If you’re not outraged, we’re not doing our job.
HOME •
BASE8 •
BABYLON •
VIDEOS •
RSS •
TWITTER •
GOOGLE READER
Tweet This Post! 
They’re not happy about it, of course, and there will always be that core stubbornly stuck in LaLaLand, but we’re seeing more of them come around, and admit they’re losing the war.
From Hot Air — the most aptly-named right-wing blog on the Intertubes, which surprised me to no end with this piece that is essentially rational (albeit shrouded in the ever-present veil of imagined persecution):
Read more »»»
Tweet This Post!
H/T to keepCAblue!
Must-, must-, must-read:
Our Mutual Joy Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.
Let’s try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. “It is better to marry than to burn with passion,” says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?
Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so. …
The argument goes something like this statement, which the Rev. Richard A. Hunter, a United Methodist minister, gave to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in June: “The Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman. The church cannot condone or bless same-sex marriages because this stands in opposition to Scripture and our tradition.”
To which there are two obvious responses: First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second … no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else’s—to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes. …
The biblical Jesus was—in spite of recent efforts of novelists to paint him otherwise—emphatically unmarried. He preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties. Leave your families and follow me, Jesus says in the gospels. There will be no marriage in heaven, he says in Matthew. Jesus never mentions homosexuality, but he roundly condemns divorce (leaving a loophole in some cases for the husbands of unfaithful women). …
If the bible doesn’t give abundant examples of traditional marriage, then what are the gay-marriage opponents really exercised about? Well, homosexuality, of course—specifically sex between men. Sex between women has never, even in biblical times, raised as much ire. …
Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition (and, to talk turkey for a minute, a personal discomfort with gay sex that transcends theological argument). …
Much, much more at the link. You just have to read it.
Predictably, the Christofascists have descended en masse onto the comments section — to the point that they appear to be overloading Newsweek’s servers:
Due to the high volume of traffic, we have had to temporarily suspend the comments function on this story. We regret the inconvenience, and will have it restored as soon as possible.
Just as predictably, the leaders of the If We Can’t Stone Teh Gheyz In Teh Streets Anymore, We’ll Make Their Lives As Miserable As Possible movement have gone… what’s a stronger word than “ballistic”? Anyway, head to Politico to watch professional gay-bashers Richard Land, Tony Perkins, Ralph Reed, and Maggie Gallagher wet their panties with fury.
Heh… Speaking of panties: Funny how Thomas Monson and his ever-present band of Mormon mouthpieces are conspicuously absent amid the wails of protest against an article pointing out the polygamy that runs rampant through the Bible, and noting that Jesus himself said “there will be no marriage in heaven,” innit?
P.S. to Ralph Reed: You are the “caricature” and “cartoon” here — and about as relevant as Pat Boone.
Tweet This Post!
Or at least gay boys. (Lesbians are always left out of the fun research, damn it!)
Or, as Dan Savage summarizes a most interesting new piece on the “fraternal birth order effect,” because “the Mormon ‘lifestyle’ pumps out more gay boys while the Mormon religion pumps those gay boys full of self-hatred.”
Or, as author Alice Dreger herself explains in “Womb Gay” (and if you don’t already know all about the fraternal birth order effect to begin with, she explains it for you):
Well, given the relatively large size of Mormon families, on average, it is highly likely that gay men are relatively more common among Mormons than among the general population, where family size is, on average, smaller. It’s not just that each Mormon family would have, on average, more sons than the average American family; it’s that the population of Mormons would include more gay men per capita than the general American population. Hmmm….Put that fact together with a study that purported to show that men who are homophobic are more likely to be sexually aroused to homosexual stimuli….and another purporting to show that homophobic men are more likely to be aggressive towards gay men…and imagine, in turn, that gay (Mormon) men who are forced to be closeted are more likely to become homophobic….
Well, it’s just hard not to wonder if the Mormon declaration of war over Prop. 8 doesn’t have a little something to do with womb-gayness. …
More of a most interesting theory at the link.
And if it’s true, then the solution is simple: Stop overbreeding, Mormons! You’re not only making babies you end up driving to suicide, but you’re killing the planet. So keep those magic underpants laced up for a change — we’d all appreciate it.
Tweet This Post!
Before this election, most non-members knew very little about the Mormon Church outside of the Word of Wisdom and its history of polygamy. However, during this election, the casual viewer of popular message boards will learn many false rumors about the Mormon Church. However, they can also learn many of the somewhat secret truths that the Mormon Church doesn’t publicize. Even long-time members may be learning some of the controversial aspects of Mormon history for the first time. — Ben, Encino, CA |
By Bill McKeever
Reprinted in full with the permission of Mormonism Research Ministry.
Mormon temples and the rituals performed in them constitute one of the more important disciplines of the LDS faith. While a great portion of the activity in a Mormon temple is on behalf of the dead (baptisms for the dead, endowments for the dead, etc.), marriage ceremonies for the living, called celestial marriage, also plays a very important role in the LDS view of salvation.
Like many other unique doctrines brought about by the LDS Church, celestial marriage has gone through its share of redefining and development. Today, celestial marriage merely means to be married for time and eternity in an LDS temple. To the 19th century Mormon, celestial marriage was synonymous with plural marriage. Mormon historians concede that celestial and plural marriage were at one time inseparable. According to David John Buerger, “Celestial marriage was applied to and equated with plural marriage until the late nineteenth century” (The Mysteries of Godliness, p.59). Thomas G. Alexander, on page 60 of his Mormonism in Transition, wrote, “Generally, the terms ‘new and everlasting covenant’ of marriage, ‘celestial marriage,’ and plural marriage were thought to be equivalent.”
When compelled by the U.S. government to abandon plural marriage in the late 1800s, LDS leaders redefined celestial marriage. For example, President Heber J. Grant and his counselors stated, “Celestial marriage-that is, marriage for time and eternity-and polygamous or plural marriage are not synonymous terms. Monogamous marriages for time and eternity, solemnized in our temples in accordance with the word of the Lord and the laws of the Church, are Celestial marriages” (Messages of the First Presidency 5:329).
It doesn’t take much of a sleuth to discover that this was a new and different definition. Take, for instance, the following quote by Brigham Young: “You will recollect, brethren and sisters, that it was in July, 1843, that he received this revelation concerning celestial marriage. This doctrine was explained and many received it as far as they could understand it. Some apostatized on account of it; but others did not, and received it in their faith” (Journal of Discourses 16:166). The obvious question that arises from this statement is: If celestial marriage was always just another term for eternal marriage, why would it cause those who understood it to apostatize on account of it? The answer is simple. Celestial marriage was originally associated with plural marriage, which was a difficult concept for even some Mormons to grasp.
Not even Joseph Smith was naïve to think celestial marriage would be easily accepted. The History of the Church, Vol. 5, p.xxxii, records the following:
On the morning of the 12th of July, 1843; Joseph and Hyrum Smith came into the office in the upper story of the brick store, on the bank of the Mississippi river. They were talking on the subject of plural marriage. Hyrum said to Joseph, “If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take it and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace.” Joseph smiled and remarked, “You do not know Emma as well as I do.” Hyrum repeated his opinion, and further remarked, “The doctrine is so plain, I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth, purity and heavenly origin,” or words to that effect. Joseph then said, “Well, I will write the revelation and we will see.” He then requested me to get paper and prepare to write.
It is clear from this discourse that celestial marriage and plural marriage were meant to be synonymous terms. Redefining celestial marriage causes us to ask why Emma would be so vehemently opposed to being sealed to Joseph for eternity. If Mormons want to embrace this redefinition, they need to also explain why Emma was threatened in D&C 132:52-54 should she refuse to “receive all those that have been given” to Joseph.
Brigham Young declared that plural marriage was a requirement for exaltation. On August 19, 1866, he said, “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy” (Journal of Discourses 11:268). Many fundamentalist groups of Latter-day Saints, a number of which thrive in the state of Utah, continue to follow Young’s admonition. They view the current LDS position as proof that the Utah Mormons have denied the faith since the LDS Church excommunicates any member who marries more than one wife at a time. This is not to say that plural marriage is a dead issue in the Utah Church.
It appears that the monogamous relationship currently stressed by the LDS Church is but a brief interlude before polygamy commences again. As Bruce McConkie wrote on page 578 of Mormon Doctrine, “Obviously the holy practice will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium.” To be sure, this is one teaching that few investigators will hear while taking the missionary lessons.
Mormon Lesson of the Day #1:
How the Mormon Church Mobilizes Its Members Politically — And Why It Works
Mormon Lesson of the Day #2:
Forget the Milk — Let’s Skip Right to the Meat
Mormon Lesson of the Day #3:
Sword-Wielding Angel Forced Joseph Smith Into Polygamy With Teenagers & Women Who Were Already Married
Mormon Lesson of the Day #4:
What Mormons Really Think of Catholics and Protestants
Mormon Lesson of the Day #5:
Mormon Lesson of the Day: Boyd K. Packer Advocates Gay-Bashing (Yes, Literally, Not Figuratively)
Tweet This Post!
“The crusade for Proposition 8 was fueled by the broken American family, explains gay Catholic author Richard Rodriguez.”
While conservative churches are busy trying to whip up another round of culture wars over same-sex marriage, Rodriquez says the real reason for their panic lies elsewhere: the breakdown of the traditional heterosexual family and the shifting role of women in society and the church itself. As the American family fractures and the majority of women choose to live without men, churches are losing their grip on power and scapegoating gays and lesbians for their failures. …“American families are under a great deal of stress. The divorce rate isn’t declining, it’s increasing. And the majority of American women are now living alone. We are raising children in America without fathers. …
“The possibility that a whole new generation of American males is being raised by women without men is very challenging for the churches. I think they want to reassert some sort of male authority over the order of things. I think the pro-Proposition 8 movement was really galvanized by an insecurity that churches are feeling now with the rise of women. …
“In such a world, we need to identify the relationship between feminism and homosexuality. … I know a lot of black churches take offense when gay activists say that the gay movement is somehow analogous to the black civil rights movement. And while there is some relationship between the persecution of gays and the anti-miscegenation laws in the United States, I think the true analogy is to the women’s movement. What we represent as gays in America is an alternative to the traditional male-structured society. The possibility that we can form ourselves sexually — even form our sense of what a sex is — sets us apart from the traditional roles we were given by our fathers. …
“…[T]he real challenge to the family right now is male irresponsibility and misbehavior toward women. If the Hispanic Catholic and evangelical churches really wanted to protect the family, they should address the issue of wife beating in Hispanic families and the misbehaviors of the father against the mother. But no, they go after gay marriage. It doesn’t take any brilliance to notice that this is hypocrisy of such magnitude that you blame the gay couple living next door for the fact that you’ve just beaten your wife.
“The pro-8 campaign calls itself the Protect Family Movement, even though the issue of family was the very reason gays needed to have marriage. There are partners in gay unions now who have children, and those children need to be protected. …
“Religions have the capacity for being noble and ennobling but they are also the expression of some of the darkest impulses in us — to go after the “other.” For Christians, if the other isn’t the Muslim, it’s the homosexual. That is the most discouraging part. …
“Then there is the Roman Catholic Church, my own church, which has just come off this extraordinary season of sexual scandal and misbehavior in the rectory against children. The church is barely out of the court and it’s trying to assume the role of governor of sexual behavior, having just proved to America its inability to govern its own sexual behavior.
“Look at the evangelicals. In their insistence that people be born again, they know Americans are broken. …
“Now these churches are going after homosexuals as a way of insisting on their own propriety. They are insisting that they have a role to play in the general society as moral guardians, when what we have seen in the recent past is just the opposite. I mean, it’s one thing for the churches to insist on their right to define the sacrament of marriage for their own members. But it’s quite another for them to insist that they have a right to define the relationships of people outside their communities. That’s really what’s most troubling about Proposition 8. It was a deliberate civic intrusion by the churches. …”
Much, much more:
Tweet This Post!
You know the song by now:
(in a high-pitched mocking tone): “We’re being persecuted for our beliefs! They’re singling us out! They’re targeting us! They’re ruining our reputations! They don’t have the RIGHT!”
Yeah, well, my reply is “Bite me.” Not only do we have the right under the First Amendment — that little thing that allows you to practice your deeply held bigotry — (until you find a way to take that away from queers), but I fart in your general direction at your stunning hypocrisy.
