From the perspective of impact on the national scene, the leader in terms of mentions was clearly the Brian Mitchell/Elizabeth Smart trial.

Her testimony was immensely impressive. He was a nut — but a calculating one.

Unfortunately, it had the impact of again tying Mormons to polygamy.

1. Steve – agreed that Elizabeth Smart’s testimony was amazing. Definite downside was polygamy…

2. Gilroy – interesting perspective, but you have a fair point. The talk hopefully showed the leadership that they really need to consider how they deal with this “problem” that they have with homosexuals. Well we can hope that things will change (although I don’t have much hope on that front in my lifetime)

1. Agreed that the Mitchell trial was number one, however many main stream media reported that this young woman is now serving a mission in Paris. Many people didn’t know that women are missionaries too. Not all press was negative imo.

2. The new handbooks (both), did change a few minor things. Also book 2 is now freely available online so all members can see what the church’s stance is with respect to things like abortion, sperm donation, income taxes, cremation etc

3. Utah/BYU clash

4. Changes (again) to Book of Mormon headings

I also can’t remember anything big from the first 6 months. Must have been a boring first part of the year!

re #3: “talks like BKP’s just make things worse. If the Church wants to stop losing so many members who have homosexual tendencies, something needs to change.”

Wont happen. Book 1 expand on the message that homosexuality is sinful and book 2, that everyone can see, says “21.4.6 Homosexual Behavior and Same-Gender Attraction.Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality ….” etc Notice that it includes ‘Same-Gender Attraction’ ie it isn’t only for full gay sex!

5. Changing Packer’s talk to a more PC version for Ensign

6.

I didn’t know about the changes in the Book of Mormon.

danithew,

Good luck with that.

MCQ,

You are drawing a distinction between “member of the LDS Church” and “Mormon” or at least “Mormony” that is worth repeating primarily because the wider world draws no such distinction. But I think your protest could be tempered a bit to be better received. There is a degree of nuance here.

Iit is clear that Mitchell used his understanding of Mormonism as a justification for his actions. No doubt if he had been raised in another cultural context his perversions would have had an entirely different flavor, but given that this is the cultural that he was raised in and through which he expressed his perversions I think that many people would agree that this is a “Mormon” news story.

@ Charlie (#5):

I apologize for the lack of clarity in my last comment (#2).

I didn’t mean that I think the Church should change doctrine and policies to allow gay people to live in openly gay relationships/marriages. What I mean is that on the local level, the current culture needs to change to be more loving and supportive of gay people.

As it stands, we have a lot of messages from the GAs about how we should love our homosexual brothers and sisters. That’s wonderful. I think this sits well with most members of the Church.

What I’m getting tired of, though, is hearing members of the Church giving the same unempathetic schpeil about how gay members have to live the law of chastity like everyone else, even if they feel like they can’t help the way they feel, blah blah blah. Sometimes I want to ask those people what they themselves have personally done to reach out and support their gay brothers and sisters in the Church. I’m betting in most cases it isn’t very much.

#8 as to wondering what the “official” Church list might look like, there is always a list at the end of the year in the Church News. I can’t imagine this year will be any different.

@ Bookslinger:

I’m decrying the lack of empathy. I don’t disagree with the stance; homosexual relationships are certainly a violation of the law of chastity. But it would be so much more helpful for them not just to say that, but to also make a point of providing extra love and support for gay members of the Church who are trying to stay active and keep the commandments.

Imagine not only having to fight those feelings of same sex attraction on a continual basis, but also having to fear what would happen if it became general knowledge in your ward that you were gay. I wish that church culture would change so that homosexuality wasn’t so taboo. I’m not saying that people who deal with same-sex attraction should shout it from the housetops, but they shouldn’t have to feel like they have to keep it a deep dark secret either.

Here’s something to think about – in most wards, how would an elders quorum react if they found out that someone among them was gay? Would they still talk to the person the same? Would they feel comfortable playing basketball with him? Would a member of the EQ still invite him to go on a fishing trip with him and some of his buddies?

If the answer to those last three questions is “no,” then there’s a problem. That gay man needs all the wholesome, brotherly love he can get. He does not need to be or feel shunned; that only makes his problem worse.

It’s easy for us to say that we love our brothers and sisters who deal with same sex attraction, but do we actually show it?

Gilroy, I agree with you. It’s been kind of sad to me how grateful my nephew is for acceptance.

‘It’s easy for us to say that we love our brothers and sisters who deal with same sex attraction. (by this I assume you mean homosexuals), but do we actually show it?’

The short answer is, no you don’t. For most of you, it is smug condescension, not love, which is why we all leave. I wasn’t excommunicated, I left, and I advise anyone who is homosexual to leave Mormonism and I don’t want anyone who is Mormon to call me a ‘brother’.

Anyhow, no one has mentioned Prop 8 being found unconstitutional, which I predict will be upheld on appeal, since the case put on by the defendants was so pathetic. Also news was the Mormon Church’s no show at the trial. After mounting a holy war, giving myriad scary reasons to support Prop 8, not one representative of the Mormon Church showed up to repeat the arguments against same sex marriage at the trial. What happened? If opposing SSM was worth the fight over Prop 8, why not show up at trial to repeat the reasons for for supporting it Prop 8?

