By bankrolling opposition to same-sex marriage in California, the LDS church has earned some serious cred in social conservative circles.
And the Prop 8 protesters -- those who are now protesting the church -- are only fueling the impression that when it
comes to standing up for "traditional marriage," the Mormon Church is
where it's at.
This development has fascinating implications for 2012.
Discuss.
« The Podesta Briefing: No Cabinet Appts Before Thanksgiving (?) | Main | In MN, Conspiracy Dogs Won't Hunt » 2012 Players: The LDS Church11 Nov 2008 03:30 pm Comments (82)
Are you insinuating that this bolsters Romney's '12 bona fides? 
If the social conservatives want to go running to the LDS to champion their cause, they can go right ahead. Meanwhile, the rest of the country will continue to look at the Mormon Church as cultish and law-breaking.
Do you think that they did this to help Mitt Romney in that community? for 2012?
If you're prepared to take Tony Blankley's word that the anti-Palin McCain campaign postmortems are coming out of the former Romney people this looks a bit like a trend.
The LDS is trying to get legitimacy from among the evangelical churches that have been calling them a cult for years. Nothing ingratiates them more quickly, apparently, than funding a ballot measure that appeals to angry bigots. This might help them for 2012. Longer term, they'll have shown themselves, again, to be on the wrong side of history.
I'm not sure what's really changed for 2012 that wasn't already there for 2008. Both LDS and evangelical/fundamentalist groups shared socially conservative viewpoints, even before the campaign for Prop. 8. But there always seemed to be a lot of mistrust between the groups mostly to the detriment of LDS candidates like Romney. Generally, LDS members are willing to vote for Christian conservatives, but not the other way around.
The Mormons would have to summon Angel Moroni himself to push Romney across the finish line in four years. The Talibaptists want a born-again at the top of the ticket, not a former pro-choicer with a billion dollars, perfect hair, and all the charm of a used car salesman. Plus, Mormons believe in some really weird stuff. I'm not saying it's fair, but the mouth-breathing clay-eaters of the Deep South will not vote for a Mormon. Nah. Go'n. Happen. You were right to cast Huckabee as the early favorite. Obama will do a decent enough job these next couple of years to win re-election easily, and as the GOP crumbles further, HUCK! will be chosen as the party's sacrificial lamb. Almost feel sorry for the guy.
"standing up for traditional marriage" plural and otherwise.
Its becoming interesting how the Mormon Church becomes "public" when Mitt Romney, a practicing Mormon, is considered a leading figure in 2012. When will these "wedge issue" lovers become real and practice what they preach rather than causing polarization?
The Mormon Church as the leading advocate for traditional marriage... down the rabbit hole indeed.
I'm a fallen away Catholic living in the deep south for the last 40 years. I can promise you that evangelical hatred of Mormons runs deep and that Jesus himself could come down from Heaven, touch Romney on the forehead and declare, "This is my choice for 2012" and Romney would still lose South Carolina. Just because the Mormons occasionally act in a way that overlaps with Christian evangelicals doesn't mean squat. I don't have a dog in the GOP fight, but it seems like someone should remember Huckabee chalking up wins across the south.
Well, the Republican Party's core can now be seen as the Deep South + middle-aged/older Evangelicals + traditional Catholics + the Mormon West. Could the broader political meaning of Prop 8 be that the Mormon Church is homogenizing somewhat with other conservative Protestant sects? Or that the 2 sides are at least tacitly working through their differences on a few issues? If the West is trending more Democratic in CO, NM, NV, the Pacific states, AZ and MT, then UT, ID and WY could serve as a base to branch out into the Mormon areas of NV, AZ, CO, and OR.
I'm a Mormon. And the Mormon Church has (officially, institutionally) remained politically neutral save for only a very few issues -- ERA in the late '70s, and now gay marriage. For the most part, the Church encourages its members to be politically informed and to vote -- but it always reiterates its neutrality and always notes that "gospel principles" can be found in both parties. The stance on prop 8 (and on gay marriage in general) is certainly generating some bad PR for the Church -- and maybe it will generate some goodwill from the social conservatives who usually scorn us Mormons as a "cult." But my guess is that, by 2012, this will all be pretty old news. It won't really have any "implications." Romney will live or die by his own hand. His RNC speech was clearly an attempt to (re)position himself as a new right-wing firebrand for 2012. The big contenders will be Romney, Palin, and Huckabee. Romney's advantage is his economic chops -- but he lacks the street cred among the right-wing crowd. Plus he's not Southern. And he just comes off as so...phony. My guess is that Palin gets the nod. Huckabee is smart. He'll see that Obama has done a decent enough job to win reelection, and he won't want to be Mondale 2.0. Palin's not that smart, and will be convinced (by the love of her fans) that she has a real shot at winning. Maybe she'll pick Romney for a running mate....
Sure does have implications. Fundies and Mormons coming together quarantines peculiarly American variations on historical Christianity where they belong: in the looney bin. Don't imagine they'll like each other much though. Their leaders, severally, like to dominate too much to enjoy competition.
And to get access to that huge bankroll and "cred" Christians will have to sell out to a religion trying to piggyback on Christianity to gain mainstream acceptance. How wack is that?!
Hmm... I can actually see a scenario where Romney is able to get the nomination in 2012 because (a) Romney gets the remains of the pro-business vote and (b) Palin and Huckabee split the fundamentalist vote (i.e., basically the same way McCain was able to get the nomination this year). That the Mormon church has become the poster faith in the fight against marriage equality might just make Romney acceptable to the base. That said, he would likely go on to a defeat of historic proportions and it would probably push the party further into the arms of Christianists. So, in some ways Republicans are probably better off to just nominate Huckabee so they can realize the problem is not that they are not conservative enough.
Not only all that, LDS will also go back in time and make sure everyone who ever lived gets put in a traditional marriage by proxy!
The only thing more far-fetched than a Romney nomination is a torch-bearing Sarah Palin. In four years, her family will be even more chaotic and unruly than it is today, with Bristol and Levi divorced, their little child four years old and living in some hovel in Alaska, Track returned home from Iraq and working on his GED, Willow acting out her teenage fantasies as a bit-player in movies and TV shows in LA, Piper dashing around with Mom and Dad at the rallies as the good child who hasn't completely ruined her life yet, and of course a four-year old Trig, who will demand more attention and cause more scenes than he does right now. This won't be a problem in a general election so much as it will be a problem with Dr. Laura voters and United Methodist Women groups across the South and Midwest. Misogyny is real and ugly and afflicts the conservative and religious to a slightly greater degree than the rest of us. The Republicans have really boxed themselves in! With their hatred of women, they have excluded Palin. With their hatred of other religions, they have excluded Romney. With their hatred of the ethnic "other", they have excluded Jindal. Huckabee wins simply by default.