I decided it’s time to update Conservative Babylon — which I do anyway, every time some right-wing pervert does something worth mentioning (like Robert McKee going to prison yesterday) — but sometimes I get in the mood to backfill ConBab with profiles I should have done already, but just haven’t gotten around to.
The whole purpose of ConBab (which I started in 2003) is simple: to expose the self-appointed regulators of “morality” as the lying, cheating hypocrites they really are, leaving the reader to ask: “Gee, if Newt Gingrich has burned through four wives already, dumping two while they were facing life-threatening illnesses, should I really be turning to him for guidance about the ’sanctity of marriage’?”
ConBab, not surprisingly, is by far the most popular section of any Web site I’ve ever owned; it gets a steady stream of traffic whether I update it every day or every six months. It also draws some fascinating reactions, from zombie-like followers of long-dead child molester Bob Gray, to the occasional subject himself — and my response (as it was to a certain homophobe who, out of the blue, phoned me at my home and demanded I remove my remarks about him on the Newswire, because he didn’t see himself as a bigot) is always: “You show me where I’ve written anything that is factually incorrect, and I’ll retract it. Until then, tough noogies.”
So, where was I? Oh, yeah. People don’t like it when you show the rest of the world what abominable hypocrites — and bigots — they are. When they can’t convince you it’s just not “right,” they scream about how you’re violating their privacy. Which is supreme bullshit, at least as far as I go about it: Nothing I write about these gay-bashers can’t be found in some public or publicly-accessible record, somewhere. What cracks me up the most are the anti-marriage Mormons who scream about being “outed” as Mormons, how they’re the target of a witch hunt (I say, OK, if you want to call yourself a “witch”…), and how alerting the rest of the world to the fact that they’re Mormons and they waged war on my rights is a violation of federal law. IANAL, but I think they’d be right about the lawbreaking if I (or Nadine Hansen) went around knocking on doors asking about Joe Missionary’s religious beliefs and practices while posing as an FBI agent doing a background check.
Where their complaint falls apart is in the fact that their religious choice is already public knowledge. To cut to the chase: If you don’t want the world to know you donated $10,000 to subvert the California constitution, then don’t make the donation, ’cause it’s gonna show up in the Secretary of State’s public records, and if you don’t want anybody to know you’re a Mormon, then you tell BYU to take your name off its alumni newsletters, and you stop giving newspaper interviews as the representative of the local Mormon Historical Society, and you stop crowing on message boards about how special your temple recommend is like you just won the Miss America pageant, and you stop bragging on your corporate Web site biography page about how eight of your sixteen sons are currently serving missions to convert the unwashed heathens of Dumbfuckistan to the Church of Joseph Smith of Latter-Day Made-Up Stories About Golden Plates Translated By A Con Man Putting A Rock In A Hat.
You know (she says, as she digresses even further) what’s really funny, in the ha-ha way: the threats I’ve seen across the Web from the anti-gay brigades threatening to out people who donated to No On 8. Uh, hey, dummies, go ahead. In fact, I’ll help you: My name is Joyce Rogers, and you can look up the sum of my three donations ($1,500 — I told y’all I’m dirt-poor) right here. There’s only one of me in the entire country who donated to No On 8. It’s never been a secret, and, unlike you, I am proud to stand up for doing what’s right.
(Am I afraid of some violent bigot hunting me down now? No more worried than I was two days ago.)
So there, I’m outed. Bite me.
Anyway — and yes, I do have a point — back to ConBab. Since we’ve been left with no recourse in this attack on our lives, I’m whiling away my time working on the Prop 8 donor database I’ve mentioned (and am getting ZERO help with from people who should be helping, but that’s another story), and doing some backfill on ConBab. My attention right now is naturally drawn to the institution that worked harder than any other to destroy my equality (you guessed it), the Mormon church.
I figured I’d find just a handful of “bishops” whose sexual peccadillos might be worthy of mention, but what I found was an epidemic, systemic disease of sexual abuse that rivals that within the Catholic church.
But then, you don’t have to have a bunch of diplomas on your wall to know that the more sexually repressed an institution (or a society), the sexually sicker (and more rabidly anti-gay) it is.
Leaving that thought lie there for the time being, I’ll tell you what all this is leading up to: the correlation between anti-gay religionists who rail against being outed as the bigots they are, and their own deeply-ingrained compulsion of doing it themselves, to each other.
I keep telling you: The anti-gay bigots are positively consumed by projection — projecting what they hate most about themselves onto us.
So, in doing my current ConBab research, I ran across the following — which, trust me, is only representative of dozens, hundreds, countless similar stories. Via my favorite cult-hunter, Rick Ross:
Mormon ousted as an apostate East Valley Tribune/September 23, 2007
By Lawn Griffiths
Being excommunicated for apostasy by the Mormon church is one thing, but Lyndon Lamborn is livid that his stake president has ordered bishops in eight Mesa wards to take the rare step of announcing disciplinary action against him to church members today.
Uh, it’s not that “rare.” But, never mind, go on…
“I thought if he could go public, so can I,” said Lamborn, a lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who said his research into church history gave him “thousands of reasons the church can’t be what it claims to be.”Stake President R. James Molina acknowledged Friday he intends to have Lamborn’s excommunication announced to the wards at men’s priesthood meetings and womens Relief Society gatherings, even with Lamborn now taking his case public. Molina, as well as officials at church headquarters in Salt Lake City, call such a public warning about an ousted member extremely rare.
(*clearing throat*) No, not “extremely rare” at all. Maybe seldom done quite so officially, but not at all rare.
They say, however, church members must be protected from what discordant ex-followers may say to damage the church.In a letter to Lamborn dated Sept. 2, Molina noted that a disciplinary council had been held Aug. 19 and excommunication was ordered. Lamborn, 49, a Mesa resident who has been a priesthood leader for 20 years, was informed he was no longer a church member, could not “enjoy any membership privileges, including the wearing of temple garments and the payment of tithes and offerings.”
He could attend public meetings if his conduct is orderly, but would be denied giving any talks, offering prayers, partaking of the sacrament or voting.
“Because of the nature of your excommunication and your involvement with people in this area, an announcement will be delivered to the Melchizedek Priesthood quorums and Relief Society in each of the wards in our stake … on Sunday, September 23, 2007, that you have been excommunicated for apostasy,” Molina wrote.
“We need to let people know if there is a danger to them, such as him teaching doctrine that is contrary to what is taught by the church,” Molina said Friday.
Yeah, well, if Lamborn had raped or murdered somebody, that would be different — but he taught doctrine that is contrary to that taught by the church! OMG! The horror! The sin!
Lamborn, a member of the Thunder Mountain Ward, said his Mormon roots go back generations, with a great-grandfather in the famed Mormon Battalion that trekked from Iowa to San Diego in 1846 and 1847.Lamborn served a two-year Mormon mission in 1977-79 in Belgium, was elders quorum president four times and led a Mormon Boy Scout troop. Most recently, he said he was assigned to teach older men in his ward and held other roles.
But everything changed in early 2005. Lamborn, an engineer employed at Boeing in Mesa for nearly 25 years, was asked by a work colleague about the wives of church founder Joseph Smith. She had read “Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith” by John Krakauer…
Which is a great read, and, if you’d like to buy it and toss a couple nickels’ commission my way, please buy it directly through this link: Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith.
…and asked Lamborn if what she had read was accurate.Smith, the first LDS prophet and president, had at least 33 wives by many accounts. “Well, I had no knowledge of multiple wives, so I did some research, including using the church’s own genealogical Web site, familysearch.org,” Lamborn said.
He found the information concurred with the book. “Nonmembers seemed to know more about the personal life of Joseph Smith than me,” he said.
True, we do.
Lamborn conducted further research, which led him to question many church teachings. He said he went to Molina with his questions, but received no definitive answers.Lamborn has been attending the three-hour ward meetings with his wife and 16-year-old son. His two daughters, 22 and 24, “are totally out of Mormonism.”
He said he learned that his five brothers “were doing the same research and arriving at the same conclusions” and doubts, he said. The same was true for his best friend since childhood. In a meeting earlier this summer with Molina, Lamborn acknowledged that he wanted to give up his church membership.
“I was planning to leave the church quietly, but was denied that opportunity, presumably because I was speaking openly to other members about my findings and (was) writing things down,” Lamborn said.
Lamborn has compiled his research into a lengthy testament called, “Search for Truth 6/07,” in which he states: “There comes a time in the life of many church members when the desire to know the truth about the church becomes stronger than the desire to believe the church is true.”
He said he intends to continue to accompany his wife, Nancy, to ward services. “It is tough to go, tough to attend, but I enjoy the fellowship,” he said.
He said he has no desire to join another church, adding that the Mormon faith has many merits, such as its strong family values and its internationally recognized welfare system to help those in need.
The public announcement of his excommunication will be toughest on his wife, Lamborn said. “There’s the embarrassment,” he said. “Friends won’t know how to treat her. The awkwardness. It is going to be tougher on her than anybody.”
Clark Hirschi, manager of the area relations division in Salt Lake City, said Friday he talked to Molina after the stake president was contacted by the Tribune.
“Despite the fact that he has told you this is going to happen, it is up to the priesthood leaders,” Hirschi said. “There may be a letter read to some of the adult members this Sunday. It might be in a few weeks. It may not happen. That is going to be at the discretion and call of the stake president.”
Hirschi said he has never been in a meeting in his own 20 years as a Mormon where a public announcement about an excommunication has been made. He said he had only heard of one being made in a neighboring stake.
The things you learn, eh?
Tweet This Post!
Before this election, most non-members knew very little about the Mormon Church outside of the Word of Wisdom and its history of polygamy. However, during this election, the casual viewer of popular message boards will learn many false rumors about the Mormon Church. However, they can also learn many of the somewhat secret truths that the Mormon Church doesn’t publicize. Even long-time members may be learning some of the controversial aspects of Mormon history for the first time. — Ben, Encino, CA |
Reprinted in full with permission from Rethinking Mormonism:
1. Did Joseph Smith have more than one wife while he was alive?Absolutely. Just check Joseph Smith’s official church marriage record at www.familysearch.org.
Faithful LDS member and historian Todd Compton has found solid documentation for Smith marriages to 33 women while he was alive. True, many more were sealed to him after his death, but Smith had at least 33 wives while he was alive.
Compton writes:
“In the group of Smith’s well-documented wives, eleven (33 percent) were 14 to 20 years old when they married him. Nine wives (27 percent) were twenty-one to thirty years old. Eight wives (24 percent) were in Smith’s own peer group, ages thirty-one to forty. In the group aged forty-one to fifty, there is a substantial drop off: two wives, or 6 percent, and three (9 percent) in the group aged fifty-one to sixty.
“The teenage representation is the largest, though the twenty-year and thirty-year groups are comparable, which contradicts the Mormon folk-wisdom that sees the beginnings of polygamy was an attempt to care for older, unattached women. These data suggest that sexual attraction was an important part of the motivation for Smith’s polygamy. In fact, the command to multiply and replenish the earth was part of the polygamy theology, so non-sexual marriage was generally not in the polygamous program, as Smith taught it.”
2. Why did Joseph Smith have 33 wives?
Jacob 2: 24-30: “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none… For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.”
(The Lord is saying here that the only reason for more than one wife is to “raise up seed” unto Him.)
Verse 37: “Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness…”
Verse 41: “And as ye have asked concerning adultery…”
(Why is adultery an issue? Simply being married or “sealed” to more than one woman in an otherwise chaste arrangement might be bigamy or polygamy, but it’s not adultery. Adultery is a sexual act.)
Verses 62-63: “And if he [Joseph Smith] have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified…. for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.”
In fact, Joseph Smith’s original 1831 polygamy revelation, given to a group of married men while they were visiting a Native-American tribe, also explains procreation as the purpose of polygamy:
“For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles.” — Prophet Joseph Smith, The Joseph Smith Revelations Text and Commentary, p. 374-376 [Indian Polygamy Revelation]
Brigham Young taught that “This is the reason why the doctrine of plurality of wives was revealed, that the noble spirits which are waiting for tabernacles might be brought forth.” (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 197.)
3. But did Joseph Smith obey the commandment and have sex with his wives?
Compton writes:
“Because of claims by Reorganized Latter-day Saints that Joseph was not really married polygamously in the full (i.e., sexual) sense of the term, Utah Mormons (including Joseph’s wives) affirmed repeatedly that Joseph had physical sexual relations with his plural wives — despite the Victorian conventions in nineteenth-century American religion which otherwise would have prevented mention of sexual relations in marriage.”