Elizabeth Smart was riveting. Beautiful, articulate and a great representative of the Mormon Church. Although Mitchell was a nutcase pedophile rapist, there is no separating these kinds of stories from Mormonism. Polygamy is still at the heart of Mormon doctrine and history…..no getting away from it.

annegb, a Mac is made by Apple and has a different architecture and operating system from PCs. PCs are made by a number of different companies (like Sony, Toshiba, HP and IBM), using similar architecture and often using Windows as their operating system. We have both Macs and PCs in my family. The girls use Macs, the guys PCs. Don’t ask me why. Sounds like you got a PC made by Toshiba, which is cool. Hope you have many happy years with it. I just got a new Sony laptop this year. I stuck with Sony because my last Sony laptop lasted almost 10 years.

Don, it wasn’t a trial, it was an appeal, and there have been a number of discussions about the Church’s failure to articulate its position on appeal. My feeling is that the Church’s arguments were never really legal arguments, but populist ones. You can’t win an appeal by playing on the fear that SSM will eventually lead to government interference in religious ceremonies, but you can win an election that way.

Don, I thought you were talking about the appeal to the ninth circuit. The trial in the district court was not particularly important as all parties knew the ruling would be appealed no matter who won. A hearing before an appellate court is not referred to as a trial.

I think I have answered your question. Again, I think the arguments articulated by the Church in the course of prop 8 are not really legal arguments, which is why the Church wisely didn’t try to make them in court. One can argue whether they have a “basis in fact” as they are largely arguments about what will happen in the future if SSM is allowed. But they are not particularly good arguments in an appeal based on the constitutionality of prop 8. The Church’s strategy appears to be to not attempt to win court cases on these issues, but to try to sway popular opinion in elections. Even if prop 8 is deemed to be unconstitutional, that does not preclude a constitutional amendment that bars SSM. I’m not saying the Church will seek to amend the constitution, and I hope it doesn’t, but that seems to be the direction the Church has focused it’s efforts lately, rather than spending money on fighting in court.

Since the Freedom of Religion is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and the MC contends that legal SSM will erode that freedom (as Elder Oaks contended at BYU Idaho), then it is certainly a legal matter that could and should be contended in court. In fact, legal SSM pertains only to secular, civil law, and the MC knows that. Trying to conflate that with restrictions on religious practice are legal nonsense, and thus the MC does not want to embarrass itself in court making that case. When (not if) SSM is legal, no religion will be compelled to marry anyone, as they are not now or ever able to be compelled, as per the religious exemption carved out by the First Amendment. The Mormon Church can’t even be compelled to marry its own members in the Mormon Temple who do not meet the Church’s standards, let alone people not of their faith.

The proceeding that took place in Federal Court with Judge Vaughn Walker was not a hearing, it was in fact a trial. The legal status of Prop 8 was determined to be unconstitutional after a trial. The case is Perry V Schwartzenegger and the plaintiffs were represented by lawyers Olsen and Boies–the defendant was the Governor, but since both the Governor and the Attorney General refused to defend Prop 8, the ProtectMarriage coalition (which MC members donated heavily to) was given standing to defend Prop 8, which they did dismally. They called two witnesses, one of whom agreed with the plaintiffs. The unconstitutionality of Prop 8 determined by Judge Walker in the first trial is what is now being appealed in a second trial with the 3 judge panel of the 9th circuit. Judge Walker’s opinion if I am not mistaken is about 138 pages. The ProtectMarriage coalition did not mention the erosion of religious liberty in their defense of Prop 8–could have used Elder Oaks who did make that argument at BYU.

Anyone is entitled to their delusions, but the law is not based on delusions, religious or otherwise.

Don, I don’t know who you’re arguing with, but it’s not with me. Are you just determined to be an asshole, whether people agree with you or not?

I’m an attorney and I can tell you that the ultimate finding of constitutionality of prop 8 will in fact be determined by an appellate court after a hearing. As I said in #23, there was a trial in the district court, but every round of appeals after that will not be a trial, it will be a hearing (as it was in the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit does not have trials, as it is an appellate court. All trials are held in the district court in the federal system. Even on denovo review, the proceeding at the 9th circuit is never referred to as a trial, nor are there trials at the US Supreme Court; only hearings), and the only hearing that will ultimately matter is the final one, which will probably be in the US Supreme Court. At that point, what Judge Walker did in the trial court will not matter at all, all that will matter is what was decided in the final appeal.

As I largely agree with you about the Church’s position on prop 8, I’ll not continue this lovely discussion. My only point was to say that I think the Church’s strategy is probably correct as a legal matter because it’s arguments are not legal ones and are not likely to be successful in an appeal. I’m glad they didn’t waste money on a losing effort.

You seem to want to vent your anger at the Church regarding prop 8, so I guess you should go ahead and do that. You don’t need my input to just spew your feelings. Have at it. I’m done.