So I guess the one thing Christian and Mormon fundamentalists can get behind together is discriminating against gays?
We can do without the anti-Mormon bigotry. Yes, Mormons as a group tend to be socially conservative. But there's also a strong libertarian strain among them. And there is a reasonably significant number of lefty-progressive types among them, too. (I'm one of them.) The "fundamentalist" image that attaches to Mormons comes mostly from media coverage of the polygamist sects -- people who are not actually part of the Mormon community. The Republicans did a good job of drawing Mormons into their tent by hammering those tired old wedge issues that we're all familiar with. Prior to the '60s and '70s, Mormons were predominantly Democrats, and were closely associated with progressivism. The state of Utah voted for FDR all four times that he ran for president. Yes, the Mormon Belt (UT, ID, WY) will probably be a GOP stronghold for some time. That's the safe money. But if Obama does well, the Mormon vote is not out of reach for those of us who would like to win them over. Keep this in mind: Mormons have a much more moderate stance on abortion (for which they get a lot of grief from the hardcore pro-lifers). And the Mormon Church has made some statements that seem to indicate an openness to civil unions (while remaining protective of the "sanctity" of marriage). These somewhat moderate stances make Mormons far more likely than the typical Christian conservatives to be open to voting for a Dem who knows how to "reach across" to them. But the quickest way to lose them is to start spitting the anti-Mormon venom. The Mormon community is intensely sensitive to "persecution" or marginalization -- they've been on the receiving end of that sort of thing for a very long time. So while it's fine to engage them in a discussion of political positions -- and to argue over issues -- it's really not helpful to cast aspersions on them as a supposedly monolithic group. Before you make some crack about "the Mormons," insert "the Jews" and consider whether the crack is worth making....
Evangelicals will not vote for a Mormon, how helpful were evangelical mainstream leaders proclaiming Obama is a Christian? Further still -- Romney is incapable of connecting with an average audience the way Palin and Huckabee can. 52% of evangelicals still believe Obama is a Muslim. There is no way to reconcile the theological differences between most evangelical sects and LDS.
On the face of it, good news for Romney and bad news for Huckabee.
By the way, if I didn't make this clear in my earlier comment, when I noted the Church's history of remaining official and institutionally neutral, then allow me to clarify: There is simply no way -- no chance whatsoever -- that the Mormon Church will endorse or support a Romney candidacy in the way it supported prop 8. It just won't happen. At best, Romney derives a slight, indirect benefit from all this, assuming the right-wing crowd does in fact give "credit" to the Mormon Church for its work on prop 8. But like I said before -- this will all be ancient history in 2012. The born-again animosity toward Mormons runs far deeper than that. Plus, again, there are Romney's personal, individual failings. There are lots of reasonably credible Mormon politicians -- Harry Reid comes to mind. And Orrin Hatch, on the other side. Romney just isn't one of them. At least not anymore. But he has the name recognition and the money to make a go of it.
By 2012, perhaps this will be completely forgotten. It really depends on how the California Supreme Court moves forward, and perhaps, even a showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court. I look at it this way. African-Americans were quite instrumental in getting Prop. 8 passed. Something tells me that the GOP won't make inroads with this group. Thus, although the LDS helped with the passage of prop. 8, mormons are still looked at with disdain in the evangelical community.
Some of these commenters seem to be missing the forest for the trees. I don't think there are 'implications' for 2012 in terms of who will be the Republican candidate. It's much too far out to speculate on that. The implications here are about the direction and ethos of the GOP generally, and where the party is going to be at on it's own terms by the time the next general rolls around. The clear implication here is that the rightmost wing of the GOP failed to be shifted to the center by this election, and in fact moved to the right, insofar as they moved anywhere. There is a huge swath of the GOP that has been bought and paid for with wedge issues, and said swath has no intention of moving away from those issues. In fact, that unwillingness to change is exactly how said swath has been convinced to vote directly against it's own interests for over two decades. (i.e. Poor people voting for corporate tax breaks) I can't say how evangelicals or mormons will break in terms of candidates, I'm just an elite Hollywood liberal. But I can say that the religious right has found it's slew of candidates (Palin, Huckabee, Romney) and despite the inevitable infighting over who gets the nod, it seems highly unlikely that they will move of these candidates as a group. Then we have the northeast, intellectual conservatives, read the William F. Buckley/David Brooks world. In case anyone has not been paying attention for the last six months, these elite east coast conservatives have no intention of supporting Palin, and they don't seem all that keen on Huckabee. Romney, okay, but now that he's no longer one of them, the east coast elites may cool on Romney precipitously, especiall if he continues to publicly insult them as he did in his RNC speech. The recipe here is for an implosion of the GOP. The implication of these rumblings is that the GOP has no intention of moving to the center, damn that fact that their block no longer adds up to 51%. This gives Dems the opportunity to spend 8 years building a governing democratic majority. If we can peel off enough middle voters, and if the GOP keeps handing us candidates that alienate the middle, we just might get there.
It was pretty obvious from the beginning that this was a power-play by the LDS Church. When Romney was running for Pres there was a poll that showed an overwhelming number of evangelicals would NOT vote for a Mormon. By bankrolling Prop 8, the Mormons are making nice with the evangelicals, but also looking for something in return. The Mormons would like to have more viable Republican candidates outside of Utah and getting the religious right on board is a start.
Michele, I don't quite follow your logic. Are you suggesting that evangelicals would not vote for a Mormon because they believed Mormons were not socially conservative enough? My read was always that they thought Mormons were heretics who believed that people populate their own planets when they die, and that Jesus is not really Jesus, and black people are Indians, and all that crazy stuff, which sort of goes against their fundamentalist reading of the Bible.
And the Mormon Church has made some statements that seem to indicate an openness to civil unions (while remaining protective of the "sanctity" of marriage).Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I saw that as a simple political calculation. California would never vote to deprive gay couples of marriage and of civil unions, so the LDS Church aimed to demean us as much as possible rather than as much as it would have liked.
It's strange to me that religious organizations want to debase themselves by slumming in politics. For better and worse, Christianity is one of the founding pillars of western civilization going back thousands of years. Some people think it will have more influence as a political party. I see it throwing away its legitimacy for short-term political manuevering. And the way the Mormons organized this time around seriously threatens the boundary between Church and state.