• Faithful Mormon Melissa Lott (Smith Willes) testified that she had been Joseph’s wife “in very deed.” (Affidavit of Melissa Willes, 3 Aug. 1893, Temple Lot case, 98, 105; Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 156.)
• In a court affidavit, faithful Mormon Joseph Noble wrote that Joseph told him he had spent the night with Louisa Beaman. (Temple Lot Case, 427)
• Emily D. Partridge (Smith Young) said she “roomed” with Joseph the night following her marriage to him and said that she had “carnal intercourse” with him. (Temple Lot case, 364, 367, 384; see Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 15.)
In total, 13 faithful latter-day saint women who were married to Joseph Smith swore court affidavits that they had sexual relations with him.
• Joseph Smith’s personal secretary records that on May 22nd, 1843, Smith’s first wife Emma found Joseph and Eliza Partridge secluded in an upstairs bedroom at the Smith home. Emma was devastated. (William Clayton’s journal entry for 23 May; see Smith, 105-106)
• Smith’s secretary William Clayton also recorded a visit to young Almera Johnson on May 16, 1843: “Prest. Joseph and I went to B[enjamin] F. Johnsons to sleep.” Johnson himself later noted that on this visit Smith stayed with Almera “as man and wife” and “occupied the same room and bed with my sister, that the previous month he had occupied with the daughter of the late Bishop Partridge as his wife.” Almera Johnson also confirmed her secret marriage to Joseph Smith: “I lived with the prophet Joseph as his wife and he visited me at the home of my brother Benjamin F.” (Zimmerman, I Knew the Prophets, 44. See also “The Origin of Plural Marriage, Joseph F. Smith, Jr., Deseret News Press, page 70-71.)
• Faithful Mormon and Stake President Angus Cannon told Joseph Smith’s son: “Brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked [Eliza R. Snow] the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, “I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that.”" (Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 23, LDS archives.)
4. Did Joseph Smith father any children from his polygamous wives?
• Stake President Angus Cannon also testified: “I will now refer you to one case where it was said by the girl’s grandmother that your father [Joseph Smith] has a daughter born of a plural wife. The girl’s grandmother was Mother Sessions . . . She was the grand-daughter of Mother Sessions. That girl, I believe, is living today, in Bountiful, north of this city. I heard prest. Young, a short time before his death, refer to the report . . . The woman is now said to have a family of children, and I think she is still living.” (Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 25-26, LDS archives.)
• Faithful Mormon and wife of Joseph Smith, Sylvia Sessions (Lyon), on her deathbed told her daughter, Josephine, that she (Josephine) was the daughter of Joseph Smith. Josephine testified: “She (Sylvia) then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church.” (Affidavit to Church Historian Andrew Jenson, 24 Feb. 1915)
• In her testimony given at a Brigham Young University devotional, Faithful Mormon Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner stated that she knew of children born to Smith’s plural wives: “I know he [Joseph Smith] had six wives and I have known some of them from childhood up. I know he had three children. They told me. I think two are living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other names.” (Read her full BYU testimony here: http://www.ldshistory.net/pc/merlbyu.htm)
• Faithful Mormon Prescindia D. Huntington, who was Normal Buell’s wife and simultaneously a “plural wife” of the Prophet Joseph Smith, said that she did not know whether her husband Norman “or the Prophet was the father of her son, Oliver.” And a glance at a photo of Oliver shows a strong resemblance to Emma Smith’s boys. (Mary Ettie V. Smith, “Fifteen Years Among the Mormons”, page 34; also Fawn Brodie “No Man Knows My History” pages 301-302, 437-39)
• Researchers have tentatively identified eight children that Joseph Smith may have had by his plural wives. Besides Josephine Fisher (b. Feb. 8, 1844) and Oliver Buell, named as possible children of Joseph Smith by his plural wives are John R. Hancock (b. Apr. 19, 1841), George A. Lightner (b. Mar. 12, 1842), Orson W. Hyde (b. Nov. 9, 1843), Frank H. Hyde (b. Jan 23, 1845), Moroni Pratt (b. Dec. 7, 1844), and Zebulon Jacobs (b. Jan 2, 1842). (”Mormon Polygamy: A History” by LDS Historian Richard S. Van Wagoner, pages 44, 48- 49n3.)
There is another piece of evidence you might consider in examining Joseph Smith’s sexual behavior. The following excerpt is from a love letter Joseph Smith wrote when he wanted to arrange a liaison with Newel K. Whitney’s daughter Sarah Ann, whom Smith had secretly “married.” It reveals Smith’s cloak-and-dagger approach to his extramarital affairs:
“… the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty. … Only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater friendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I will tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. … I close my letter, I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont, dont fail to come to night, I subscribe myself your most obedient, and affectionate, companion, and friend. Joseph Smith.” — Joseph Smith Handwritten Letter, http://www.xmission.com/…
Read the detailed history of each of Joseph Smith’s 33 plural wives in LDS member and historian Todd Compton’s book In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. This book is sold at Deseret Book, the BYU bookstore and online at Amazon.com.
For some details on the other married women Joseph married and impregnated, see Remembering the Wives of Joseph Smith.
But it’s all OK, because an angel with a sword forced him to do it:
“It is true that the Prophet Joseph Smith was visited by many heavenly messengers who helped inaugurate this final dispensation.
“Latter-day Saints are blessed through the Prophet Joseph Smith’s great faith and mission that opened the windows of heaven. He was the preappointed agent through which communion with the heavens and the earthly ministry of angels were resumed in a grand manner.
“Through faith, his weaknesses became strengths, and he nobly fulfilled his great foreordained mission — because heavenly messengers were his guides.” — LDS Church Publication “Ensign,”, Oct. 1994, page 62
Faithful Mormons accept Joseph Smith’s story of conversing face-to-face with God-the-Father and Jesus Christ. They accept his story about angel Moroni visiting him.
Joseph Smith also testified of another angelic visitor, one that came to him repeatedly to command him to teach an eternal principle and commandment. This revelation was so important, the angel threatened Smith’s life if he did not teach and practice it. Joseph Smith’s consistent testimony regarding this heavenly messenger is just as credible as the stories he told about his other visits from the angel Moroni.
“The same God that has thus far dictated me and directed me and strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and commandment on celestial and plural marriage, and the same God commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accepted it, and introduced it, and practiced it, I, together with my people would be damned and cut off from this time henceforth. We have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction.” — Prophet Joseph Smith, Contributor, Vol. 5, p. 259
“When that principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith … he did not falter, although it was not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him; and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed, or rejected, that he moved forward to reveal and establish that doctrine.” — Prophet Joseph F. Smith, “Plural Marriage for the Righteous Only-Obedience Imperative-Blessings Resulting”, Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.28 - p.29
“Joseph was commanded to take more wives and he waited until an angel with a drawn sword stood before him and declared that if he longer delayed fulfilling that command he would slay him.” — Hyrum Smith, Elder Benjamin F. Johnson’s Letter to George S. Gibbs, 1903
“I know whereon I stand, I know what I believe, I know what I know and I know what I testify to you is the living truth. As I expect to meet it at the bar of the eternal Jehovah, it is true. And when you stand before the bar you will know. He preached polygamy and he not only preached it, but he practiced it. I am a living witness to it. It was given to him before he gave it to the Church. An angel came to him and the last time he came with a drawn sword in his hand and told Joseph if he did not go into that principle, he would slay him.” — Sister Mary Lightner, Address to Brigham Young University, April 14th, 1905, BYU Archives and Manuscripts (Also see: The Testimony of Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner)
“His brother, Hyrum, said to me, “Now, Brother Benjamin, you know that Brother Joseph would not sanction this if it was not from the Lord. The Lord revealed this to Brother Joseph long ago, and he put it off until the Angel of the Lord came to him with a drawn sword and told him that he would be slain if he did not go forth and fulfill the law.” He told my sister to have no fears, and he there and then sealed my sister, Almira, to the Prophet.
“Soon after this he was at my house again, where he occupied my Sister Almira’s room and bed, and also asked me for my youngest sister, Esther M. I told him she was promised in marriage to my wife’s brother. He said, ‘Well, let them marry, for it will all come right.’” — Joseph Smith’s personal secretary and church patriarch, Elder Benjamin F. Johnson, My Life’s Review
“The Prophet Joseph Smith there and then explained to me the doctrine of plurality of wives; he said that the Lord had revealed it unto him, and commanded him to have women sealed to him as wives; that he foresaw the trouble that would follow, and sought to turn away from the commandment; that an angel from heaven then appeared before him with a drawn sword, threatening him with destruction unless he went forward and obey the commandment.
“He further said that my sister, Eliza R. Snow, had been sealed to him as his wife for time and eternity. He told me that the Lord would open the way, and I should have women sealed to me as wives. This conversation was prolonged, I think, one hour or more, in which he told me many important things.
“I solemnly declare before God and holy angels, and as I hope to come forth in the morning of the resurrection, that the above statement is true.” — Prophet Lorenzo R. Snow, sworn affidavit
“19 year-old Zina remained conflicted until a day in October, apparently, when Joseph sent [her older brother] Dimick to her with a message: an angel with a drawn sword had stood over Smith and told him that if he did not establish polygamy, he would lose ‘his position and his life.’ Zina, faced with the responsibility for his position as prophet, and even perhaps his life, finally acquiesced.” (In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, page 80-81)
Some questions to ponder:
1. Did Smith’s free agency matter to Heavenly Father?
2. Why didn’t the angels appear to anyone but Smith (i.e., the women)?
3. Did the women’s free agency matter to Smith OR Heavenly Father?
4. Theoretically, wouldn’t marrying ONE other woman “establish” the law of plural marriage?
5. If Smith were sent to establish a law, why didn’t he do any of it in the light of day? Why didn’t he lawfully petition governments, argue before the judiciary, and take care of some of the difficult footwork necessary in order to establish the — let’s use the word correctly now — law?
6. How can a father’s salvation be assured through a daughter’s marriage to Smith, if we also hold the Articles of Faith to be true?
7. Smith foresaw the trouble polygamy would cause, but the Lord giving the commandment didn’t?
Mormon Lesson of the Day #1:
How the Mormon Church Mobilizes Its Members Politically — And Why It Works
Mormon Lesson of the Day #2:
Forget the Milk — Let’s Skip Right to the Meat
Tweet This Post!
Before this election, most non-members knew very little about the Mormon Church outside of the Word of Wisdom and its history of polygamy. However, during this election, the casual viewer of popular message boards will learn many false rumors about the Mormon Church. However, they can also learn many of the somewhat secret truths that the Mormon Church doesn’t publicize. Even long-time members may be learning some of the controversial aspects of Mormon history for the first time. — Ben, Encino, CA |
The concept of milk before meat is meant to teach people about the easy to believe, and easy to understand Mormon doctrine (milk) before they are baptized, and then give them the hard to believe and understand (meat) after they have already made the commitment to the church.People taking lessons from Mormon Missionaries are not taught about how the translation of the Book of Mormon happened, Kolob, Temple Garments, and many other things until after they have been dunked.
— WindySydney
Milk Before Meat
List of Meats The events surrounding the Tower of Babel actually did happen. Until then, everyone spoke the Adamic language. And when the tower was built, a group of faithful people (who had prayed to have their language preserved) fled to the Americas and crossed the Atlantic in supersonic submarines with windows and shining stones. These were the Jaredites. (See Book of Ether in the Book of Mormon.) But they were all killed, just like the white Nephites, and that is why we don’t have any traces of their civilization, or any white descendants among the native populations of the Americas. (Only the descendants of the cursed group, the Lamanites, who did not pay tithing or live the Word of Wisdom or the Law of Chastity, so they ceased to be white and delightsome and became brown as Cain.)
All the structure, practices and rituals that exist today in the Mormon Church have existed since Adam. Baptism, for example. Adam was baptized, just like any Mormon today, by immersion. The Spirit dunked him in the water, and then brought him back to the surface. [”Pearl of Great Price”] …
The scriptures and leaders say that we will have to wait until the Final Judgement in order to be assigned a kingdom of glory. Till then, every one is waiting, either in Paradise or in the Spirit Prison. However, Doctrine and Convenants says that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are already gods. And I have already heard leaders say that Joseph Smith has also become a god already. Maybe they sneaked their way in.
