be attracted to someone for whom you have no physical desire is silly”

You’re oversimplifying, but physical desire is not static and unchangeable. If it was then heterosexual men would always divorce their aging wives and replace them with younger women whose bodies match the man’s original idea of sexiness. Some do this unfortunately, but others learn to adjust to deal with life’s realities. A more dramatic example would be a body altering event such as a mastectomy. You could leave your wife over it, or you could learn to deal with it.

Not all of us just fall into natural sexual attraction/natural sexual responses with no effort on our part, some of us have to work at it.

“I still think your statement was very glib and offensive.”

That’s fine, but there are a lot of ways to call me a jerk without reaching for the nuke button.

Devyn,

“On the Nuke comment – fair and I apologize, but I did not call you a jerk! Of course you may have preferred to be called a jerk. Sorry I sometimes respond a bit too quick sometimes when I see something that is just offensive…”

No worries, my wife thinks I’m a complete jerk when she reads my comments and she’s probably right. Of course my favorite TV show is “House” so that might explain the problem.

The thing I love about this blog is the attendant warmth of the Spirit.

#151 Jimbo Jones – and your point is?

#152 SH – Please note I said “not that it matters”. I was responding to a comment that suggested there was no way I was an active member based on the post. So 152 comments and you mention this???

SH – glad I made the one comment you thought was worth commenting on… Seriously, clearly you had some interest in Prop 8 or you would not have come so what is your view?

Thanks Chino – a very interesting link and other links from there were fascinating. You really think that if Prop 8 does not pass, the Church will drop it? I doubt it.

Chino –
Interesting – not surprising as once you get Mormons involved they will fight to the finish and will take no prisoners… So in visiting your site and the links to it, I am interested to know how you end up visiting this blog given it does not appear that you are LDS (not that it matters, but most non-Mormons are not interested in mormon issues). I am interested in your story, although I have seen you comment numerous times before from what seemed like an LDS viewpoint.

Chino – thanks that is very helpful to understanding your perspective and how you sound very knowledgable about the Church but not a part of it. Sounds like the Brazil experience is not unlike the Prop 8 experience today – a lot of doom and gloom, but in the end, not a lot will change either way.

My people followed Steve Young’s people out to Utah.

Steve Young’s “people” are technically Connecticutians.

Devyn – I may live in North Texas, but I am a proud member of the ‘pound, in spirit.

Bill Belichick is nothing without Tom Brady…

What will happen now to those who got married?

in my neck of the woods, there is currently an email trail underway among the top 50-100 business school professors re: prop 8.

it started when Mitt Romney was running, with a few well-meaning LDS profs spamming the list with some get-to-know-the-Church info.

the latest reply though was from one quite senior scholar who went off on a P8 rant, demanding that the LDS profs denounce the Church’s stand.

just lovely…

Doesn’t it feel somehow right for the Church to be persecuted again? Almost as if something were missing from the religion as the Church became more and more accepted by mainstream society over the past few decades. (tongue-in-cheek)

John – now that is an interesting perspective (tongue in cheek aside). I know that we Mormons love to be persecuted so maybe that was the underlying drive behind all of this. You are brillian afterall for a lawyer :)

I grew up in Ohio. I’ve never known a time when the Church was popular.

(When I went to BYU, where my 7th-generation LDS status combined with growing up in Ohio made me … a virtual gentile. Utah ties are nothing apparently if you don’t live in Utah. Talk about persecution: Girls wouldn’t go out with you if you hadn’t gone to the right SLC high schools…)

Yeah, BYU is the only place where one’s pioneer heritage is zero’d out when you cross the state line for parts unknown…

PPP – I have not seen that here in Mass, but it is not surprising that it is here.

Devyn – It was BIG in the first ward I attended in the area. Very old time NE people in general not to mention they liked to do things the way “we’ve always done it.”

BTW0… Has anyone ever heard of having a ward anniversary celebration? Our war had its “40th Anniversary” this year. In all my life as a member I had never heard of this happening and neither had my parents. Strange, strange, strange.

Our wards in North Texas split too quickly to get set. Our ward split this past week (finally!) and when you’re splitting every few years it’s hard for complacency and “that’s the way we’ve always done it” to set in.

I get the annual event thing but my experience growing up out west was that wards split so quickly it was tough to keep track of how “old” they were or even where the “original” ward started! Here in New England the growth has been much slower. In fact, in 40 years the ward I’m in hadn’t ever split at all! Just now did they manage to pack enough people in to make it happen (and compared to some wards I grew up in, we still could have packed another 100 people in before splitting).

Devyn – I’d love to be able to attend the Belmont ward but, alas, I don’t think my income level meets the basic requirements for that area! ;)

[...] annegb: I know we’re told the Constitution will hang by a thread and that there will be chaos in the last days, but I’m not as excited as I thought I would be about it. [...]