Pender, Given the church's insistence about their openness to civil unions and equal rights for gays, just not the status of marriage, it will be interesting to see how they deal with this. Throughout the recent election cycle, the LDS Church has demonstrated its willingness to participate As a Utahn, I normally despise the 8-10 weeks the legislature is in session, but this might make it awfully entertaining.
Pender, The Utah state constitution bans gay marriage and civil unions. Salt Lake City, which is only 70% mormon, has a city-wide domestic partner registry, which LDS leaders decried as "gay marriage lite." Hence the reason that the state legislature wanted to change the name from "domestic partner" to "mutual commitment." They didn't want a name associated with gay relationship recognition anywhere in the Great State of Hate. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695264629,00.html Good luck getting the Utah state legislature to consider giving gays any legitimacy as human beings, let alone as committed families. And transgender people? They just don't exist. Bear in mind this was the same church that fought against the Equal Rights Amendment and did not recognize black Americans as human until 1978. The Mormon hierarchy are NOT nice people, and they do not play well with others. Claims of exclusive monopoly on truth tend to alienate everyone else, up to and including New Apostolic Reformationist American Theocracy Apocalypse-humpers. The only reason the evangelical camp has encouraged Mormon participation in dehumanizing gay people since Hawaii 1997 is because they love when someone else foots the bill. Someone else is bankrolling the hate! Climb on the bandwagon, y'all!! We can toss 'em off once their purpose is served, and glory be to our version of Jebus! The problem with a theocracy is that everyone wants to be Theo.
Good to see that Mittens is the first thought of many commenters. This is almost certainly a bid to make the LDS a more mainstream (conservative) political player, esp since Prop 8 also bans pluralistic marriages for which the early LDS was notorious. All that said, I've heard from good people that the oppo on Mitt is rich, so I highly doubt a successful '12 run.
It's more than an "impression" -- it's a reality -- the civil rights of a minority group were taken away, bankrolled by the LDS' lies and misinformation. There is a legal right I had two weeks ago that I do not have today. That is not my "impression", Marc. It's reality. This ain't over, and any church would be wise to stay out of the politics of granting and taking away civil rights of taxpaying Americans.
I'm a left-leaning Mormon who opposed both Prop. 8, and the LDS Church's involvement with it. However, I think the idea that Mormon church leaders got involved in the Prop. 8 as a strategy for increased political influence is ludicrous. I just think they honestly believed their own tortured arguments (which I found extremely weak and unconvincing) that gay marriage would somehow weaken traditional marriage (which they take extremely seriously). The LDS position on Prop. 8 was not significantly different than its position on California's prior anti-same-sex marriage initiative in 2000. The reason it got so much attention this time was that other demographic factors had shifted, and the vote was much closer. Those shifting demographic trends mean that an increasing portion of the electorate is going to see the Mormon position on same-sex marriage as mean-spirited and wrong. That is not good PR. Meanwhile, a large portion of the Republican Party's tribalistic, xenophobic evangelical base, faced with presidential ballot that offered a Mormon, on one hand, and the Antichrist, on the other, would probably just sit out the election. Evangelicals have invested decades of effort into defining Mormons (and most other non-evangelicals) as non-Christians, and tribal Christianity, not social conservatism (and certainly not competence) is what matters most to them. $20 million spent on Prop. 8 will not change that perception.
I don't see what future implications this has for Mormon political clout other than possibly bad ones. Do you really think banning gay marriage is going to be more popular in 2012 than it is now, Marc?
Am I the only one who sees the irony in this? One of the biggest issues the LDS church has to struggle with is their scriptural and prophetical teachings regarding plural marriage. Doctrine & Covenants, and the teachings and life of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young state quite clearly that having more than one wife is God's ultimate plan for man. However, due to governmental persecution, the church left this teaching, which is found in their scripture, and taught by their prophets, who reportedly speak for God. With the history, it is ironic that their big push into politics is related to the government restricting the rights of groups to define marriage in way that makes sense for them. They were persecuted for decades by the government for their marriage practices, and now decide to persecute others... Strange times...
Ummm...Obama hasn't even taken the oath of freekin' office yet. Can we keep a lid on 2012 until at least January 21st?!!?
Clearly, Romney is paying gay agitators with attitudes and rippling six-pack abs to picket the Mormon church. I've heard he's even springing for some swishy gold lame' outfits for them, maybe bringing out the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Yeah, that's the ticket...
Fascinating implications? Mark, this should have zero implications. There is no religious test and one's faith should have no bearing on a candidate. I was constantly troubled by Barack Obama's insistence that he was not a Muslim. What message did his many denials send to American citizens who were Muslim? Why was he so adamant that he was NOT a Muslim but a Christian? Obama was once asked if he thought he would have come so far during the campaign if he was a Muslim. He gave a tiring wordy answer about how he was Christian and didn't appreciate the rumors. Wrong answer. Shame on him! The correct answer was yes. In this great country of religious freedom and religious diversity anyone of any faith can become president. No religion should be excluded from the process, neither Muslim nor Mormon. One's religion as one's race, gender, and ethnicity should matter not a whit.
Finding a nationally-known pro-life Mormon Republican politician is possible, but not easy, since you're pretty much stuck with one state. Finding a nationally-known pro-life Catholic Republican politician is a lot easier. Why did neither end up as VP to McCain? Because you can vote pro-life until your face turns blue, but if you're not a born-again evangelical Christian -- if your religious service of choice involves going to an LDS temple or a synagogue or Mass -- you're screwed in today's GOP. I love the way the GOP acted as though Giuliani and Lieberman were persona non grata because of their pro-choice stance. That's bullshit. Rudy and Joe could've been protesting at every Planned Parenthood from coast to coast, they wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the GOP ticket, just like Romney. It's why the whole draft-Jindal thing cracks me up. The GOP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Southern Baptist Convention. Nuff said.
To fully comprehend what motivates Mormons and the Mormon Church in standing up for what we believe to be right in the context of same-sex marriage, one must understand Mormon doctrine as it relates to gender, marriage, sex (procreation) and who we really are as humans. Few people, in my experience, have any interest in learning about or understanding the Church and its members from a doctrinal point of view. They simply base their opinions on incorrect perceptions or take as fact the misleading and false statements of those who have an ax to grind. Understanding these doctrines, without necessarily accepting them, will produce greater insight into how Mormons think and act than any kind of political analysis will ever provide. What's more, understanding these teachings will serve to move the discussion away from name-calling and ill feelings and toward mutual respect.
Um, no. A doctrine that encourages discrimination against gays and lesbians doesn't deserve understanding or respect. I don't care who's pushing it.
