What’s it like to be a Mormon progressive?

"Petersen argued that the strong association between Mormonism and Republicanism is not healthy for the religion, because political parties take members for granted. "Republicans know they have it in the bag, and Democrats know they don't have a chance,''"---Is that like it's not healthy for e.g. blacks, single women, gays, Jews etc.to be strongly associate with Democratism, because political parties take members for granted.

Not having been there, just taking Michael Paulson's take on it, it sounds like Petersen and Thurston could both be classified as liberal Mormons, if that's not a contradiction in terms. That would be statistically improbable on a panel of 3, which is what i would call stacking the panel to reach a pre-determined outcome, that conservative/traditional/orthodox Mormons are deplorable or at least pitiable.

Thurston either doesn't know his own church history or he is miss telling it to make himself feel better. Brigham Young never condoned or encouraged slavery. Why would he if Joseph Smith was very publically against slavery, he ran for president under a anti-slavery stance. He should do some reading and not just interpret what he thinks he knows.
Lastly as a Mormon I wouldn't condemn him to hell but I sure would question his loyalties considering there is no middle ground with believing in a prophet and revelation, either you do or you don't and I think he doesn't unless it conforms with his own beliefs.

Mr. Thurston and Mr. Petersen, as well as all members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, would be wise to review the consistent words of the prophets and the canonized scripture regarding the Constitution and proper role of government. Why members of the church continue to support either party, when they both have abandoned our Constitution, is beyond me.

Democrats = Republicans

When Mitt Romney tried to codify his religious beliefs into Massachusetts state law, he made those religious beliefs a legitimate campaign issue. One could look at his record as governor of Massachusetts and logically extrapolate his performance as President. Given that and the huge "investment" that LDS made in Prop Hate, Romney's religious beliefs will resurface as an issue in 2012 unless he can convince people that he actually believes in the separation of church and state. And the Republican Party is going to continue to face this until they cease their attempts to sacrifice our liberties on the altar of Christian Sharia law. I think that most Americans believe 2 things. One's religion is one's own business. Until they attempt to force others to obey their religious dictates.

Allow me to attempt, if possible, to translate Ontheleft's diatribe into English. "When Mitt Romney tried to codify his religious beliefs into MA state law..." ="When MItt Romney tried to propose laws that may have tangentially agreed with some revealed religion..." ="When Romney tried to do something I [ontheleft] didn't like..."

"Prop Hate" ="I don't like it, and i am such a sweet loving person, that if I don't agree with it, it must be hateful, there could be no good faith, objective reason
for holding a position other than my own."

"Christian Sharia law" An ad hominem argument, if you take Christianity as a corporate rather than an individual person. Ontheleft, why did you omit 'fascist,' you usually lob that in there when you're desparate? Sharia=chop people's hands' off/Christian, no. Sharia=honor killings for flirtatious women/Christian, no. Sharia=burkhas, Christian, no. Sharia=execute gays; Christians, no.

Ontheleft, thank you, because you make 'your' side of the issues risible.

I'm always intrigued by the argument that one political party or the other has "abandoned our Constitution." Max claims that both of our national parties have done so. How versed are we in the Constitution that we regularly throw into these types of arguments? Some specifics, please??

What is a "progressive"? And why is "progressive" limited to being a member of Democrat Party? And why is opposing choice in schooling ("vouchers") a progressive position? Freedom and diversity and choice are central to "progressive".
Where I live -- Ithaca, NY which is extremely "liberal" (the entire city council is Democrat and most of the County Legislature is Democrat) -- Democrat is hardly "progressive"; it is mostly "politically correct" and very conventional and defends its narrow version of orthodoxy with vehemence at least equal to Republicans in Provo-Orem.

Thanks for covering this subject with the respect and candor. I'm unclear how Mormonism varies from other Christian traditions in aligning with the more conservative party. This does not seem like a story about Mormonism, but a story about Christian conservatism.

Mormons fall into the same traps that many (most?) Americans. They align with a party and then vote for the party. The belief that the lesser of the 2 evils (the least of the worst) is likely to be the guy on their party's ticket is pervasive in our 2 party system.

The problem with the Democrat party and Christian ideals (this is hardly limited to Mormonism!) is they have aligned themselves not with with not just the separation of state, but they unapologetically advocate replacing religion with atheism. Replacing values like virtue (chastity) with moral relativism (do what feels good for you). They are more concerned with protecting the "freedom of speech" aspect of the 1st amendment and disregard the protection of religion in the 1st amendment. In education they are more concerned with the states "duty" to educate its citizens than parents rights to decide what their children should be taught.