Families are sealed forever, and parents take great pride in the fact that their children are sealed to them. But eventually each child will also become a god in another planet, and there will be no such thing as a parent-child relationship as we have today. Every “worthy” member will be a god in some different universe. …
Men cannot get to the highest degree of glory alone, and neither can women. Marriage is essential. Bachelors and spinsters will be damned and will eternally burn in a lake of fire and brimstone, where there is weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth. Oh, but spinsters will be shown some mercy. If they pay their tithings and abstain from cappuccinos until their last breath in mortality, the Lard will be kind enough to give them a man in the afterlife - but she will be just one of many wives of this faithful stud. (One more pearl in his crown.) As for bachelors, they did not honor their penishood, so they will have to scrub heavenly toilets, sweep celestial floors and take out Kolobian garbage for the rest of the eternities. If they are gifted enough, they might be allowed to play the trumpet to praise and honor the ones who actually married forty wives and now seat in thrones of glory. (Or are lying in celestial beds having sex in order to populate worlds with spirit children.)
Everyone will be resurrected. Everyone will have a perfect body for the rest of eternity, whether they end up in the celestial kingdom or elsewhere. So those who eventually become gods will have physical bodies and will have actual sex in order to make spirit babies to populate their planets. So a man and a woman will have physical sex, and the woman will get pregnant, but the child will actually be a spirit. After nine months expecting her little ghost, the ethereal baby is born and starts standing in line to be sent to some planet in order to finally get a physical body. This ghost has to wait until another couple in some planet has sex so he can again enter a womb. And the story goes on.
The Church is so family-oriented!!! But if you don’t pay one of tenth of your income, do not give up your Coca-cola [in some areas] or do not stop playing with yourself, you won’t be able to attend the wedding of a sibling or a child in the holy temple. And the only way to ever see your family again in the afterlife is to pay, pray and obey until the end. Any minor mistake, and you are alone for ever.
Even if science shows the existence of hermaphrodites, transexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals (and even common sense just cannot deny it), there is no such thing according to Church doctrine. Gender was assigned since the pre-existence, and there are no mistakes whatsoever about it. (See the Proclamation on the Family.) People in the world can be born with all shades of hair color, skin color and eye color, all heights and weights, all kinds of differences (left-handedness, colorblindness), physical problems and disabilities (blindness, deafness, inability to walk, Down syndrome, all kinds of mental disabilities), but in gender there is no exception and no diversity at all. You are either a boy (who obviously is supposed to like girls) or a girl (who is obviously supposed to like boys). God would NEVER make a mistake about it…
. . .
Although leaders do not want to talk about it, they do admit that there is a Heavenly Mother. Maybe the reason why they do not want to talk about it is because actually there are thousands of Heavenly Mothers!!!! After all, God, being an exalted man, is worthy enough to have hundreds of wives. So the human race has hundreds, thousands or maybe millions of heavenly mothers, depending on the horniness of their polygamous god.
Joseph Smith saw God the Father, Jesus Christ, and received dozens of other angelic visits (Moses, Elijah, Peter, James, John, John the Baptist, etc) But in order to “translate” the Book of Mormon, he still needed to resort to magical devices (a kind of 19th century crystal ball) and to wear a breastplate with supernatural powers.
The golden plates were written by Jews who had fled to the American continent and spoke and wrote in Reformed Egyptian fluently, even after centuries and centuries of isolation. Not only were they prophets, but they were all experienced linguists and goldsmiths. Plus, the golden plates, upon which earthly prophets had carved inspired messages for thousands of years, lay hidden in Cumorah for over a thousand years. But then, for some reason, the Lard decided to send an angel to take them back in his wings and hie to Kolob.
Joseph Smith really did not want to start polygamy, but a powerful angel with a sword threatened him and made him do it.
More at the link — including:
• Magic underwear;
• The secret password and handshake to get into Heaven;
• God’s planet near the star Kolob;
• Baptism of the dead;
• How God used to be an actual flesh-and-bones man, and how He had actual sex with Mary;
• How the Holy Ghost isn’t part of the Holy Trinity, which doesn’t exist;
• How all other religions are of the Devil;
• People live on the sun and the moon;
• Dinosaur fossils = Satan’s trickery;
• The world began and will end in Missouri;
• God speaks English;
• Jesus was married with children (lots and lots of children);
• Jesus and the Apostles wore green aprons and baker’s hats;
• The gravity-defying city of Enoch;
• How God’s laws never change, until the current LDS President says they do;
• and much more!
Tweet This Post!
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. — Sun Tzu |
We’re going to start learning about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you and I — for the simple reason Sun Tzu — who knew just about everything there was to know about winning (which is why his treatise on war is recommended, if not required, reading for U.S. military officers and corporative executives alike) — states at left.
In fact, we’re going to post a new “Mormon Lesson of the Day,” every day, from now on, until… well, until we no longer need to. Some of these “lessons” (like this one) may be a bit dry, but many, I promise, will have your jaw hitting your chest — and all will arm you with the knowledge you need if we, together, are to stem the ongoing attack on our fundamental civil rights by a breathtakingly powerful organization which doesn’t like the truth to be known (especially by its own members).
I expect to receive many angry responses from Mormons who will cry persecution and call us “anti-Mormons” and “anti-religionists,” but there is no vendetta here; our purpose is to expose the real agenda of the Mormon church as it pertains to the subversion of civil rights, from marriage equality to freedom of speech to freedom of assembly, and well beyond, for one reason and one reason only:
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.”
As I wrote not long ago (in a post, or in comments to a post — I don’t remember where now), our only goal is equality, and always has been; we never set out to find or create a common enemy, as is utterly necessary for all conservative religions to do in order to keep their flocks chained, and obedient, through fear. (If you don’t understand why they need an enemy, read Chris Hedges’ American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America, and you will have the key to the entire mindset.)
We did not set out to make the Mormon church, or any other church, or any other organization, or any individual, our enemy. The Mormon church made itself our enemy. They didn’t have to, and the repercussions of leaving us alone to live our lives in peace were nonexistent.
But as they have drawn the battle lines, we have no choice but to do everything in our power, legally, peacefully, nonviolently, to stop the encroachment of their peculiar beliefs into our government, into our lives, into our families.
The only place to begin is to understand who they are, what they want, and why they do what they do. These are not things they want you to know — and there’s a reason for that: I expect the LDS leadership subscribes to the philosophy — the very successful philosophy — of Sun Tzu, too.
That’s said, let’s begin with excerpts from a paper (made available by our tireless friend and hero, Chino Blanco) presented at the Conference on Religion and American Political Behavior, Southern Methodist University, October 4, 2002:
This paper was written by the pro-Mormon side; J. Quin Monson (can anyone tell us his relationship to current LDS President Thomas S. Monson?) teaches political science at Brigham Young University, and David E. Campbell teaches political science at the University of Notre Dame:
. . .In addition to their size and growth rate, the geographic concentration of Mormons in many Western states makes Mormon voters a potentially formidable electoral bloc. Utah, settled by Mormons and home of the LDS Church’s world headquarters, has a population that is two-thirds LDS. Even beyond Utah, however, Mormons congregate in substantial numbers. They constitute 27 percent of the population in Idaho, 10 percent in Wyoming, 7 percent in Nevada, and 5 percent in Arizona. Even in areas where Mormons are not as numerous, they nonetheless have a considerable share of the religious market. In the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, for example, there are twice as many Mormons (40,000) as Missouri Synod Lutherans.
The potential potency of a Mormon electoral bloc is not merely a theoretical proposition. Mansbridge (1986), for example, credits Mormon voters as instrumental in the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment in some key states near the end of its ratification period. In particular, Mormons have played an important role in the politics of various Western states. In California, for example, LDS Church members were urged by church leaders not only to vote for Proposition 22 (a ban on gay marriages) in 2000, but also to become actively involved in the campaign (Coile 1999; Salladay 1999). Latter-day Saints in other states have also been involved in advocating ballot initiatives banning same-sex marriages, including active support for efforts in Hawaii, Alaska, and Nevada. Mormon political involvement has also been observed outside of the Western states, as the Mormon Church has supported an anti-same sex marriage initiative in Nebraska and opposed riverboat gambling in Ohio.
. . .
We seek to contribute to the expanding literature on America’s religious mosaic by presenting a political profile of American Mormons, with particular attention paid to how the LDS Church mobilizes its members on select political issues. …
. . .
Our discussion of Mormon mobilization relies on a metaphor, what we call the “dry kindling” effect. By this we mean that Mormons have great potential for political activity. Like kindling they can be lit, ignited by the spark of explicit direction from their church leaders. However, much of the flammability is due to the relative infrequency with which Mormons are mobilized by their church leaders. …
. . .
In two words, Mormons are conservative and cohesive. For example, in the 2000 presidential election the Third National Survey of Religion and Politics found that 88 percent of Mormons voted for George W. Bush, exceeding the 84 percent of observant white evangelicals who voted for the Bush-Cheney ticket (Green et al. 2001).
There is great historical irony in the fact that contemporary Mormons are such loyal Republicans. When it was founded in the 1850s, the Republican Party had as its aim the elimination of what the 1856 party platform called the “twin relics of barbarism” – slavery and polygamy. The reference to polygamy was a direct attack on the Mormons, as they were reviled nationally for this practice (which was officially repudiated by the church in 1890).
That all seems to be water under the bridge, as Mormons have become increasingly Republican in both their partisanship and voting patterns. … In terms of institutional structure, the LDS Church has much in common with the Catholic Church. But in terms of their cultural worldview, Mormons are more like Southern Baptists (or at least like Southern Baptists are often portrayed).
…[I]n the 1970s, roughly half of Mormons identified as Republicans, climbing to 60 percent in the 1990s. While Catholics and Southern Baptists show a similarly sloping upward line, the percentage of Republicans in both groups is about twenty-five to thirty percentage points lower than among Mormons in all three decades.
Mormons not only identify as Republicans; they vote for them too. … For example, in the 1990s 65 percent of Mormons voted for GOP candidates, while nationally the average was 39 percent. … We see, therefore, that even though the percentage of Mormons voting for Republican presidential candidates fell from 75 percent to 65 percent between the 1980s and 1990s, Republican support in the general electorate fell even more sharply (which should be obvious from the fact that a Democrat won the presidential elections in 1992 and 1996, and the popular vote in 2000). While Catholics and Southern Baptists, relative to everyone else, also became more likely to vote Republican, again we see that Mormons lean much more heavily toward the GOP.
While it is perhaps a historical irony that contemporary Mormons favor Republicans, history teaches us that we should not be surprised to see that Mormons are homogeneous in their political leanings. Political unity among Mormons has deep historical roots. In the 1830s and 1840s, one of the charges leveled at Mormon settlers in Missouri and Illinois was that they voted as a bloc. In fact, in 1838 fears of Mormon bloc voting led non-Mormons to thwart Mormon voters’ attempts to cast ballots in Gallatin, Missouri. The resulting riot led the governor of Missouri, Lilburn W. Boggs, to issue an order that the Mormons must be driven from the state or “exterminated” (Arrington and Bitton 1979, 51). Faced with this choice the Mormons opted to leave the state, crossing the Mississippi River to found the city of Nauvoo, Illinois. But their bloc voting continued. In the 1840s Mormon leaders, church founder Joseph Smith particularly, were courted by candidates of different parties vying for the cohesive Mormon vote. When the Mormons settled in Utah, the church actually had its own political party (the People’s Party), which dominated state politics until it was disbanded in 1891 by church leaders who saw that Utah’s unique political landscape was an impediment to efforts to achieve statehood. Owing to the historical antipathy many Mormons felt toward the Republican Party, Utah became a predominantly Democratic state. Concerned that the one-partyism of Utah was still an obstacle to becoming a state, LDS Church leaders “encouraged the development of the Republican party among church members” (Barrus 1992, 1102) [see also (Larson and Poll 1989; Lyman 1986, 150-184)]. These efforts were quite successful and the Mormon Church, as reflected in the politics of Utah, enjoyed a relatively healthy balance between the two parties throughout much of the 20th century, at least until the 1980s. Prominent church leaders were affiliated with both parties. …
. . .
While LDS leaders may wish to see greater partisan diversity among Mormons, their conservative leanings on social issues makes the Republican Party their natural home. As one example of their conservatism on an issue that has resonated in the so-called “culture war,” Latter-day Saints generally take a traditionalist view regarding the role of women in society. …
. . .
However, among Mormons, Southern Baptists, and Catholics, only the Mormons became – relative to the rest of the nation – more culturally conservative from the 1970s to the 1990s. In the 1970s, 38 percent of Mormons chose a traditionalist view of gender roles, while by the 1990s that had dropped to 29 percent. 8 In contrast, the national average fell from 27 to 12 percent. In other words, the mean for Mormons in the 1990s is about the same as the national average during the 1970s.