What's more, understanding these teachings will serve to move the discussion away from name-calling and ill feelings and toward mutual respect.I doubt it. It's really hard to respect someone who wants to strip you of your your basic human rights no matter what their beliefs are. It's really a bottom-line kind of debate.
Setting aside these ill-thought-out hypotheticals, the simple facts remain: (1) the LDS church has taken a vehement, indelible stand on one side of the culture war; (2) the side it has chosen is 100% guaranteed to be the losing side, and the loss will be a landslide; and (3) the Church will be punished and further marginalized by society for its decision, as it has been punished and marginalized for similar decisions about similar culture wars at least twice in the past.
Two things: 2. Somebody said something about separation of church and state. That's silly. The Establishment Clause in the constitution -- and the concern about the separation of church and state -- is primarily and predominantly about keeping the state out of religion (i.e., not "establishing" a religion via the power of the state). Churches and religious groups still have the right to speak out on political issues, as a matter of free speech. Of course, some have talked about the issue of tax exempt status -- I'm not sure about the details on that, and perhaps the Mormon Church's actions here might flirt with causing problems in this regard. But I doubt it. The Mormon Church is pretty savvy -- and they have a lot of smart people, including smart lawyers, who would have considering these issues thoroughly before making any move. So my guess is that there won't be any real action on the tax exempt issue.
I am a liberal Protestant minister in California who has examined the doctrines of the LDS church with regard to "gender, marriage, sex (procreation), and who we really are as humans." I disagree with those doctrines, which is why I'm not LDS, and I do not consider them in any way compatible with historic Christian theology on these matters. Despite those views, I would never suggest the LDS church should not exist, that members of that church should be persecuted, or that they should not have the complete freedom, as do all Americans, to practice the faith of their own choosing and in their own way. But please tell me how changing civil law to permit two persons of the same gender to marry requires the LDS to change its theology or practices? As a minister I am authorized to "solemnize" marriage under state law. The congregation I serve authorized me to solemnize either opposite-gender or same-gender marriages. But neither the law nor my congregation compel me to solemnize the marriages of every couple that comes to me to get married. I can and have declined some requests when I thought the marriage was ill-advised. If Prop 8 had failed, and the rights of same gender persons to marry had been upheld, the LDS church would not have been required to provide Temple Marriage or any other marriage to such couples. It was not a vote on the veracity of LDS teachings. The teachings of a church can be changed only by the church that holds them. On the other hand, my church's theology of marriage equality (which I honestly acknowledge is a departure from historic Christian theology) cannot be practiced. We reached our theology on this after several decades of study and reflection. The outcome of this vote restricts our free exercise of religion. That's disturbing to me and the role the LDS played in restricting my church's freedom on this matter, not LDS docrines, is why I have ill feelings towards the LDS right now.
One more thing: There are only two Mormon "doctrines" involved here. One is the doctrine that homosexuality is immoral -- the same way fornication and adultery are immoral. The other is the doctrine that marriage is an institution (a "covenant" between a man and a woman) that is ordained by God. Taking a stand against gay marriage is a policy decision that stems from the belief in these doctrines -- but the decision to oppose gay marriage is not itself a "doctrine." And the Church does NOT teach discrimination against any class of people, nor do these doctrines require or imply the denial of equal rights to any class of people. (Any such stance taken by a Mormon is a stance taken by that Mormon, and not a stance endemic to Mormonism.) Personally, I think the fight over "marriage" is, at root, merely a semantic battle, since "marriage" today is more secular and legal than religious in nature -- it might as well be called a "civil union," even among heterosexuals. But for the sake of argument, it must be pointed out that it can be perfectly consistent to believe that "marriage" should retain its religious significance, and be preserved as a solely heterosexual institution, while also believing that homosexuals as a class should be treated equally under the law (per the 14th Amendment). This is why the Church has flashed some willingness to condone civil unions, while working so hard to prevent gay marriage. The point is...understanding the "doctrines" might help you to understand the Church's positions after all. But instead, some of you seem to think that Mormon "doctrine" is discriminatory -- and that's really not true.
Last thing from me tonight: I just want to be clear that I am not taking the position of defending the Church's decision to become so explicitly and actively involved in supporting prop 8. I personally have mixed feelings about that involvement -- and I'm not sure how I would've voted on prop 8, had I been living in California. Most of what I've been saying here has been in an effort to clarify or inform -- not so much to defend. Also, I wasn't saying that the Church's teachings would be altered by gay marriage -- nor was I saying that the Church would have to perform temple marriages for gay people. All I was saying was that IF there was any "political calculating" going on, it would have been in that sense -- i.e., calculations vis a vis the Church's practices -- and not calculations vis a vis Romney or the GOP or the Religious Right. But as I said before, I do NOT think that "political calculations" were a big part of the equation here. I think this decision was primarily and predominantly moral in nature, and not political. And while I'm not sure, personally, that this decision was the best decision -- from a policy standpoint, and certainly not from a PR standpoint -- nevertheless, I certainly think the Church has every right to take this moral stance, and to exercise this political speech.
Jason Steed concludes: "And while I'm not sure, personally, that this decision was the best decision -- from a policy standpoint, and certainly not from a PR standpoint -- nevertheless, I certainly think the Church has every right to take this moral stance, and to exercise this political speech." I agree. This is America. Ignorant, vicious bigots have the right to express themselves. The Mormon church has chosen that path freely. Again.
When polygamy held them back from achieving statehood for Utah, they LDS church changed its doctrine. When their blatant racism was giving them, pardon the pun, a black eye, they changed their doctrine. And doctrine has been changed on many lesser issues. A comparison between a pre-1900 Book of Mormon (their bible) and a current version of same shows significant revisions in their holiest of texts. To say they are steadfast in their beliefs is laughable. If nothing else, the LDS church is opportunistic when it's to their advantage.