Whenever I find myself nodding in agreement about a given Democrat ideal (on wire tapping, on holding prisoners without cause, on _unregulated_ free-market ideals, etc.) I'm reminded of the religiophobic side of the party and steer clear.

Any LDS person who wishes to hold a temple recommend in honesty must answer this question: "Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" If you are a democrat, the democratic platform is opposed to the Defense of Marriage Act and is pro abortion. If you are a democrat, you aren't following the Lord's annointed, you are in defiance of His laws. No Mormon who actually believes his/her religions tenets can be a democrat and be in good standing with the church, because they affiliate with a group that opposes teachings accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

I've had some issues with Mormon acquaintances on the issue of same-sex marriage, and I don't for the life of me understand how anyone can justify imposing their faith on others through politics. As a Jew, someone who is religious but not Christian, it can sometimes be very hard to deal with heated issues which pit Christians against "atheists," or who I would simply describe as those who oppose religion in politics. So, on the one hand, I am a religious person who has faith--I'm deemed irrational by those who oppose organized religion. On the other hand, I'm not Christian--I'm deemed immoral by most Mormons and evangelical Christians, and by many Catholics, and so on.

So, when I look at the comments here, I see the sides beginning to form as people construct the irrational faith (in this case, LDS) vs. the immoral non-believers (in this case, people with liberal political leanings). And when these sides are set up, everyone has to pick a side, and there's no alternative point of view. It's stupid.

Do I think there's anything wrong with being Mormon? Absolutely not. In fact, most of my dislike of Mitt Romney comes from his change in position about abortion, and the rest comes from my parents not liking him (I'm young enough that I never really cared about who was governer until very recently). I don't care what his faith is, and I never saw it as an issue.

But I do think there's something wrong with forcing any faith on those who don't want it. I've already got a faith, and I like it just fine.

Mormonism as a whole doesn't bother me. Individual Mormons do, on a case by case basis. For example, many of those Mormons posting here, acting as if they're in charge of who's allowed in the church, drive me crazy. I'm tired of hearing this spiel (whether it's from a Mormon, a Catholic, a Mulsim, a Hindu, a Jew, a Buddhist, I don't care) about how anyone who disagrees with their faith is an atheist, or how anyone who's ever voted Democrat is an atheist who wants to destroy the country. Has it ever occurred to you that almost everyone has good intentions? I voted Democrat because I believed it was the best thing to do in the interests of my entire country (I'm not a member of the party because I don't want to be). And I'm not pro-abortion; I'm pro-choice. I want to be able to CHOOSE if I have a baby or not, and I want all women to be able to make that choice. CHOICE.

And, most of all, I'm tired of having to make these arguments again and again. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to shower to try to get your religion out of my life.

"ryanwin" asserts that one cannot be a Democrat and in good standing in the Church. That goes directly against recent official statements by Church leaders who have defended being Democrat as well as Republican.
Pres. Faust was active in the Democrat Party in Utah for many years. Likewise, Pres. Hugh B. Brown. And others.

There are parts of platform of Demo Party which seem to conflict with some LDS teachings. But the same holds true of Republican Party. And there are members of Democrat Party who do not adhere to the Party platform. Ditto Repubs.

Gaudete - this is the same ontheleft who was bragging on the other board that he has NEVER posted any hateful post anywhere in these blogs. He said this 1 hour and 6 minutes after he called RobA an idiot et cet. According to him, the Mormons as woefully depraved and hateful people because they believe marriage, by definition (and not my some judicial fiat) is between a man and a woman.

To continue in reply to "ryanwin":
If Church leaders believed that being a member of Democrat Party were a violation of the Temple interview, they would so instruct local leaders. In fact, they have taken the public position that being a Democrat does not make one less righteous or whatever than being Republican.

I attended one lecture in the conference, unfortunately not the sessions that Paulson, Petersen, and Thurston spoke at. Thurston is correct that Brigham Young encouraged a pro-slavery stance in the 1850s as a strategy to gain statehood. I invite Steve to google for a 1973 Dialogue article by Lester Bush for more details.