. . .
Religious Participation and Political Activity
The social distinctiveness of Mormons goes hand in hand with the distinctive level of commitment Latter-day Saints make to their church. … Members of strict churches are able to overcome collective action dilemmas because the distinctive lifestyle expected of members—abstinence from alcohol, regulation of sexual behavior, etc.—screens out free riders. In order to ensure compliance with their behavioral guidelines, strict churches
penalize or prohibit alternative activities that compete for members’ resources. In mixed populations, such penalties and prohibitions tend to screen out the less committed members. They act like entry fees and thus discourage anyone not seriously interested in buying the product. Only those willing to pay the price remain. (Iannaccone 1994, 1187)
Members of strict churches are thus expected to devote significant amounts of time and energy into volunteer activity for their faith, reinforcing these social networks (Wuthnow 1999). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a quintessentially strict church (Campbell 2003).
Even a brief description of the expectations placed upon members of the LDS Church underscores the level of commitment required within the Mormon faith. The Mormon Church asks for a considerable investment of time from its laity. First, Mormons are expected to spend a significant amount of time at church meetings—members of the LDS Church attend three consecutive meetings on Sundays, lasting for a total of three hours. Mormons may also spend considerable time traveling to and worshiping in LDS temples, which are distinct from the Sunday meetings held in the more numerous church meetinghouses. In addition to the time spent attending these church meetings, adult Mormons usually receive an assignment within the local congregation. This might include arising at the crack of dawn to teach high school students about LDS doctrine before they go to school. It might be organizing local proselytizing efforts, or participating in one of the church’s welfare activities. On top of these specialized assignments, each Mormon is also assigned a set of other members of the local congregation to visit every month, to ensure that their needs are being met by the church. Furthermore, many Mormons spend up to two years in full-time missionary work while young or when retired. This list, which is far from exhaustive, hopefully provides a sense that the Mormon Church has high expectations for the amount of time its members invest in the church’s activities.
These investments of time and energy are also accompanied by a considerable financial commitment as Mormons are taught that they must pay a literal tithe, or ten percent of their income, to the church. In addition to their tithes, many Mormons also contribute to other funds operated by the church, particularly one set aside for the assistance of the poor in their local communities.
. . .
An implication that follows from the intensive church involvement of Mormons is that their church activity provides training in what Verba, Schlozman, and Brady (1995) call “civic skills.” These are the quotidian tasks that constitute the practice of civic involvement – holding meetings, giving speeches, writing letters, etc. They find that training in these skills is an important resource leading to political activity, and that such training is often provided by churches. …
. . .
But does their religious involvement pull them into political activity, as the dry kindling hypothesis suggests? …
. . .
As expected, we see that … The more Mormons are involved in their church, the more they are involved in politics. … Interestingly, Mormons with the lowest level of religious participation have a slightly lower rate of political activity than Southern Baptists or Catholics who have the same level of religious involvement. Mormons have the steepest sloping line, however, and so at the highest level of religious participation, they have the highest level of political involvement.
In sum… the intensive church involvement of Mormons facilitates their capacity to be politically involved. It is important that we note, however, that the higher rate of political activity of Mormons who are fully engaged with their church is not generally due to explicit mobilization on the part of LDS leaders. As we will explain in greater detail below, such direction comes infrequently. Instead, the high rate of political activity among participating Mormons is far more likely to be due to the civic skills and social networks they foster through their church activity.
Political Mobilization
The third component of the dry kindling effect centers on the emphasis within Mormonism on adherence to the instructions of the church’s leaders. These instructions are generally affirmations of LDS doctrine, but on rare — and thus significant — occasions also include direction on political matters.
Strictly in terms of its organizational structure, the LDS Church is reminiscent of the Catholic Church; it is centralized and hierarchical, with clear lines of authority. Like the Catholics, Mormons have a single leader for the entire organization. The LDS Church is led by a president, a position that is simultaneously both ecclesiastical and administrative in nature. In Mormon parlance, the president of the church is a “prophet, seer, and revelator,” and the only person entitled to receive divine instruction pertaining to the church as a whole. Mormons pay close attention to the speeches he delivers and books and articles he writes. Adherence to the prophet’s instructions in all matters is a hallmark of Mormon religious observance, including in regards to political questions. For example, in an oft-cited address to students at church-owned Brigham Young University, Elder Ezra Taft Benson – at the time next in line to become president of the LDS Church and someone who had been visibly active in political causes – emphasized that the church president’s counsel is not necessarily restricted to spiritual matters, but may extend to political issues as well (Benson 1980). Speaking of the LDS Church’s involvement in legislative and electoral politics, current LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley more recently explained the reasoning behind the church’s occasional involvement in politics by saying, “…we deal only with those legislative matters which are of a strictly moral nature or which directly affect the welfare of the Church…We regard it as not only our right but our duty to oppose those forces which we feel undermine the moral fiber of society” (Hinckley 1999).
The president of the LDS Church is at the apex of an organization with a clearly defined chain of command. He is assisted by two “counselors,” (somewhat like vice presidents). These three men comprise the First Presidency, the church’s highest governing body. Immediately below the First Presidency in both stature and decisionmaking authority is a group of twelve church officials known as the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Collectively these church officials are known as general authorities. The general authorities oversee the global operations of the LDS Church, which is divided into geographic units. Their role is administrative as well as pastoral, as they are the key policy-making body for the entire church. Individual congregations, known as wards, are run entirely by lay members, under the close oversight of the church’s general authorities. Local leaders receive instruction from the church’s leaders through periodic visits by general authorities and training sessions broadcast on the church’s satellite network. Day-to-day operations are governed by a handbook of instruction and policies, which local leaders are advised to consult regularly. In short, within the LDS Church the doctrinal principle that church members should “follow their leaders” is not merely an abstract platitude. It is embodied within both the doctrine and the institutional structure of the organization.
The centralized organization and small cohesive congregations that characterize the LDS Church mean that church members can be rapidly mobilized when necessary. When natural disasters strike, for example, the LDS Church is often among the first groups within a community to render aid (Arrington, Fox, and May 1976). In theory, this same type of mobilization could be applied to political causes.
However, in practice it rarely has been applied to politics, at least in contemporary times. While the church’s members may be predominantly Republican, the LDS Church itself is scrupulously nonpartisan. Indeed, while it may appear that the Mormon emphasis on adherence to the church’s leadership would mean that they wield great political influence, in reality LDS general authorities have not made public statements advocating candidates or a particular party for several decades.
The authors appear to make the assumption (both within and without the excerpts quoted here) that this is due to the church’s commitment to nonpartisanship, neglecting to mention, deliberately or not, the fact that advocacy of any candidate or political party would violate IRS regulations for non-profit religious organizations, thus risking the church’s tax-exempt status.
Before every biennial U.S. election, the First Presidency issues a letter that is read during Sunday meetings to every congregation in the United States, in which the strict political neutrality of the church is emphasized. And this neutrality is not simply a formality, honored only in the breach. Political candidates (even those that are LDS) do not give political speeches in LDS meetings; campaign literature is not distributed in LDS Church buildings; and voter guides are not distributed to LDS members while they are at church.
Again, all of these activities are strictly prohibited as long as the church wants to retain its tax-exempt status.
. . .The fact that Mormons rarely receive political direction from their church leaders does not mean that it never comes. While the Mormon Church maintains official political neutrality in partisan elections,
— again, as it is required to —
church leaders emphasize that they will take a public stand on issues deemed “moral” and not “political.” Thus, there are occasions when the LDS general authorities speak on public issues and channel the organizational energy of Mormon Church members to specific causes. For example, in 1976 LDS leaders announced the church’s official opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). In response, church members actively worked to defeat the ERA in a number of states including Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, and Virginia (Magleby 1992; Quinn 1997). Typically, the LDS Church has taken official stances on issues raised by ballot initiatives, and not campaigns for elected office. This is presumably because of the church’s reluctance to be seen as intervening in a partisan contest, as well as the fact that this is often the vehicle by which controversial social issues are brought before the electorate.
It cannot be emphasized enough that the authors are neglecting to mention IRS rules on tax exemptions for non-profits.
In recent years LDS Church involvement of some kind has been observed in numerous statewide initiative campaigns opposing gambling (Arizona, Idaho, Ohio, and Utah) and gay marriage (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Nebraska, and Nevada).Because of the contest’s national profile and the relatively large number of Mormons in the state, the extensive involvement of the Mormon Church leading up to the March 2000 primary election in California is especially interesting. Local church leaders were intensely involved at all levels of the campaign to mobilize Mormon Church members to actively support Proposition 22, an initiative to ban gay marriages. The official involvement by LDS Church leaders included two letters in May 1999. The first outlined the justification for supporting the initiative and gave fundraising instructions to the leaders of local congregations. A second letter was read over California pulpits during Sunday worship meetings, encouraging church members to donate money, volunteer for the campaign, and otherwise support the initiative. The grass roots involvement of church members included participation as precinct walkers in a sophisticated voter identification effort and in subsequent phone bank and mailing operations staffed by LDS volunteers to mobilize voters. It is difficult to estimate the precise impact of Mormon Church members on the campaign, as there are no public records that record the religion of campaign donors or workers, but press accounts indicate the pressure brought to bear on Mormons in California was intense and that the subsequent level of participation in both fundraising and grass-roots political activity, especially among church attending Mormons, was quite high (Coile 1999; Salladay 1999).
We have good reason to believe that the official involvement of the LDS Church exerted a significant influence on the voting behavior of its membership. In previous research regarding Mormon voting behavior on ballot initiatives we outline two conditions that must be present in order for Mormons to respond to their leaders on political questions (Campbell and Monson Forthcoming). First, the position must receive the official institutional endorsement of the church. Second, the position of the leadership must be unified and widely known among church members. Both conditions were clearly met in the case of Proposition 22. It is also interesting to note that the model of LDS Church involvement in the Proposition 22 campaign follows closely tactics used in a 1988 Idaho lottery initiative campaign. In both cases this included using local leaders to solicit contributions from members as well as to actively recruit them as campaign workers (Popkey 1988).
. . .
The uniqueness of the Mormon capacity for sparking intense activity among its membership is highlighted with a final comparison to attempts at mobilization among Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics. Christian Right organizations like the Christian Coalition, which of course target Evangelical Protestant churches (including Southern Baptists), expend great efforts to mobilize voters. Without the organizational advantages of a single centralized church, however, the Christian Coalition is less able to tap into channels of communication within a religious community the way the Mormons have done. On the other hand, a hierarchical organization is clearly not sufficient for intense mobilization. The Catholic Church has just such an institutional structure, and yet without intensive voluntarism among the laity to foster social networks, civic skills, and intragroup trust, church-directed political activity is not terribly successful. In the Proposition 22 case, Catholic leaders in California also endorsed the effort, but there is not evidence of a broad mobilization of lay Catholics in California by their leaders that compares to the mobilization of Mormons.
. . .
Since World War II, Mormon general authorities have only offered formal endorsements on a select number of public controversies, opposition to gay marriage being the most recent. Our intention has been to demonstrate that Mormons have an explosive capacity to muster their troops on behalf of these political causes – with enough firepower to conceivably tip the balance in a close contest.
Yet as we have stressed, it is the very infrequency of Mormon mobilization that accentuates its effectiveness. Because LDS Church leaders rarely speak out on explicitly political questions, when they do Mormons sit up and take notice. Should LDS leaders speak on politics more frequently, Latter-day Saints might respond in smaller numbers or with less vigor. The result is a delicate balance between frequency and potency. …
And they’ll certainly respond with less money; it’s going to take Pam and Rick Patterson a long time to raise another $50,000 to devote to the next anti-gay mobilization directive from Salt Lake City — and next time, they might regret wasting fifty grand that could have gone toward the college education of one of their five sons.
Tweet This Post!
“Gays and lesbians fight for human justice in refusing to tolerate inhuman sexual abuse from the Mormon Church. Mormon leaders may think they were born to command, but those who wish to live their own lives were born to countermand. One can try to be polite to them — but being polite to a bully still gets one a bloody nose.”
This is a must-read.
In 2002, Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Steve Benson, grandson of Ezra Taft Benson, 13th president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, gave two talks to gay Mormons and ex-Mormons. In this combined version of his remarks, he reveals what’s really behind the maniacal homophobia of the LDS church and its longstanding commitment to injecting Mormon doctrine into civil law, and why Mormons themselves follow every edict of LDS, Inc., like braindead zombies.