Exhuming Mccarthy wrote, “With the history, it is ironic that their big push into politics is related to the government restricting the rights of groups to define marriage in way that makes sense for them. They were persecuted for decades by the government for their marriage practices, and now decide to persecute others...” My Response: I think your observations ignore very important distinctions in the comparison of 19th century Mormon’s practice of polygamy and the current debate over same-sex marriage in CA. To me, the most glarring is that these early Mormon polygamists never once asked for public/societial/ government/official whatever you’d like to call it -- recognition for thier “alternative lifestyle” but simply asked/plead/begged not to be criminalized for it which of course, they never achieved. This is important to note in judging Mormon involvement in Prop 8 because Prop 8 was not about whether or not to criminalize same sex partnerships nor was it even about taking away the public recognition afforded same sex couples they continue to have access to in domestic partnerships -- no, Prop 8 is about rejecting the idea that our society should make no distinctions at all between same sex partnerships and traditional marriage. Case and point: Can you just imagine taking a group of public school kindergardeners to a plural marriage and calling it “a teachable momment”? I’m a Mormon and just the thought of that makes me cringe on several levels. I think in making public policy, we should always distinguish between partnering forms if for nothing else than to respect differing values. Furthermore, the early Mormon polygamists would never have wanted public adoption of thier marriage form -- these Mormons as much as any outside group, feared the potential for abuse within their marriage system and felt that only the most “righteous and upstanding” of persons should be allowed to practice it and only within the Mormon community. No. Public acceptance, embrace or recognition of thier marriage practice was not on their radar -- only public tolerance and public respect. Mormons know what it is to have the goverment and public opinion impose and encroach and eventually trump religious freedoms, hence to many of us it makes perfect sense to get involved in this issue lest we potentially be backed into a corner again.
It's disappointing, Marc, that you perpetuate this myth that the Mormon Church "bankrolled" the opposition. Individual Mormons contributed, as did individuals from other churches. Meanwhile, there are no implications for 2012 whatsoever. Individual Mormons will vote for the Republican candidate by 4-1 margins, like they always do, and the Mormon Church itself will stay out of any individual's political campaign by refusing to endorse or discuss any individual candidates, like they always do.
Anyone who thinks the Mormon church supported Prop. 8 to promote Romney is way off track. The church did it for its own reasons. But to say that it was not the church, it was individual members, who supported this measure is also off track. The church "encouraged" those individual members to do it, as it has "encouraged" individual members to do things in the past, such as oppose the ERA. The church can hide behind the old "individual member" smokescreen, but every member of the church knows the church as an institution was behind it.
Laura said: I think in making public policy, we should always distinguish between partnering forms if for nothing else than to respect differing values. Fair enough. I propose the following taxonomy in addition to "traditional marriage" (which shall be defined as a marriage that is none of the following): To respect the values of people who morally object to same-sex intimacy: "Same-sex civil unions." Or is it only the values of the anti-gay bloc that deserve respect when formulating these distinctions?
except that the LDS church had *already* been at the forefront of the anti-marriage movement for like a decade before romney ran this past cycle. and while he had a few boosters among evangelical elites, evangelical voters still treated him like the plague (check the exit polls).
I think everyone is totally missing the point about this. The issue is religious freedom and what the Christian churches sees as the coming encroachment on religious freedom. See: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp It just so happens that the gay marriage issue has far-reaching implications for religious freedom. Read the article above for a better understanding of the issues at stake. The collission is an ever wider definition of what a civil right is and an ever narrower definition of what a religious right is. Where the two collide, you're going to see sparks. And that's what you're seeing now. For me, personally, I was surprised to see Prop 8 pass. I think many church members who supported it were still surprised that it did. To lay this at the church's feet is dumb, though. Anyone is free to put forth a point of view on the issue. The people of California decided this. One of the most "liberal" populaces in the country decided this. Take it up with the people of California, not the people who took the time to express their opinion on the matter. Losing parties always need scapegoats. It perhaps has not occurred to them that they failed to articulate their cause as they should have. The burden was on them to show why the traditional definition of marriage should not be codified constitutionally, and they failed. They ought to be angry only with themselves. They'll have other chances to articulate in the future and I assume that at some point they'll come to realize that they'll have to do a better job.
And, by the way, while the church has earned some gratitude from Religious organizations who support a traditional definition of marriage, this doesn't mean anything for 2012, unless it's back on the ballot, at which time it will be expected for the LDS church to do heavy lifting on the issue. It's very important that religious organizations remind gay-marriage advocates that the burden is on them to convince people that there is no fundamental, important difference between defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman and instead defining it as the union of two (or more) people (or "living beings" or "human beings" or "whatever"). Laura, in fairness to you, I see where you're getting at. I believe that you are saying something that would essentially look like this: Union of man and woman is marriage. Call the union of a man and a man, for example, garriage. Call the union of a woman and a woman larriage. make them all a subset of "Unions". Make law that apples for unions in general, or for marriage, garriage, and larriage in particular. But there needs be a legal, definitional way of distinguishing because the unions are composed of different relationships. Not all issues relevant to a man-woman union are the same as man-man and woman-woman issues. I know that there are peoples that want to see the complete dissolution of difference between men and women, but that is just a very difficult argument to make in light of nature being what it is. Is that waht you're getting at, Laura?
The Mormon influence in CA is exactly why we need to stop letting civil rights be voted upon by the electorate - and why the "states should decide this by themselves" is a stupid idea. If states don't limit contributions to propositions to only in-state entities and monies raised in state, then it really isn't a 'state's rights issue' is it? We need a federal definition of marriage including same sex partners so that one state can't decide against civil rights for some but not all.
It seems to be quite a leap to claim that: is somehow 2. a denial of basic civil rights It is because that claim - to prove that leap - was not successfully been made by those who claim it taht Prop 8 failed to pass. As you're seeing, words do mean things. Words correspond to states of affairs in the real world. And the word "marriage" has corresponded to a particular state of affairs for a long time. To merely codify it and say, "Yes, when we say marriage this is what we mean. When the word 'marriage' was written into any law over the last 1200 years the state-of-affairs the writers intended was X" is perfectly legitimate. To me, if you're going to hijack a word that has been used to define a state of affairs for forever, you have to have a pretty good argument. It's fair to put that to a vote - do we wish to change the meaning of a word or do we intend it to mean what it always has. This issue is so much deeper than most admit. I understand the word marriage has been used several hundreds of thousands of times in acts of legislation and in court decisions. When the word was used in these instances, it was always used with the "state of affairs" in mind as being man and woman. The argument that the retroactive changing of the intent of the use of that word through historical use of it wasn't compelling enough to garner support through a vote. Voters decided to let it have the meaning it has always had up until a few months ago in CA, when a group of 4 judges decided to turn language on it head. I think it was the right decision. Now, the debate should be over whether or not there are any fundamental differences in the unions of women-men, men-men, and men-women and, if so, what those are and what they mean legally.