While I disagree with Thurston's (a fellow Mormon) position on Prop 8, I have the utmost respect for the way he acted on his individual conscience and his intelligent articulation of an opposing viewpoint. As a Republican, I accept that other LDS can be Democrat like Petersen and Elder Boyd K. Packer, the late Hugh Nibley, Elder Hugh B. Brown and James E. Faust.

Ahh so few of us progressive Mormons out there. I just got down hugging an owl and a logger. Commenter Allen Lambert of Ithaca is exactly right. You are either a free-thinker or you are not. That said, I don't care if churches engage in the political process or encourage their congregants to vote a certain way. I can relate to Mr. Thurston in the article because I was cold to the idea of hearing about Prop 8 week after week in church meetings. I still hear it. The best argument my fellow congregants came up with is that the gay lifestyle will be imposed on our faith because bishops will be sued for discrimination if they don't perform gay weddings. That actually moved a lot of non-religious people. For my part, I never even had the chance to weigh Prop 8 on the merits b/c I simply found prop 8 horrid on grounds that one class of citizens can disenfranchise another without any

The world would be a much better place if organized religion was outlawed and replaced with karma and donating time and money to charitible organizations. Religion consistantly divides people and gives them reasons to not like their neighbors based upon the values of each religion instead of the individual's characteristics. But I guess human's are weak minded and need someone to tell them what to think about modern day issues based upon ancient books.

I'm also fed up with people basing their arguments on religous propaganda that is biased to promote whicever religion created the propaganda.

I don't ever recall Mitt Romney talking about his religion as governor, or trying to "codify" his religious beliefs into law. He signed a law abolishing the ban on Sunday liquor sales. He also fought to make it easier for out of state wineries to ship their product to Massachusetts consumers. These are not the acts of someone trying to impose his Mormon beliefs into law. In fact, just the opposite. As far as gay marriage goes, Romney always talked about his opposition in sociological terms. He felt that homes with a mom and a dad were the best setting for the raising of a child.Romney in his well-regarded 2007 speech on religion said the highest duty of an elected official is to the Constitution, and that's the way he governed.

Mr. Pemberton,
I would argue that (bearing in mind that at my core I do not like either of our political parties, and tend to support my beliefs on an issue by issue basis, rather than an ideological sheep one) the reason the Democrats seem religiophobic has more to do with perspective than reality. Given that a small minority of the country is agnostic/atheist by definition the Democrats cannot be religiophobes. There is a different between hating religion or being afraid of it and embracing the extreme religious right of society, as the Republicans have, going back at least to Reagan and the rise of the so-called "Moral Majority."
I would argue that the Democrats take a position arguing against a religion being given precedence or the views/beliefs of a religion being codified into law in a way that imposes the beliefs of a religious group on the greater population or on minorities within the population. Is that being religiophobic? Most people I know are religious. I am in MA, I know a LOT of Democrats. I do not think the Democratic party is anti-religion, so much as in favor of religious freedom, in favor of limiting the access of religion in the public arena.

KJR,
Yes, Ontheleft maintains a good veneer of serene rationality, but there's a boiling cauldron of resentments and pugnacity not too far beneath the surface. But he? is fun to argue with, slings it well and i sling it back--savage amusement.

Sabend,

I fail to understand why you and others who agree with you continue to misuse
verbs such as "impose" and "force" when describing the political activities of your opponents. No Mormons (or Catholics or Evangelicals) use force, guns, legbreakers to transform their political theories into law. They use the same 'weapons' your side does, speech, debate, discussion, compromise, lobbying, coalitioning. We do not im-pose, we pro-pose, and sometimes 'our' side wins, sometimes yours. That's the US, that's democracy.

Or, on the other hand, if you insist that this is still imposing and forcing, then your side does it to an equal degree, forcing e.g. abortion and same sex marriage on the society which are against some of the most deeply held beliefs in our religion. We don't like it, we try to overturn them, but in the end, its part of the price of living in the US, which like all earthly nations, is imperfect.

Mormon supporters of Republican candidates are a minority in the LDS Church. The LDS Church exists in 176 nations and territories and in each of these nations Latter-day Saints are a minority of the overall Church membership. This includes the United States of America where American Mormons are a minority of the overall Church membership. Probably millions of Mormons could not explain differences between Republicans and Democrats; it's not relevant to their religious beliefs and practices.

Individuals form political parties to more effectively pursue their ideas of good government. We like to think that "our party" has always represented a particular set of ideals. However parties constantly realign positions and values to attract voters and gain majorities. Consider the change in the Democrat party's position on slavery and segregation since the days of Reconstruction. Change in Republican ideals has been no less dramatic.