Benson also describes his long journey from Mormon-indoctrinated homophobe (”a Pat Buchanan wannabe, I drew a lot of incredibly stupid, rawly-prejudiced and hysterically anti-gay cartoons”) to atheist and true friend and ally to LGBTs, stopping along the way to paint a picture of his most dysfunctional childhood, and taking us through his painfully awkward wedding night (he’s straight) and honeymoon — which was disturbed by family members (including old Ezra) knocking on the newlyweds’ cabin door while they were trying to fulfill their charge to populate the earth with more Mormons.
This is an extremely long read, but fascinating, entertaining, heartbreaking, and uplifting all at the same time, and most enlightening for those of us who can’t quite grasp why the Mormons are so hellbent on singling out and persecuting gay men and lesbians — and what we might do about it.
Tweet This Post!
…and for second-class queers who wonder where to go next:
Tweet This Post!
Tweet This Post!
Tweet This Post!
Rebecca Walsh, Salt Lake Tribune, “LDS stand on Prop. 8 oozes irony“:
Mormons understand a little bit about getting picked on for being different.Tales of Haun’s Mill, Reed Smoot and Mitt Romney fill Sunday School and Family Home Evening lessons. Years of violence and lampooning and soft bigotry drive The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ historical narrative. Persecution is in the psyche of the people.
But now the victims seem to have turned into the aggressors — and over, of all things, an alternative definition of marriage.
“This is a church that has been persecuted for its flavor of Christianity, for its past marriage practices, for its past religious practices. And here they are turning around and persecuting another group of people,” says Jay Redd, a gay lapsed-Mormon movie director whose San Francisco marriage ceremony was featured last week in Salon. “I feel like it’s very shortsighted, and it’s not a very Christian way of treating people.”
In a four-month offensive, the LDS Church has deployed its faithful as partisans for California’s Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that would ban gay marriage - the largest mobilization since the faith fought the Equal Rights Amendment three decades ago. In June, members were asked to “do all you can.” And they have.
As a result, the Salt Lake City-based church gets the credit and the blame for leading the cause. According to Californians Against Hate, Mormons have donated more than $19 million to the cause — nearly four out of five dollars raised.
At the same time, wards are splitting as members’ beliefs about gay rights become a litmus test of righteousness. Families are also divided between the über-faithful and the conflicted.
Church leaders insist there is a higher cause: “Freedom of religion is at risk,” says L. Whitney Clayton, a member of the LDS Presidency of the Seventy.
The irony is thick here. But it seems lost on church leaders and many members.
More than 150 years ago, Mormon settlers were driven from their homes and their prophet was killed, in part, because of their polygamous definition of marriage. After years of isolation and marginalization in the desert, the church abandoned the practice to achieve statehood, political legitimacy and validation in American society.
Now, Mormons are using the same words that were used against their ancestors. …
More at the link.
Tweet This Post!
Just read the short comments-exchange here, and hit the link Robert leaves:
Tweet This Post!
I received a response to my post, “Another Question for Mormon Supporters of Proposition 8: Do You Follow the Doctrine and Covenants?” (which I suggest you read before continuing). I’m replying here so that the discussion doesn’t get buried in the comments.
norcal_t writes:
I find it interesting that one person attempts to interpret scripture for an entire religion that they don’t appear to be a part of.
I find it stunning that one church — especially one whose beginnings are inextricably rooted in persecution by the state for a marriage “tradition” well outside the norm — is dismissing its own longstanding doctrine and attempting to force me to live by its rules.
If I’m interpreting scripture for your church, it’s because your church has done a pretty lousy job of justifying its own interpretation as a basis for interfering with my rights.
You’ll find one recurring theme throughout my reply to you: I don’t want to belong to your church. I don’t believe what you believe. And I don’t care what you believe — until your beliefs start interfering with my life.
Tell me: If I were in power, and decreed that, because I reject Mormonism, all Mormon temple marriages were invalid, what would you do about it? Sit back and take it? That’s what your church is telling me to do. That’s what you are telling me to do.
If this proposition kept gay couples apart I would agree with you,
I don’t believe you. Are you trying to tell me that if Prop 8 did keep gay couples apart, you would oppose your church on the matter? I don’t think you would. Not for a minute.
Also, do you support the Uniting American Families Act? After all, current U.S. immigration law does indeed keep committed gay couples apart, and the UAFA would change that.
So, if forced separation is your criterion, do you support the UAFA unconditionally, regardless of your church’s position on it?
but thats not the point, it’s defining marriage…again. Its about defining it as between a man and a woman like the ammendment says.
No, it is about eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry, like the amendment says.
We have the right to marry in California. You are trying to take that right away from us by redefining marriage.
The Church has said repeatedly that they do not object to any inheritance rights, hospital visiting rights, tax exemptions rights, etc…
Separate but equal — and I mean in the eyes of the law — is not good enough. I can give you countless examples showing you how, but that’s not the point.
The point is this:
I don’t care what your church objects to or not. I don’t care what rights your church is willing to allow me to have, or not. Your church does not govern me. Period.
Tell me: If your church decided tomorrow that we were worthy of inheritance rights but not hospital visitation rights, how would you justify that?
While I enjoyed you’re quotes about the race issue they don’t really belong in this discussion…
Why not? Because you believe being black is inherent, and being gay is a choice?
…and I found interesting that you didn’t quote once from any Scripture or canon or even from a talk given at a Church function…
You want me to quote scripture? I can do that in my sleep. But if you want me to defend my rights using your church’s post-biblical canon, forget it. I keep telling you: I’m not a Mormon, I don’t want to be a Mormon, and, until the Mormons decided to attack my people, I never cared a whit what went on in your temples, or at your “church functions.”
You are attempting to put me on the defense and explain to you why I deserve the rights you want to take away from me, when in reality it is the Mormon church that needs to explain and justify this unprovoked attack on equal rights. You — and your church — cannot do that, and so you try to turn the tables. It’s an old debate tactic, and often effective, but it won’t work here.
Mormon Doctrine has even been changed since the exerpt you cited, but it doesn’t matter since its not Church publication anyway.
What do I care if it’s a church publication, or if Mormon doctrine changes every time it rains? What you do in your church is your business — but when your church decides to exert its nonexistent authority over me, then you and I have a problem.
Let me try and explain why we LDS maintain the idea that homosexuals make a choice.
Let me remind you that religious opinion is completely irrelevant (or should be) in civil matters. But go ahead anyway.
When referring to attraction, we are discussing a feeling, not a color.
Oh, OK, so you are still stuck in the “gay is a choice” mindset.
We feel all sorts of things, anger, frustration, happines, sadness, joy, excitement, etc.. We choose our reactions to those feelings. The Churches position is that acting on feelings of same-sex attraction isn’t right.
Again: So what? I don’t care if your church thinks it’s “right” or not. I happen to believe that Mormons having large families isn’t “right.” I believe it is irresponsible and morally wrong to have five, seven, a dozen children. I believe Mormons contribute directly to the problem of overpopulation, and in doing so are very poor stewards of the earth’s natural resources.
You choose to have large families. Do I have the right to stop you? Should I have the right to stop you — no matter how irresponsible I believe you’re being, or how much harm I believe you are causing the planet?
Of course you don’t choose the color of your skin at any point(although I have my doubts about Michael Jackson) so its not quite the same. Whether the feeling was a natural occurrence or not is really irrevelant from a doctrinal standpoint, the idea is that we choose what we do and a same-sex lifestyle is a choice, regardless of the origin of the feelings.
So, let’s see where you stand: You believe being gay is a choice — and if it’s not a choice, it doesn’t matter, as long as gay people remain celibate.
Thus, you’d rather I forfeit love, companionship, and a fulfilling quality of life in order to… what? To make your church happy? Your church can’t be satisfied unless it knows I’m alone and in pain? No, thanks — if I knew that’s what life held in store for me, I would rather be dead.
I guess you don’t want to talk about suicide among gay Mormons, do you?
Also, explain to me how Mormonism is anything but a “lifestyle choice,” based on “feelings”?
You are obviously well aware of the Churches opinion on the matter.
Absolutely. But again, I don’t care what the church’s opinion is, any more than I care what the Pope thinks, or what the Ayatollah thinks — as long as none of them attempts to impose his beliefs on me. But that is exactly what you are doing.
I’m really not trying to “regurgitate” anything but it seems pretty clear to me at least that there is a difference between skin color and the people we choose to have sexual relationships with.
You slay me with the way you twist things so, and expect me to buy into it. Nobody (but you) is talking about innate traits (skin color, homosexuality) versus “the people we choose to have sexual relationships with,” and you know it. It’s a fallacious non-argument, and, frankly, I’m insulted you think I’m so stupid as to fall for it.
Fail.
Its fine to debate whether the act is right or wrong, but unless you can agree on what version of ethical philosophy you want to use, even that discussion won’t get far.
I’ll tell you exactly what “ethical philosophy” I use.
The are two kinds of laws:
1. Laws that stop people from causing harm to others (murder, rape, speeding, littering);
2. Laws that stop people from doing things that cause no harm to others, yet exist because either:
A) they offend someone else’s “moral values” (walking around naked in public, selling sex toys in Alabama, selling liquor in New York on a Sunday), or
B) the state hasn’t yet figured out how to regulate and tax a specific activity (e.g., recreational marijuana use), and until it does, it’s more financially beneficial to the state to keep an activity illegal.
The question is: How does same-sex marriage cause harm to others?
If you can show me how my marriage hurts you, then we can talk.
The catch is this: You can’t bring any of your religious beliefs into it, because they are completely irrelevant to the discussion. I don’t care if you believe that the legalization of my marriage somehow loses you points in heaven, or prevents you from having spirit children in the afterlife, or whatever. Your church “law” is not civil law.
I want you to explain how I am causing any measurable harm whatsoever to you, or to your church — here, now, in this life that you and I are forced to share.
When you give up trying, get back to me, and I will show you how you and your church are causing measurable harm to me and my people.
And, in my book, there ought to be a law against what you’re doing — not against what I’m doing.
As far as your reference to President Kimball..Does anyone know what he meant besides him?
I certainly hope someone in your church knows what he meant, unequivocally — else you’re telling me that you are following the edicts of your church blindly and without question. What happened to “free agency”?
We can speculate all day, but that won’t bring us to any sort of truth.
So you admit you’re not sure of the truth.
This leads me to believe that we don’t have all of the information on the subject,
Then how can you be so sure that you’re doing the right thing? Are moral values immutable, or do they change as you receive new “information”?
especially now in 2008 when its really not an issue at all since we know that regardless of your color you can attain the highest degree of the celestial kingdom.
One last time: I don’t believe in your “celestial kingdom.” Why do you keep dangling that carrot in front of me as though I thought it were real? You may as well tell me to be good, or Santa Claus won’t come. That is how much I believe in your “celestial kingdom.” And that is how relevant your beliefs should be to my civil rights.
Since thats the case there is really no need to be concerned about the color of my skin and only worry about my actions.
Then you should be worried, because your actions are wrong — morally and ethically wrong.
I have one more question for you, norcal_t — and for all Mormons reading this:
What exactly do you hope to accomplish by denying me the right to marry?
Do you believe that by forcing me to live by the tenets of the Mormon church, you will be able to convert me to Mormonism?
Or are you just punishing gay people for refusing to live by your beliefs?
With each new day, and each new argument, I am more convinced that your church is punishing us, because it cannot change us.
And you, faithful Mormons, are just in denial about that.
I used to be in denial about the atrocities of the Catholic church, too.
Tweet This Post!
Mormons Boost Antigay Marriage Effort 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 tally of Mormon contributions was provided by Frank Schubert, campaign manager for ProtectMarriage.com — Yes on 8, the initiative’s primary backer. A finance-tracking group corroborated Mormon fund-raising dominance, saying it could exceed 40%.
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 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. …
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.” …
Do these people not even hear themselves? Do they have absolutely no idea how ridiculous they sound?
No, folks, I’m not even talking about giving “birth to spirit children in the afterlife” (although that “eternal gender” business is definitely one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard; do Mormons think God has an actual penis? and if so, what did he need it for — or have Mormons stopped believing in the virgin birth?).
No, I mean:
How in the bloody blazes is any of their beliefs affected by my marriage?