HI Drex, My thoughts are somewhat along those lines. I think society should uphold traditional marriage as the ideal -- if we choose to uphold the rights of children as one of our secular values just as the French decided when confronted with this same question. To me, the marriage forms of both polygamy and same sex partnerships each have inherent difficulties for children. In polygamy there is the inherent potential for female subjecation. Hence, I think our society should distinguish between all of these marital forms. Perhaps allow for all of them in some way or another but continuing to distinguish between them so that we can more responsibly shape public policy in behalf of children. One of the things that has struck me in my research and pondering of this topic that has lead me to this conclusion, is the potential for same sex couples -- if we make no distinction between married hetero couples -- the potential for society to then have little recourse to deny same sex couples the ability to create life from 2 sperm or 2 ova when the technology is available in the future. To me, a child created in that way would be unethical and unfair to that child but if we equate same sex partnerships in every way to traditional marriages, the government will then have little argument in deny those couples the right to have their own children together in this way if they so desire. That's just one example of why I think we need to be more nuanced in how we approach the making of public policy in adopting or recognizing any additional marriage forms than simply doing so with a broad stroke as was done by the 4 judges here in CA and I believe rightfully rejected.
Well, you've got to look at how Romney's candidacy failed. He had support in Weekly Standard corners, NRO Corners (haha), WSJ types, AND he had deeper pockets than anyone in the race. The Dobson types stayed quiet about him, the Rushes liked him but maintained some suspicions... I'm in Iowa, and I'm sorry, we were carpetbombed with Romney ads. Huckabee's just thirty times as likable, and this is me talking as a democrat. Romney's problem has never been social conservative elites or party elites accepting him, it's been John and Jill Megachurch suspecting that, while he's a Mormon, he's essentially a Saks Republican and not a Walmart Republican. And do you know what? He really doesn't sound like, in his heart of hearts, he's either a crazy zealot or a bad mormon: he seems like a good Mormon who prefers to talk about security and economy. But I don't see that fire starting.
Romney is a pragmatist, not an ideologue. That's why campaigning as an ideologue came off contrived (it was, in part). I have no doubt that Romney's leanings are more conservative than he showed in Mass. However, I believe they're less conservative than he showed in the primaries. It's actually his pragmatism I got excited about, because he seems to hate wasteful government spending while he seems to have a tendency to want to stay away from more of the divisive cultural issues. If something doesn't change with the structure and expense burden that government has gotten us into, there's not going to be a country to fight a culture war in! Romney deplores inefficiency with more zeal that he support abortion restriction. I'm OK with that since problem #1 is out of control gov't spending that (if not already) is quickly leading to the oppression of the American people.
Laura, "... is the potential for same sex couples -- if we make no distinction between married hetero couples -- the potential for society to then have little recourse to deny same sex couples the ability to create life from 2 sperm or 2 ova when the technology is available in the future. To me, a child created in that way would be unethical and unfair to that child but if we equate same sex partnerships in every way to traditional marriages, the government will then have little argument in deny those couples the right to have their own children together in this way if they so desire."
If dissenting Mormons step up and testify that they were coerced by church authorities to campaign for or against a candidate or party -- as some church members have said they were coerced to campaign for Prop 8 -- the LDS could be in serious danger of losing its tax-exempt status. Watch to see who's appointed U.S. attorney in Utah.
Hi Barbara, My apologies, I'll make another, I hope better, attempt to explain as well as offer a link to the original author/text who raised this concern, Canadian Bioethicist Margarette Sommerville. On this point, Sommerville essentially argues, that it is likely in the future scientific developments will enable the biotechnology that would make it possible to create a human life from two sperm or two ova as opposed to the natural process of creating a human life that occurs with a ova + sperm combo. In other words, we will likely have the technology to produce a lineal, biological child from two men or two women. Sommerville objects to this potential use of biotechnology and forsees in legalizing gay marriage, that it would then be very difficult to legally bar same sex couples from using that technology to create a child because they will have all of the same protections under the law as hetero couples and in that scenario -- where again there is no legal differentiation between hetero v. homo marriages -- any attempts to restrict same sex couples from pursuing the creation of a biological child together would likely be deemed discriminatory and ultimately an illegal infringement of government on that married couples rights (I believe Sommerville has both a law and pharmaceutical background.) Hope that clarifies. This is a link to Sommerville's arguments against gay marriage. It's about 10 pages and I think worth the read. http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/somerville.pdf
What's so wrong with "redefining marriage," anyway? People who bleat about "traditional marriage" seem to be forgetting the following: 1. Marriages between black people weren't really marriages, only "domestic partnerships," because black people weren't human beings, they were property. "Traditional marriage" sounds more and more like a business transaction complete with forced breeding that I want nothing to do with. I'd much rather have "redefined marriage" in which two people who love each other, who are committed to the other's well-being, and who are on equal legal and social footing establish kinship under civil law. Elder Whitney Clayton of the quorum of the seventy recently stated that the lds church advocated for same-sex civil unions or domestic parternships, just "don't call it marriage." THAT IS A LIE; the lds church supported a Utah state constitutional ban on same-sex marriages AND civil unions, and forced Salt Lake City to change the name of their city-wide domestic partner registry to "mutual commitment registry" to avoid even acknowledging the existence of LGBT people in Utah. There's the love of Christ for you. He who stopped the people from stoning the woman taken in adultery would not know these pharisees who falsely claim his truth and stain his name.
re: Jason Steed's comment: "I'm not sure how I would've voted on prop 8, had I been living in California." Just for the record Jason, f*ck you too. No seriously. You're not sure how you would have voted to tear apart 20,000 families, threatening them with government-mandated divorce by popular vote, and making bastards out of (4 of my) children. Then, seriously, Jason, f*ck you too. Obviously we'll repeal Prop 8 at some point, with or without your help, while you continue pondering whether to defile families.
And wow, Laura, what a hater you are. Segregate marriage in case gay couples end up cloning themselves? Really?? What??? This argument is called a justification for your unjustifiable discrimination against gay/lesbian families.
Correction Keori, Elder Whitney said the Church would not oppose civil unions, he never said the Church would advocate for them and that's an important distinction. Utah voters will determine what they would like to do on those matters without an official Church encouragement or discouragement. In other words, on civil unions, the Church will lead no effort against them but that is hardly a promise of advocacy for them. Furthermore, Elder Whitney is not part of the highest governing body of the Church so I would be cautious in taking his word as any definitive official church position.