Touting past party affiliation of Hugh B Brown, James E Faust, Boyd K. Packer, etc. to imply that Mormons should support today's Democrat party (with it's current stance on abortion and gay-marriage) is nonsensical. In the recent past, most American Mormons have aligned with Republican values, but that support can change in the future.

If Democrats were truly interested in attracting Mormon or conservative voters their platform would reflect more conservative values. The fact is the Democratic Party has little interest in Mormons and christian conservatives. The reverse is also true--and quite natural.

Allen Lambert already answered Ryanwin's off-base comment about being a member in good standing. Ryanwin should make his own personal opinion distinct from LDS policy or practice.

What Mormons have been charged to do, reiterated this very morning in our bi-annual General Conference, Elder Christofferson said it is the duty of Christians to "defend the truth of Jesus Christ against moral relativism and militant atheism."

I dread a country that is lead by a given religion. The Taliban anyone? The corrupt church-backed Monarchies from the middle ages? No thank you! That's not freedom. But I have the same dread for a nation that completely kicks out God and when Atheism becomes the state sponsored religion. That's certainly not freedom.

Atheism is becoming new religion in this country, despite the small minority who claim it as their belief system (yes, atheism is a belief system).

Religious teaching about abstinence, God's design for families, and science that is informed (and inspired!) by God's orchestration of the elements is considered ignorant at best and hate speech at worst. This isn't a slippery slope argument: it's already happened in government run schools in Massachusetts and in California.

I love the fact that our country's Democrat leader is a Latter-day Saint. I don't like his political leanings at all. I think he's totally wrong on the economy, but I love what a political dialogue does for a country. It lets us fix stuff that's wrong. The 2 term limits for our president means the new president can undo the abuses of freedom that Bush pulled and the fiscal irresponsibility the Republicans pulled. I just hope that in another term or 2 a new president will correct the stupid trillion-dollar decisions Obama is making now.

That's how our system of checks and balances works this great Republic and may God bless it to just keep on working!

Thank you all again for such a civil discussion.

Go ahead Utah Republicans, run another national Mormon candidate.

YOU WILL NOT WIN A SINGLE STATE IN THE SOUTH.

How many times are you going to do this? You are crazy if you are expecting different results.

steve moore comment # 2 said:
“Thurston either doesn't know his own church history or he is miss telling it to make himself feel better. Brigham Young never condoned or encouraged slavery.”

My comments:
Oh really steve? Sounds like you don’t know your church history which is quite common for the majority of the members of the church. Let’s take a look at the facts and let the masses decide aside from the polemicists who do mental gymnastics.

Slaves were bought and sold in Utah Territory with the approval of Brigham Young. By 1850 there were approximately sixty blacks residing in the Utah Territory. The majority were slaves living in Salt Lake, Davis, and Utah counties.

Brigham Young on Slavery Interviewed by Horace Greeley for NY Tribune article Aug 20, 1859:

H. G.—What is the position of your church with respect to slavery?

B. Y.—We consider it of DIVINE INSTITUTION, and not to be abolished until the curse pronounced on Ham shall have been removed from his descendants.

H. G.—Are any slaves now held in this territory?

B. Y.—There are.

H. G.—Do your territorial laws uphold slavery?

B. Y.—Those laws are printed—you can read for yourself. If slaves are brought here by those who owned them in the states, we do not favor their escape from the service of those owners.

More from the Mormon newspaper Messenger and Advocate:

“Where can be the common sense of any wishing to see the slaves of the south set at liberty,... Such a thing could not take place without corrupting all civil and wholesome society, of both the north and the south! Let the BLACKS of the south be free, and our community is overrun with paupers, and a reckless mass of human beings, uncultivated, untaught and unaccustomed to provide for themselves the necessaries of life— endangering the chastity of every female who might by chance be found in our streets—our prisons filled with convicts, and the HANG-MAN WEARIED with executing the functions of his office! This must unavoidably be the case, every rational man must admit, who has ever travelled in the slave states, or we must open our houses unfold our arms, and bid these DEGRADED AND DEGRADING sons of Canaan, a hear[t]y welcome and a free admittance to all we possess! A society of this nature, to us, is so intolerably DEGRADING, that the bare reflection causes our feelings to recoil, and our hearts to revolt....the project of EMANSIPATION IS DESTRUCTIVE TO OUR GOVERNMENT, and the notion of amalgamation is devilish!— And insensible to feeling must be the heart, and low indeed must be the mind, that would consent for a moment, to see his fair daughter, his sister, or perhaps, his bosom companion, in the embrace of a NEGRO!...
(Messenger and Advocate, Vol. 2, pp. 299-301)

Does this sound like abolitionist rhetoric? Anyone with any sense of reason would say categorically not!