The Congress of the National Socialist Workers’ Party (NAZI) convened in Nuremburg, Germany on September 10, 1935. Among the many items of business on the Nazi agenda was the passage of a series of laws designed (a) to clarify the requirements of citizenship in the Third Reich, (b) to assure the purity of German blood and German honor and (b) to clarify the position of Jews in the Reich. These three laws, passed on September 15, 1935, and the numerous auxillary laws which followed them are called the Nuremberg Laws. … Please take special note of the similarity between these laws and the Jim Crow Laws which were passed in the United States following the Compromise of 1877, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Plessy vs Ferguson (1896) and remained in effect until the court reversed the “separate but equal” doctrine in Brown vs the Board of Education of Topeka (1954). It is clear that Hitler used the Jim Crow segregation statutes as his model for defining Jews in the Third Reich. Ben S. Austin |
|
I don’t believe in your “celestial kingdom,” I don’t want children, “spirit” or otherwise, and there’s not a blinking thing you can do about it. You will not change me, “save” me, or force me to pop out “spirit” babies when I’m dead — and you’re especially not going to get what you want (whatever that is) by persecuting me in this life — a life you’re making pretty damned miserable to share with you.
So — again — why single out gay people for persecution? You’re not going to change us into you. Period. End of discussion. So get over it.
You know why I really think Mormons are doing this? It’s misplaced revenge. They still haven’t gotten over being forced to comply with the law and give up polygamy, and now they figure they’re owed the privilege of pissing all over somebody else.
And gays are such an easy — and small — target.
They’re doing it because they can.
The oppressed always becomes the oppressor.
You think I’m being facetious? I’m not. I truly believe that’s their real problem with marriage equality — the church just couches it in promises of (or threats of going without) “spirit children,” and dead men creating their own universes, and wives terrified into thinking that they won’t get into heaven if their husbands won’t let them, and…
And do you know what it feels like to be the target of this kind of crusade that’s based on a belief system that makes no sense and has no relevance whatsoever to the victim? It feels like Jim Jones, L. Ron Hubbard, and Pope Gregory IX just came back from the dead, dropped acid together, and reinstituted the Nuremberg Laws.
By the way, when you hit the WSJ article, notice the first comment:
Are we going to report all political contributions by religious affiliation or are we just picking on the Mormons?
Typical. The big church with the deep pockets singles out a smaller, weaker group to harrass, and it’s the churchies crying “Persecution!”
Hey, “Dave Butz,” ya think if your church stopped picking on us, we wouldn’t give a flying rip what you do in your temples?
When you inject your faith into our government and try to force me to live by the edicts of your church, then you make yourself fair game.
You know, Mormons, I used to not give your church a single thought. Even when you’d come knocking at my door, five minutes later I’d forget you ever existed. Believe me, we were both happier that way.
But you have turned my indifference into white-hot anger. You are creating enemies you never had before, and never had to have. You made the choice to wage war on people who have never done a thing to hurt you, and who couldn’t care less what you believe in, or how you worship, as long as you kept it inside your temples.
You do not have the moral right or authority to force me to adhere to the tenets of your religion — which I do not believe in, and can no longer respect, now that you’re trying to make me live by your rules.
Get this through your skulls: Not with all the money you have to throw around, and not in all the elections you can buy will you ever be able to force me to believe as you, to be like you, or to live as you do.
And right now, I can’t think of any group I’d rather be less like.
Now stuff that persecution complex somewhere. It was old a long time ago — and a bully looks pretty damned pathetic crying foul the whole time he’s pummeling the crap out of the little guy.
Tweet This Post!
Got an interesting question from a fellow who read one of my GayWired.com articles (probably this one), and figured y’all might be interested in it, and in my reply. I’d also like to get feedback from any bisexual folks reading this — did I do right by you? I think I did, although I wonder if there was anything I left out, or could have put differently.
Hi Joyce,I read one of your articles and it prompted me to ask you a question that, despite my efforts, no one has been able to answer. So many gay-rights work [not all] uses as a base for its reasoning that gays and lesbians can have monogamous relationships like heterosexual couples. What puzzles me is that these arguments for gays, lesbians and transgender people include bisexuals. Isn’t it impossible, by definition, that a bisexual live in a monogamous relationship? Just an honest question. Would love to hear your thoughts if you have time.
Thanks,
Ron T—
Hi, Ron,
I see two different questions here: one about LGBT equality based on the fact that gay, lesbian, and transgender people are no less monogamous than heterosexuals, and one about bisexual fidelity.
Let’s deal with the second question first: “Isn’t it impossible, by definition, that a bisexual live in a monogamous relationship?”
You may as well ask if heterosexual men aren’t completely incapable of monogamy — after all, they are attracted to women, and there are lots of women out there, so how could anyone reasonably expect a man to be faithful to just one?
The same goes for bisexuals: They’re as capable as anyone else of choosing to be faithful to one person (or not); the only difference is that they have a wider range of prospects. Being bisexual may, as Woody Allen once said, increase one’s chances of a date on Saturday night, but bisexuality doesn’t equal automatic promiscuity any more than heterosexuality does.
Remember that there is a difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Just as you are (I assume) straight, you were straight before you ever had sex, and you will continue to be straight if you never have sex again. Bisexuals may be attracted to both sexes, but they don’t have to act on that attraction (nor are they any more compelled to act on an attraction than we “monosexuals” are).
What might be confusing you is the polyamorous relationship that 1) involves more than one sex, and 2) in which all participants are involved (romantically/sexually) with one another. In that case, such a relationship would require that at least one of the participants be bisexual — but not all bisexuals are polyamorous.
Then, of course, there are people who identify as heterosexual, but have same-sex experiences on the down-low (think: Larry Craig); these are people who really are gay or bisexual but for whatever reason (religion, usually) feel compelled to portray a heterosexual lifestyle.
All of which takes me far out of the realm of offering an informed opinion; I am neither bisexual nor polyamorous, but a lesbian, and quite a traditionally monogamous one.
Here’s a good, short FAQ addressing the issue of bisexual monogamy:
http://www.lanikaahumanu.com/biqa.shtml
As far as including bisexuals in “gay-rights work,” I take it you’re referring to the issue of same-sex marriage — and through that narrow lens alone, there are certainly bisexuals who may desire to marry a same-sex partner. But why make marriage — or monogamy — a prerequisite for equal rights, for everyone?
You’ve actually answered your own question here: “So many gay-rights work [not all] uses as a base for its reasoning that gays and lesbians can have monogamous relationships like heterosexual couples.” You’re right — not all “gay-rights work” uses monogamy as a basis for reasoning, because not all “gay-rights work” is limited to rights for same-sex couples in committed relationships.
“Gay rights” goes far beyond marriage (and thus far beyond the monogamy mandate). Just as a gay or transgender person can be denied housing or employment (or medical care, or the right to serve his or her country, or more rights that heterosexuals take for granted than I care to list) where there are no protections against such discrimination, so can bisexuals.
In the end, while there are subtle but distinct differences among homophobia, transphobia, and biphobia, the overlaps are much greater than the differences, and the results are exactly the same: institutionalized oppression, societal ostracization, anti-gay/anti-trans/anti-bi violence, etc.
Of course bisexuals — whether they opt for monogamy or non-monogamy, or end up with a same-sex partner, an opposite-sex partner, or any combination — belong with lesbians, gay men, and transgender people in the fight for equality. In the end, the one constant we all (L, G, B, and T) share is that we’re perceived — and treated — as if we’re not as deserving of the same rights as any heterosexual (no matter how many 55-hour “marriages” Britney Spears enters into, or how many out-of-wedlock babies Sarah Palin’s teenage daughter has).
Here’s an excellent article by Robyn Ochs (a bisexual woman legally married to her same-sex partner) that addresses many of these issues, and more (including biphobia within the L/G community, which I won’t pretend for a moment does not exist):
http://www.robynochs.com/writing/essays/biphobia_short.html
I hope I’ve answered your question(s).
Best wishes…
Tweet This Post!
Backstory: Mormons Launch Full-Scale Attack on Marriage Equality (Like They Have Room to Talk?), June 24, 2008
From today’s San Francisco Chronicle:
Editor - I see once again the Church of Latter-Day Saints is involving itself in California politics (”Mormons urged to back ban,” June 25). They just don’t get it that it’s God who creates some people gay. It’s too bad they don’t believe in the Bible. If they did, they would have to follow the admonishment, “Judge not that ye be not judged.”DAVE WILCOX
Walnut Creek
Editor - In your article about the Mormon Church openly backing the initiative to ban gays from marriage, both from the pulpit and by raising funds to make anti-gay ads etc., it mentioned that such activities by the church do not run afoul of the “church in politics” rules of the IRS.So this means that those who are for the initiative can organize and fund their position with pre-tax dollars while those of us who are against the initiative must spend after-tax dollars to defend ourselves? Wow! This sounds like something Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe would think up! Well, but then they both claim God’s blessings.
TED HAX
Woodside
Editor - I really do not understand why some people, and now the Mormon Church officially, want to impose their perception of civil marriage onto all of society. I understood the history of this country was based on escaping dictatorial state-run churches and governments.It is un-American to impose by law the beliefs of a church upon everyone in the state. Civil marriage is a civil issue, a civil right. As I understand our recent state Supreme Court ruling, religious practice is not affected. The court is not directing any faith to change or amend its practice or belief in marriage.
Our world needs more loving marriages and fewer broken homes and much less promiscuity. These seem like worthy social goals to me. Churches should stay out of civil matters which do not affect them or their members.
DOUG SIBLEY
Martinez
Read some 300 more comments here:
Why is a church involved in politics? Their tax exempt status should be revoked.. . .
Bigots.
. . .
Institutionalized racism until 1978. Institutionalized bigotry, still.
. . .
Their position is wrong in so many ways, but it’s really kind of sad to see people living in such irrational, unsubstantiated fear. You’d think these people lived in T. H. White’s ant colony in The Once And Future King, where “everything not forbidden is compulsory”, and therefore the ability to marry either a man or a woman will put their coreligionists in an intractable pickle. I have yet to hear anybody offer a scintilla of evidence that allowing gays to marry will have even the slightest effect on the rate or success of straight marriages.
. . .
Have you noticed that opposition to same-sex marriage is EXCLUSIVELY grounded in religion? Think about it … there is NO secular opposition to same-sex marriage.
. . .
Some things are too important to be left up to majority rule, namely the protection of minority rights. A christian church should realize this.
. . .
Whatever you folks want to do in Zion (Utah) is your business. California is off limits.
. . .
Forget Al Qaeda, we’ve got terrorists in our own backyard that want to take away our freedoms - they’re called the Catholic and Mormon churches. Please don’t let these zealots attack America’s freedoms - do not give money to Mormon or Catholic organizations!!
. . .
Organizations the size of the LDS (Mormons) and the Catholic Church are NOT non-profit, along with a whole host of others. You should see some of the places of worship built in California within the past 20 years. These organizations know how to make money. They are either entitled to their political agendas or non-profit status, but not both.
. . .
If you’re Mormon, it wasn’t that long ago in human history that God Himself redefined marriage to be between only two people (and of course it was only 30 years ago that God decided it would be okay for black men to be elders in the church, just like every white man is by default). So my thinking is, the Mormon God is on a dialup connection and he’s just got a big backlog of emails to send down to the latest Prophet. Were I the Prophet or one of his followers, I wouldn’t be quite so hasty to lock down a concrete definition of marriage again.
. . .
This is about what I would expect from the Church of Later Day Saints. They are always alarmed when it comes to being criticized about their “cult like ways”, their legacy of polygamy, or their past of institutionalized racism. But the truth is, despite their missionary work abroad - their mindset is very provincial at best, and quite frankly - vert out of step with modern western culture. This is why Mitt Romney lost his bid for the presidency, And why he will never get there. Most people do not trust the Mormons
. . .
ahh yes, the Mormon church.. that bastion of morality and believers in the sanctity of plural marriage. one man, several women.
. . .
And this from a cult that not too long ago allowed multiple wives. But if it comes to money, they look the other way - they’ll gladly take 10% of each cult members salary but the greatest hipocrisy is thier interests in Las Vegas.
. . .
Mormons see gay marriage as morally wrong . The Mormon religion was founded by practicing Poligimy. But to them marrying their 13 year girls to a 50 year old man is ok even without her consent in certain sects.. And with a history of poligimy this cult religion has no room to tell anyone how to live.
. . .
Oh great. The descendants of Brigham Young’s 55 wives will now lecture on the subject of marriage morality. Lovely.