It is factually inaccurate to report that the LDS Church bankrolled Prop. 108. It did not. What the LDS Church did, however, do, was encourage its members to be involved in the political process, which many did. But to say that because the Jones family in Sacramento donated money to a non-profit advocacy group and posted a sign in their front lawn, the "Church" therefore "bankrolled" this proposition is poor journalism. This week's orchestrated protests in front of LDS temples are a obvious attempt stir the coals of old prejudices against the LDS Church and to reframe the debate into something it is not: "tolerance" (surely a virtue) vs. "Mormonism" (surely a vice). I've been a Mormon for a lot of years, and this may come as a disappointment to some, but a visitor to our church would find no hatred for gays among the rank-and-file members or among our leaders. We preach kindness, understanding, and neighborliness toward gays and everyone else, and most of us try hard to live up to those ideals. We do not organize protests, shout angrily at those with differing points of view, or foment hatred toward gays or others. We have gay men and women in our congregations and welcome them as brothers and sisters. This current effort to castigate Latter-day Saints as hateful of gays may capture headlines, but it does not capture reality. Why, then, do Mormons support Prop 108? Because we, like other Christians, accept the Biblical teachings on the nature of marriage as God's word. And while we reach out to gays within and without the Church with friendship and affection, as people of faith and adherents to Biblical teachings, we are unable to dismiss God's word as merely another man's opinion. In short, we didn't write the rules, but feel obliged to follow them.
It is factually inaccurate to report that the LDS Church bankrolled Prop. 108. It did not. What the LDS Church did, however, do, was encourage its members to be involved in the political process, which many did. But to say that because the Jones family in Sacramento donated money to a non-profit advocacy group and posted a sign in their front lawn, the "Church" therefore "bankrolled" this proposition is poor journalism. This week's orchestrated protests in front of LDS temples are a obvious attempt stir the coals of old prejudices against the LDS Church and to reframe the debate into something it is not: "tolerance" (surely a virtue) vs. "Mormonism" (surely a vice). I've been a Mormon for a lot of years, and this may come as a disappointment to some, but a visitor to our church would find no hatred for gays among the rank-and-file members or among our leaders. We preach kindness, understanding, and neighborliness toward gays and everyone else, and most of us try hard to live up to those ideals. We do not organize protests, shout angrily at those with differing points of view, or foment hatred toward gays or others. We have gay men and women in our congregations and welcome them as brothers and sisters. This current effort to castigate Latter-day Saints as hateful of gays may capture headlines, but it does not capture reality. Why, then, do Mormons support Prop 108? Because we, like other Christians, accept the Biblical teachings on the nature of marriage as God's word. And while we reach out to gays within and without the Church with friendship and affection, as people of faith and adherents to Biblical teachings, we are unable to dismiss God's word as merely another man's opinion. In short, we didn't write the rules, but feel obliged to follow them. We also believe in civility. We extend civility to others of different perspectives and hope to be granted the same basic courtesy. Maybe next week.
Laura, Utah voters will do whatever the church leadership tells them to do, just as they have always done. Stop bearing false witness. And get off the computer. Don't you have a kitchen to clean or a husband to care for or something?
What the LDS Church did, however, do, was encourage its members to be involved in the political process, which many did. I think that encouraged is too small of a word. More like threatened the ex-communication of members if they didn't follow the "suggestions" Why, then, do Mormons support Prop 108? Because we, like other Christians, accept the Biblical teachings on the nature of marriage as God's word. Then they are also 100% for polygamous marriages, which is God's plan for marriage. They are also against black people being called human as well. Those are the teachings of the church aren't they? Oh, I forgot they no longer teach that part of the holy book to you. Lastly, if you can't make an argument beyond "that's what the bible tells me" then you have no argument in a secular government.
In response to those who say that it is factually inaccurate to claim that the LDS Church bankrolled Prop. 8, my understanding (and it is based on reporting, not my own eyes) is that the LDS provided the contact lists to the Yes on 8 campaign with the intent to solicit donation from them. That seems like political activity to me. And political activity is permitted for a church. Let's always remember that. But that church which engages in direct political activity looses the deductability of donations to it. That changes the affordability of their work, but not their right to do it. As some evangelicals have learned in the past 8 years -- when you mix politics and religion, you just get politics.
Hello JordonT, You misrepresent how Mormons were asked to participate. I was never "threatened" with excommunication. In our congregation, a voluntary sign up sheet went around periodically to fulfill various activities such as making phone calls, canvassing or waving signs on a particular night. People could sign up for whatever they wanted to do -- some people never signed up for any number of reasons and nobody cared. My husband and I donated a measly 20 bucks and nobody ever new or cared or asked how much we'd given or not given. I just can't relate at all to what you are trying to portray here.
Furthermore, you misrepresent how Mormons feel about Blacks and about polygamy. As a people, Mormons were relieved and grateful when policies changed concerning Black members -- the entire church rejoiced -- both whites and blacks wept when it changed. The Church is currently growing very rapidly in Ghana and Nigeria in particular and I love and am proud of my brothers and sisters in the faith there. As to polygamy, the Book of Mormon has always outlined marriage between one woman and one man as the rule and polygamy as the exception.
Keori, I am not an expert on Utah politics but as far as I know, the Church has done nothing of late to oppose civil unions. If you have evidence otherwise, let's here it as opposed to personal attacks.
Perhaps I'm being naive about this, but I suspect that the Mormon church's support for Prop 8 stems, not from a desire to gain political clout in conservative circles, but instead from very strong and sincerely held beliefs about marriage. I am not a Mormon, but my limited interactions with the Mormon Church lead me to believe that marital issues are an extremely important part of their religion. I heard that they believe that marriage is not "until death do us part" but actually continues on in the afterlife. I lived in the Bronx in NYC for 16 years and the Mormons took over an office space right next to my apartment. They were really trying to expand their membership in the Bronx at this time ( in the late 1990's); I would always see friendly young men walking around in pairs in suits trying to talk to people about their church. They often came door to door in my apartment building. I had no interest in joining their religion, but when they came to my door I often let them in just to talk to them for a minute. ( I often thought of offering them a beer, just to see how they'd react!) Anyway, they ALWAYS asked me if I were married ( I am a woman, then about 30 years old)andwhen I told them I wasn't married, they found this deeply disturbing. They told me I really needed to get married. Many different Mormon representatives through the years have asked me about my marital status. So, although this is a limited experience over many years, I have the impression that being married is something extremely important to their religious beliefs. Can any Momon tell me? Are single people looked down upon in Mormon culture? So, the post above about the apolitical nature of the Mormon church does seem to fit with my experience. I think they are just really into conservative marital views, but not neccesarilty into conservativism as such.