Gaudete # 5 said:
"Christian Sharia law" An ad hominem argument, if you take Christianity as a corporate rather than an individual person. Ontheleft, why did you omit 'fascist,' you usually lob that in there when you're desparate? Sharia=chop people's hands' off/Christian, no. Sharia=honor killings for flirtatious women/Christian, no. Sharia=burkhas, Christian, no. Sharia=execute gays; Christians, no.”

My comments:
Well gaudete if the Mormon church is Christian than what’s the deal with the teachings of it’s prophets, it’s mouth pieces of the Lord? A read through of what is below should make any normal minded individual aghast with horror.

Caution, do not read further if you do not to want to see what can be deemed virtually tantamount to Sharia law and its’ punishments which are diametrically opposed to our Bill of Rights ( no cruel and unusual punishment).

The index to the Journal of Discourses (26 volumes of recorded sermons by early Mormon leaders) gives seven entries under the subject of Blood Atonement. One of the more interesting is a quote from Mormon leader, Heber C. Kimball, grandfather of the late 12th Mormon President, Spencer Kimball. Kimball stated that because of Judas' betrayal of Christ, the twelve disciples actually kicked him to death in order that he would atone for his sin. Volume 6:125,126 reads:
Jesus said to His disciples, `Ye are the salt of the earth, and if salt loses its saving principle, it is then good for nothing but to be cast out.' Instead of reading it just as it is, almost all of you read it as it is not. Jesus meant to say, `If you have lost the saving principles, you Twelve Apostles, and you believe in my servants the Twelve, you shall be like unto the salt that has lost its saving principles: it is henceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men.' Judas lost that saving principle, and they took him and killed him it is said in the Bible that his bowels gushed out, but they actually kicked him until his bowels came out.

On September 21, 1856, Brigham Young stated:
I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course" (JOD 4:43).

Speaking in the Salt Lake Tabernacle on February 8, 1857, Young taught:
There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins, and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world ... Now take a person in this congregation who has knowledge with regard to being saved in the kingdom of our God and our Father and being exalted, one who knows and understands the principles of eternal life, and sees the beauty and excellency of the eternities before him compared with the vain and foolish things of the world, and suppose that he is taken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin he knows will deprive him of the exaltation he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin, and be saved and exalted with the Gods, is there a man or woman in this house but would say, `shed my blood that I might be saved and exalted with the Gods?' All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers or sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? (JOD 4:219).

Despite the evidence that shows that such a doctrine was indeed taught among the Latter-day Saints in the 1800's, Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie insists that enemies of the Mormon Church fabricated the idea that it was actually taught and practiced:

From the days of Joseph Smith to the present, wicked and evilly-disposed persons have fabricated false and slanderous stories to the effect that the Church, in the early days of this dispensation, engaged in a practice of blood atonement whereunder the blood of apostates and others was shed by the Church as an atonement for their sins ... there is not one historical instance of so-called blood atonement in this dispensation, nor has there been one event or occurrence whatever, of any nature, from which the slightest inference arises that any such practice either existed or was taught (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 92.)

McConkie then proceeded to accuse critics of taking
one sentence from one page and another from a succeeding page and even by taking a part of a sentence on one page and a part of another found several pages away --all wholly torn from context - dishonest persons have attempted to make it appear that Brigham Young and others taught things just the opposite of what they really believed and taught.
After making such an adamant denial, McConkie, on the same page no less, makes a remarkable turnabout! "But under certain circumstances there are some serious sins for which the cleansing of Christ does not operate, and the law of God is that men must then have their own blood shed to atone for their sins" (Mormon Doctrine, Pg. 92).