. . .
Lol! The Mormon church has “progressed” from polygamy, to racial bigotry, and now to “defenders of marriage. Defending it from WHAT I have yet to hear one person explain to me. Perfect example of the carpet-bagging Christian Taliban trying to force others to their own dubious moral code. Religious organizations have no right to foist their dogma onto to others or into law. Period. This is not a theocracy.
. . .
What the church is advocating is a violation of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They are perfectly within their rights to define what a religious marriage is in their church, and they can restrict it to skew-eyed people born on the ides of March for all of me; I am not a Mormon and care not a whit for their rules so long as they do not demand that I live by them. When they demand that their followers establish their religious definition of marriage in our secular republic, though, they cross the line. Jefferson had things right centuries ago when he penned a religious freedom statute that kept church and state separate. The churches that are trampling on that line now need to be vigorously prosecuted until they start living up to that expectation once again.
. . .
I remember the strong and organized opposition the Mormon church had in the ’70s to the equal rights amendment to the US Constitution. Their arguments against it were reactionary and unfounded, e.g., “if it passes, people will be forced to use unisex public restrooms.” (The horror!) That amendment did not pass, and historians usually site the Mormon church’s highly organized efforts as a large factor in its defeat. However, while the church’s Utah leadership is staunchly conservative and unyielding in its sweeping condemnation of homosexuality, the California members, especially in the Bay Area, are a little more willing to take a hands off approach when it comes to personal matters, even if they are reluctant to admit that publically. I am hopeful that in the privacy of the voting booth many California Mormons will vote their conscience instead of blindly following this Utah mandate.
. . .
Much more at the link.
Tweet This Post!
Oh, this is rich: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (a.k.a. the Mormons) is throwing its weight behind the November ballot initiative to strip gay and lesbian Californians of marriage equality.
How about taking the big, fat log out of thine own eye first, LDS? I’m not even talking about the way the church, with all its power and superiority, can’t even manage to rein in its own modern-day rogue polygamists — the FLDS sickos (can you say “Warren Jeffs“?) who keep “marrying” their 12-year-old girl-cousins and throwing their own teenage boys out on the street before they can become a threat to the Elder Daddies (who want to keep “marrying” their 12-year-old girl-cousins without any virile young bucks getting in the way).
No, I’m talking about the way the LDS church redefined marriage when “prophet” Wilford Woodruff (”the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances”) had a “divine revelation” and declared that plural marriage was no longer a “divine principle,” and was now prohibited.
Funny how Woodruff’s “divine revelation” coincided with the campaign for Utah’s statehood (1896), eh? Ya think Utah would have attained statehood at all if its men remained free to marry little girls (and lots of little girls) under the gossamer-thin pretense of “religious freedom”?
The Mormons, as the PBS documentary of the same name noted, paid “a high price politically for their embrace of polygamy. For 47 years, Utah was denied admission as a state. The United States government insisted that the Mormon church must completely renounce polygamy.”
It finally took an act of Congress — literally — to force the Mormons to obey the law, via the Edmonds-Tucker Act: “Now we will target the church itself. We will seek to prohibit immigration of people to the United States who are Mormon. We will disfranchise members of the Mormon Church. They will not be allowed to sit on juries. They will not have the right to hold office, they will not have the right to vote. And we will seize the property of the Mormon church.”
“In 1890, under enormous pressure, the new leader, Prophet Wilford Woodruff, issued a manifesto that he would only years later describe as a revelation. In it, he announced that from this time forward, the LDS church renounced polygamy. … The church’s official renunciation of polygamy and other political concessions finally led to statehood for Utah in 1896.”
In other words, the redefinition of marriage by the LDS church was about nothing but politics and money. And you can better your buttons that polygamy would still be condoned by the Mormon church today if it could get away with it.
And these holier-than-thou hypocrites — whose forebears settled in Utah to escape interference by the government in their religious activity — have the audacity to insinuate their ever-changing belief system into the public square to influence what they perceive as a redefinition of marriage? And in another state?
Polygamy, of course, is hardly the first or the last seemingly iron-clad law the LDS church has switched gears on by way of these so-called “divine revelations” — which usually, ever-so-conveniently come along just as the church is undergoing intense pressure from the reality-based world to jerk itself out of the Dark Ages on a given issue. Ever hear how God “placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa” to keep them from intermarrying with whites? How God “placed a dark skin upon them as a curse — as a punishment and as a sign to all others,” forbidding “intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse”? And then how, ever so suddenly, “God changed His/Her/Its mind in 1978 about how cursed and lowly the black race was“?
Don’t believe me? Go study up on the “Curse of Ham” yourself. (But don’t blame me if you end up punching out the next Mormon missionary who shows up on your doorstep.)
That, folks, that is the Mormon church for you.
(Don’t even get me started on the Mormons’ shocking — I mean literally shocking, as in penile electrodes — history of torture to “cure” homosexuality.)
Of course, the Mormons’ oh-so-proud history of white supremacism all but disappeared in 1978, when LDS Grand Poobah Spencer Kimball had a “divine revelation” that God suddenly changed his mind and decided that black people weren’t — literally — the scum of the earth after all.
Do you think the LDS’s backpedal on the status of African-Americans was really the result of some “divine revelation”? We don’t — any more than we believe Uri Geller’s spoon-bending is the result of “divine” telekinesis.
We predict that something, someday, will come along to convince some future head of the LDS church to suddenly have a “divine revelation” about gay people (and women, too, who in the church still “enjoy” a status barely half a notch above where African-Americans were 30 years ago). We can’t imagine what will inspire that “divine revelation,” but we expect that it will be something along the lines of the LDS President being caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.
No issue is too big or too small for the LDS to reverse its set-in-stone position after its Big Kahuna experiences a “divine revelation” — even magic underwear. (Why did the church really decide to alter its “sacred” undie design? We’re guessing ’cause the old design created unsightly lumps under the costumes Bob Mackie was designing for Donny and Marie.)
Now, with all that hypocrisy in mind, let’s get back to the issue at hand. From today’s Salt Lake Tribune:
LDS Church backs proposed California ‘one man-one woman’ marriage amendment On the 39th anniversary of New York City’s Stonewall Riots, which arguably launched the gay rights movement…
Oh, yeah, if I forget (the anniversary is actually the 27th): Happy Stonewall Day, everyone!
…the LDS Church is asking California Mormons to support a proposed constitutional amendment that would recognize only marriages between a man and a woman.In a statement to be read in California churches Sunday, LDS President Thomas S. Monson, with his counselors in the governing First Presidency, Henry B. Eyring and Dieter F. Uchtdorf, say Mormon teachings on the issue “are unequivocal.”
“Unequivocal”? “Unequivocal”?! Just like Mormon teachings on the “Curse of Ham” were “unequivocal”?
“Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for his children,” the statement says.
What about marriage between a man and a whole bunch of women (or young girls)? That was “unequivocal” at one time, too.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will participate with a “broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations” to promote the amendment, which will be on the Nov. 8 ballot.“Do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time,” the statement says.
Church spokesman Scott Trotter confirmed the authenticity of the statement published Saturday on the Internet, but declined to comment further.
“We are disappointed,” said Dave Melson, assistant executive director of Affirmation, a support and advocacy group for Mormon gays, lesbians and their families that has about 2,000 members.
“We had hoped the church would back off and stay on the sidelines of this one.”
I feel ya, Dave — when I was still a Catholic, I used to hope the Vatican would stay out of the business of making everybody else’s life miserable, too. But, come on, Dave, don’t tell me you’re actually surprised by this… are you?
Current California law deals only with civil marriage. It does not affect religious rites or institutions.
Ohhhh noes!!!11!1 You can’t tell people that, Tribune, or they’ll understand that in no way will any church be forced to marry anybody it doesn’t want to! You’ll have eliminated one of the biggest lies the anti-gay crusaders use to scare the schnitzel out of the general public!
(Never mind, of course, that while the anti-gay crusaders outright lie about the state interfering with their freedom of religion, they sidestep the fact that they’re trying to impose their religious beliefs on the state.)
The LDS Church has been involved in the California effort to promote traditional marriage since 1998, when it spent $1.1 million to defeat proposals in Hawaii and Alaska. At the same time, LDS leaders in California urged members to support Proposition 22, a law that defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
Yeah, they did — and we know why they did it in Hawaii: they own half the bloody state. (I hope everyone realizes that the very lucrative Polynesian Cultural Center on Oahu is nothing but a big, fat cash cow — and recruitment center — for the Mormon church.)
“We were asked to canvass neighbors, go door to door with the petition and ask for support,” Russell Frandsen, a Latter-day Saint in southern California, told The Salt Lake Tribune in March. “A large number of us volunteered to do that. I suppose most of us did it out of a sense of responsibility.”
So the Mormon church is telling its members what to do in order to promote a specific state ballot initiative. I so wish the IRS would strip the LDS (and every other church) of its tax-exempt status for politicking from the pulpit, but, sadly: “Clergy can and do address public policy concerns, ranging from abortion, gay rights and gun control to poverty, civil rights and the death penalty. They may support legislation pending in Congress or the state legislatures, or call for its defeat. They may endorse or oppose ballot referenda. Indeed, discussion of public issues is a common practice in religious institutions all over America. The only thing houses of worship may not do is endorse or oppose candidates for public office or use their resources in partisan campaigns.” [”Religion, Partisan Politics And Tax Exemption: What Federal Law Requires And Why,” Americans United for Separation of Church and State]
Earlier this year, the LDS Church joined with several California religious groups, including the California Catholic Conference, National Association of Evangelicals, and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, to file a friend-of-the-court brief in defense of Proposition 22…
Politics… strange bedfellows… “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”… What a pack of shameless hypocrites, the lot of them. (Hey, Mormons, Catholics, evangelicals, Orthodix Jews: When this is all over — and you’ve lost — you’ll still wake up the next morning, each of you thinking the other is condemned to hell for beliefs that don’t coincide with yours. I guarantee it.)
In 2006, the LDS Church joined a national religious coalition to push an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. LDS Apostle Russell M. Nelson was among 50 prominent Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox and Jewish leaders who signed a petition explaining why they see a need for such a constitutional amendment.“We are convinced that this is the only measure that will adequately protect marriage from those who would circumvent the legislative process and force a redefinition of it on the whole of our society,” reads the petition. …
Oh, go redefine your own marriages, you sad old busybodies — or, better yet, go invent some magical panties of your own. I hear they keep evil spirits away.
Here’s the thing, folks: I don’t give a rat’s patoot what anybody practices, religion-wise, as long as nobody else (like children, animals, or people who don’t follow that religion) gets hurt.
I don’t care if you want to believe (as Mormons do) that God lives somewhere in outer space near a star nobody’s ever heard of called Kolob, and that Mormons who do everything right will “literally become gods, get to have their own spirit children, and create their own planets to populate them with.”
I don’t care if you want to believe (as Scientologists do) that you’re full of body thetans as the result of 178 billion people being blown up by a 75-million-year-old volcano.
I don’t care if you want to believe that God is going to appear on cable TV and then rescue his people from the Tribulation by swooping down in a flying saucer (Chen Tao).
I don’t care if you want to believe that Benny Hinn can raise your grandma from the dead if you prop her corpse up in front of the TV.
I don’t even care if you want to kill yourself so you can take a ride on a spaceship behind a comet (Heaven’s Gate).
But when your beliefs interfere with my life, or anyone else’s, that’s where my tolerance ends. The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
Listen up, Latter-day “Saints”: Get your fist away from my nose. Now.
And stay the hell off my porch, too.
Tweet This Post!
Pollygamist [sic] Sect Leader Jeffs Guilty On All Counts
Salt Lake City, UT (AHN) - After two days of deliberations, jurors in the trial of polygamist sect leader Warren Jeffs have found him guilty on all counts, and now faces a possible life sentence in Utah.
Jeffs, 51, faced two counts as an accomplice to the rape of a 14-year-old girl by coercing her into a marriage to his 19-year old cousin. Jeffs allegedly used his religious authority as leader of the 10,000-member Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), which openly practices polygamy, to force the girl into marriage.
The sect leader, the girl testified, told her her salvation would be endangered should she not agree to marry his cousin in a religious rite in 2001. “Warren Jeffs told them to go forward and multiply and replenish the Earth, and that is why that man is an accomplice to rape,” prosecutor Brock Belnap said. …
Tweet This Post!
Bad Behavior has blocked 1446 access attempts in the last 7 days.