Interesting thread. This is a complicated issue for LDS as it will require a major theological reworking to accomodate same sex unions. At the same time, if God appeared to the highest church leaders tomorrow and said "I have been testing you to see if you are tolerant of others...you have not been and I now command you to fully accept gay members" I bet a lot of LDS would shrug their shoulders and move on. Until something like that comes along, the LDS will have to walk a fine line to show love and respect to gays yet at the same time be able to say that they disagree with them. In Mass, where I live, gay marriage has not been a huge deal, though an LDS couple did lose a federal lawsuit in that they weren't able to pull their 6 year old out of class when the book about two princes getting married was read. The school principle, I think, correctly told the parents that hey...we have gay families in this school with legally married parents...we can and will talk about this. Some decry this as indoctrination of minors but the others say it is teaching of tolerance. You decide. The quote by "Micheal Preston" above is typical of the animosity felt by many gays towards the LDS. the LDS are an easy identifiable target. Furthermore, it's easier to curse at someone than it is to reason with them. Brad does hit the nail on the head noting that rank and file LDS are not really in to confrontation and would rather not comment on someone else's lifestyle for the most part. However, most LDS will teach in their own homes that "the world is making a mistake on this one". Just like we teach that drinking alchohol, smoking are harmful to one's bodies, most LDS will teach that sexual intimacy with a same sex partner will damage one's gender identity. Of course, this is the heart of the disagreement with the gay community. I suspect after this election cycle more Mormons will vote Democratic. "Liberal" Massachusetts had no problem electing the "moderate" Romney though the "conservative" Romney undoubtedly would not have fared as well. However, his religion was not an issue in local politics for the most part. In the future, the LDS community may find it easier to be a more diverse, more bipartisan community to avoid stereotypes (would there really be all these protests if people felt that LDS were not so homogenous). In addition, it may be easier for the LDS to promote certain socon values within the Democratic big-tent. That may not sound plausible at present, but you may actually have an easier time pointing out the fallacy of abortion to a well educated Democrat than trying to convince a Southern Baptist that you are not from outer space because they read some far out prophecy that Brigham Young pronounced 150 years ago.
"I have the impression that being married is something extremely important to their religious beliefs. Can any Mormon tell me? Are single people looked down upon in Mormon culture?" Hi Scooter, Can I first just say how nice it is for someone to simply extend to Mormons the courtesy of asking us what we believe and also the courtesy of not immeadiately jumping to the conclusion that we are any number of awful things because we have a differing conviction. That is just particually pleasant in the current climate. Thank you. To your first question, your impression is absolutely correct. In fact, I find it a challenge to try to somehow briefly explain Mormon theology on marriage because of the full extent to which marriage finds such centrality in and permeates through Mormon theology. In what sounds like some fairly awkward exchanges with some missionaries, somehow that still came across... So yes, Mormons do believe marriage and families can continue beyond death. Building what Mormons refer to as an eternal marriage or celestial marriage with their spouse and with God, is the ultimate end that Mormons seek. That eternal unity with their family and with God is what Mormon's conceive of as Heaven actually being if they keep God's commandments so again, marriage and family and salvation are all constantly weaved together.
I have rarely been motivated to email a talk show but, today, after watching The View, I was compelled to do so. Their discussion of Proposition 8 and pointed derision of the Mormon Church - some of which is echoed in this email stream - was extremely offensive, and should be to all people of any faith. I am particularly disappointed by Ms. Walters, who at least has established journalistic bona fides. Following are 4 key points that are distinctly relevant to this discussion: 1. Proposition 8 was supported by members of many Christian faiths, as were similar measures all over the country, including the Catholic Church and many Evangelical denominations. To single out the Mormon Church when its members were only part of a much larger coalition (the Catholic church, e.g., is many times larger than the Mormon Church) is blatantly dishonest representation and demonstrates religious bigotry at its worst. Further, according to exit polling, this measure was supported by many ethic groups, including the large majority of Hispanics and African American voters. Why are not all who supported Prop 8 being vilified? We've broken the ultimate ceiling of racial bigotry with the election of an African-American president - of which I am very proud - but is religous bigotry still okay? Just because you do not agree with the doctrines of a particular church, do Americans have the right to levy prejudicial attacks on that religion and its followers? If so, where does it stop? 2. The Mormon Church (formally known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) did not directly fund the coalition. Rather, it asked its members to be engaged in the process and support the measure if they so chose. People of any religious faith have every right to view the definition of marriage as that between a man and a woman, as does the Catholic Church and many other religions. These are spiritual beliefs and, as is often the case, they may differ from the secular view and they often differ between religions. Do you now believe you have the right to tell the Catholic Church to abolish the doctrine of original sin because it considers us all born in sin? Do you have the right to tell the Jewish community that they must accept Jesus Christ as their Savior? Of course not - these are doctrinal beliefs - if you don't support them, join a different church. Furthermore, do these churches not have the right to influence the perspectives of the world? It was Jesus Christ's mission to do just that! Please note this next sentence carefully: Religion in politics is simply the political opinion of people who are religious - it is as important and valid a special interest group as any other that is involved in the political process. 3. Mormons are a strong, family-focused group, very American, and very Christ-centered. And very supportive of civil rights for all people, including the gay community. Their belief regarding the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman is shared by many, though clearly not all. But then there are quite a few things the Savior said with which the world does not agree. That doesn't make the world right. 4. Finally, do a little research on American history. The founding fathers concern about the separation between church and state was directed to their personal experience with state dominance of religion. They weren't worried about religion influencing government - in fact, they clearly hoped it would. Rather, they had lived through government suppressing freedom of religion and wanted to ensure that this would never happen in the new world. While we are all still patting ourselves on the back for, at last, electing an African-American president, I am saddened to see that relious bigotry is still tolerated. We should all be speaking up loudly in defense of the millions who have the right to believe and actively support their religous beliefs both in private and in the public square. To do so, is America at its best.
I hope the answer to your first question starts to shed some light on your second question. With finding one's "eternal companion" and building an "eternal family" being so ideal and central to Mormonism, for Mormon's who experience ongoing singlehood or a failed marriage it can completely stress us out at times and become a point of genuine heartache. The Church doesn't look down on singles but it could easily be said that Mormons ultimately do not desire singlehood because of what we believe about families. Still, we all understand there are a 100 completely ligitimate reasons why people don't end up ever marrying or staying married so the Church strives to foster sensitivity for any of us who find ourselves in that situation. Mormon doctrine on singlehood also includes that all single persons who adhere to all other commandments and by no fault of their own where unable to find and marry an eternal companion of their choosing, that they will be able to marry in the next life and ultimately have that highest of ideals. I hope that all makes sense?
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Fascinating indeed. LDS' position might not look so good for long, considering the swift response of LGBTQ rights organizers such as Join the Impact. If the grassroots social network activism that helped Obama win mobilizes effectively here, the twin punch of a repeal in California (and possibly other states) and an attack on LDS' tax-exempt status could change perceptions significantly. We shall see ...
Posted by jon | November 11, 2008 3:47 PM