On page 93 of the same book, McConkie quotes his father-in-law, Joseph Fielding Smith, and church founder Joseph Smith, Jr. Both taught there are some offenses for which a sinner must atone for his sins by shedding his own blood. McConkie went on to write, "This doctrine can only be practiced in its fullness in a day when the civil and ecclesiastical laws are administered in the same hands."
Mormon writer Keith Norman, in his Sunstone article entitled "A Kinder, Gentler Mormonism Moving Beyond The Violence Of Our Past" (Aug. 1990, p.11), recognized McConkie's duplicity and remarked:

Well, if I understand Elder McConkie, he was saying that, although earlier Church leaders never believed, preached, or practiced blood atonement, we actually do believe in it and would practice it if we had the legal and political power to do so. (Even though we didn't when Brigham Young presided over the theocratic territory of Deseret.)

Crimes Warranting Blood Atonement

Murder: "I am opposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I will shoot him, or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground and let the smoke ascend thereof up to God..." (Joseph Smith, Documentary History of the Church 5:296).

Adultery: "Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them. You would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case, and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands" (Brigham Young, JOD 3:247).

Stealing: "If you want to know what to do with a thief that you may find stealing. I say kill him on the spot, and never suffer him to commit another iniquity ... If I caught a man stealing on my premises I should be very apt to send him straight home, and that is what I wish every man to do, to put a stop to that abominable practice in the midst of this people" (Brigham Young, JOD 1:108).
Marriage to a person of black skin: "Shall I tell you of the law of God in regards to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so" (Brigham Young, JOD 10:110)

Covenant Breaking: "I say, there are men and women that I would advise to got to the Presidency immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case; and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood. We have those amongst us that are full of all manner of abominations, those who need to have their bloodshed, for water will not do, their sins are too deep a dye ... I believe that there are a great many; and if they are covenant breakers we need a place designated, where we can shed their blood ... Brethren and sisters, we want you to repent and forsake your sins. And you who have committed sins that cannot be forgiven through baptism, let your blood be shed, and let the smoke ascend, that the incense thereof may come up before God as an atonement for your sins, and that the sinners in Zion may be afraid" (Jedediah M. Grant, JOD 4:49-51).

Grant would later be quoted in the Deseret News, as saying, "We would not kill a man, of course, unless we killed him to save him..."(7/27/1854).

Heber C. Kimball stated, "If men turn traitors to God and His servants, their blood will surely be shed, or else they will be damned, and that too according to their covenants" (JOD 4:375). The phrase "according to their covenants" refers to the promises Mormons make in their sacred temple ritual.

I'm a Mormon, BYU Student, who voted for Obama; I have never once felt ostracized or outside the inside of things. This article is naive, and plays on stereotypes.

I agree that "Touting past party affiliation of Hugh B Brown, James E Faust, Boyd K. Packer, etc. to imply that Mormons should support today's Democrat party is nonsensical." (SRexId in #21)

However, neither I nor anyone else used that fact to "support today's Democrat party". It was used to undermine the claim that one could not be a good Mormon and a Democrat. That is not at all equivalent to promoting Democrat Party (or any other political party). All parties are mortal organizations in pursuit of worldly power. Thus, they are all imperfect and corrupting.

I hear so many of these same arguments and statements in my local ward and stake.

As Mormons we should be fully supporting the separation of Church and State. Many of us live in areas where the LDS Church is a small minority of the population. If schools and local governments were allowed to teach or present religion, it would certainly not be the LDS religion. I would far prefer the local schools restrain their teaching to specific academic fields than to grant them the privilege of espousing their religious opinions. Democrats who fight to keep religion out of schools and governments are doing us a favor.

Another topic which many LDS members seem confused about is that the LDS Church is not strictly anti-abortion. Many anti-abortion groups consider the LDS Church to be pro-abortion, because the Church allows for abortions in the case of
rape, incest, life of the mother is threatened, or it is known that the fetus has severe defects. Thus laws that permit abortions when the life of the mother is at risk, a provision that is fiercely attacked by anti-abortion groups, is in perfect harmony with LDS teachings. On this, and many other social issues, the official LDS position is much more moderate than what conservatives within the Church portray it to be. One of those issues is the right to be an active Democrat and a member in good standing, with a temple recommend.

It may be difficult to be a liberal/progressive in a red state. But its more about being in a red state than in a Mormon majority state. Try being a Republican conservative in a liberal area and mostly Democrat congregation. You would see the mirror image of Peterson's experience.

My own experience in a blue state, and a very blue, very liberal county, Santa Cruz, California is just the opposite. This republican often feels the strain among my fellow church members who are mostly liberal Democrats. Proposition 8 was a source of division at a time when we should have been united in saving the divine institution of marriage, and no thanks to Thurston I might add who persuaded many liberals here to oppose the church. Were I to run for office, there would be no way a Republican could prevail.

Posted by gaudete April 3, 09 07:52 PM

OK, gaudete, I'll play your game and translate your little diatribe into English. Once again, you're a martyr because you can't codify your prejudices into law. You want a vote on the civil rights of an entire segment of the population. Fine, but can we lump Catholic marriage into the same up or down vote? Can we put your rights up to a vote? Or just the rights of people whom you dislike? Yes, poor gaudete - the legislature wouldn't let you lie as did the Mormons in California about that hateful proposition - that's why there are those who call it Prop Hate - you see, it's a little play on words that makes a point. I know - more of that left wing nuance that you right wingers so dislike - nuance sounds French, after all. Romney tried the same crap here, and his speech on religion was virtually the opposite of JFK's. His religion is, therefore, an issue. His attempts to make his religious views law makes his beliefs an issue, and if you can't see that then I'm not sure you can see anything. Or should we just vote for him because he Republican with "good hair". I know your hierarchy would support him because your hierarchy has become little more than a wing of the GOP. I'm not so certain that most Catholics will, however.

"after he called RobA an idiot et cet. According to him, the Mormons as woefully depraved and hateful people because they believe marriage, by definition (and not my some judicial fiat) is between a man and a woman."
Posted by KJR April 4, 09 12:01 AM

A little exchange KJR neglected to mention above, so I'll put it here, starting with Rob's angry and inaccurate comments:

"What are your credentials besides being an angry homosexual that has a chip on his shoulder because the Church won't accept your belief of Adam and Steve? Why should I believe you over the Church? What can you show me that makes you morally and intellectually superior than the Church or anybody on the right?"
Posted by Rob A April 2, 09 11:55 AM

Now my response:
"Actually, Robbie, FYI, I'm a happily married heterosexual male. How about that? I generally try to avoid ad hominem attacks, but you really are an idiot, aren't you? A bitter, twisted, know-nothing. You apparently can't conceive of the idea that a straight man could actually care about the civil rights of those who are different from he. You are some piece of bigoted, pissed off work, aren't you? Is that your problem - most people and even a huge number of Catholics just don't agree with you, they just seem to find that perhaps you're not the authority that you claim to be?"

KJR, you really do need to stop playing the martyr here. You have no logical arguments, apparently, you stated in a previous post that you get your perspectives from the Vatican, you have asked me repeatedly to join the catholic church, I responded to that with a set of cogent reasons for my absolute lack of interest in that idea, and you responded with the same request, and a request to be my sponsor! I'm not sure if you're serious, joking, or perhaps you're still in primary or secondary school. Here's the way things work in the grown up world. If someone makes a presumption, they should have a factual basis for it. Rob didn't. His statement above was idiotic. He was, by the way, corrected by the poster with whom he confused me. He then insisted that the poster and I were the same person. I stand by my statement. You can continue to call it hate. And, as is so often the case, you can continue to be wrong. And, while we're on the subject of inaccuracies - where did I use the word "depravity" in my post? You mentioned it, I reviewed it and I still don't see it. So, where is it? Perhaps you used it in one of yours.

"Or, on the other hand, if you insist that this is still imposing and forcing, then your side does it to an equal degree, forcing e.g. abortion and same sex marriage on the society which are against some of the most deeply held beliefs in our religion. We don't like it, we try to overturn them, but in the end, its part of the price of living in the US, which like all earthly nations, is imperfect."
Posted by gaudete April 4, 09 08:35 AM

Is someone forcing you to have an abortion? To marry someone of the same sex? If they are, gaudete, I'll be first in line to defend your right to do neither. Like it or not, people in a society have to accept that civil rights apply to everyone. So you are going to be forced to accept that people of mixed races can marry. You are going to be forced to accept that women can own property and vote. You are going to be forced to accept that blacks can't be simply lynched. Now, you probably accept these as it is. But large segments of this society had those rights forced on them. Civil marriage is a basic human right. The right of women to control their reproductive destinies is a basic human right. The right of everyone to practice a religion - or not practice any religion - freely, without interference, is a basic human right. An attempt to impose religious views on the unwilling is a violation of basic human rights. Again, gaudete, let me know if anyone tries to force you to have an abortion against your will, or to marry anyone whom you choose not to marry, and I'll show up and do everything possible to prevent your rights to choice from being violated.

THE IOWA GAY MARRIAGE DECISION WILL HELP ROMNEY because the Iowa Governor will have to handle it the same way Romney did in MA, and that will shut up all the evangelical inbreds who claim that Romney should have defied the Supreme Court somehow.

Hey--as a fiercely loyal member of the LDS Church, and a pretty politically left-leaning one as well, I think Paulson's the man! Yeah, there are always going to be some historical discrepancies. That's the nature of history. I appreciate this weblog, and see it as mostly complimentary to my religion. Anyhow, any of you that need a religion to tell you every single thing to do, including whether to paint your house beige or eggshell, well, I guess you don't understand much about LDS doctrine and theology when you try to project that onto members of the LDS Church, or anyone else for that matter. Again, thank you, Mr. Paulson for your writing. It seems rather un-biased and I hope you enjoy the rest of your visit here in Utah.

Well, this is all interesting. Where to begin? Dave obviously has an axe to grind. But Latter-day Saints don't believe any of those things, despite what some individuals earlier may have said and despite their position in the church. They were entitled to their eccentric views. None of these pronouncements cited by Dave caught on as part of Mormonism. You know, it’s just as easy to find contrary pronouncements from early leaders, which only shows that there has always been more of a healthy internal debate within Mormonism than as is supposed. Poor former leaders of the LDS or any other organization whose words get written down and then they must be held to them, with no opportunity to defend or explain them. I don't know if Dave is the member of any particular religion, but, as a historian, I can find comments from leaders of any organization older than 100 years that will make the organization’s modern followers sound like a bunch of idiots. I've seen things by Luther, Calvin, and various popes that would make their modern day adherents cringe. Fortunately most of us know better than to suggest that we think Lutherans and Catholics should be held accountable for every word ever spoken by their revered former leaders and that they must believe the same as some past person in their church. By the way, the better the members of a group are at keeping records, the easier it will be to find some nasty sounding things to throw around. Dave, you put obviously a lot of time and energy into trying to tear down a belief system of others. Good luck. You may gain a few converts. Enjoy them. Offer them a good life. But your personal happiness and fulfillment in life just doesn’t come through to me in these postings. And I know no Mormon who would recognize your "historic" research as part of their belief system.

2nd comment: After spending 25 of the previous years away from Utah, including 4 in Washington DC, 1 in California, and 13 living in three European countries, I came back to Utah County in 2007 a committed enough American but a political agnostic. I could no longer buy lock, stock and barrel what any political party tried to serve up to me as its truth and answers to the many problems facing this country. Out of driving curiosity, I decided to attend the Utah County Democratic caucuses. They were attended by moderate, nice people, wearing white shirts or sport shirts, the same as their Republican counterparts across town, and most of them were practicing Mormons. They knew they were far outnumbered by Republicans in the county and rightfully rued that fact, but they didn’t seem stricken with the kind of paranoiac statements I see highlighted here by left-leaning Latter-day Saints.

Most Mormons understand, now more than ever, that Republicanism does not equate to Mormonism. They vote Republican on basically two grounds: 1) Republicans appear to be friendlier to the traditional family: a female mom, a male dad and kids (which even most Mormons from non-traditional families continue to hold up as an ideal). 2) For good or ill, Republicans appear (I emphasize appear) to be more friendly to free market solutions to the nation’s economic woes.

The last eight years of American politics have got Mormons rethinking their positions like no time since WWII. These years have shown America launch a costly aggressive war on, to be nice about it, questionable grounds and with questionable results and have revealed a presidential election campaign which showed that those people Mormons thought should have been their best conservative friends instead rejected a major candidate simply on the basis of his LDS religion. Things will change politically for Mormons. Political positions have shifted in the past. They will again. But, when all is said and done, the religion stands apart from the politics (yes, even if they have some religious motives to vote for particular candidates or proposals—which by the way is anything but unconstitutional. It’s an age-old American tradition, has been since the beginning. It’s part of the price we pay in a pluralistic society that prizes human freedoms of speech, thought and belief. And in my opinion, it’s well worth that price).

Do those who argue against abortion and same-sex marriage argue out of self-interest? The question of whether abortion hurts its opponents and affects their rights is a red herring and suggests that those protective of children and family life are as selfish in their motives as many who favor turning traditional values on their head. We like to conveniently ignore that there might really be a human being inside that aborted fetus. No one really knows. If so, it's got some rights and interests too. Might say the same for a child who ends up with two dads or two moms instead of the 1000's year-old traditional family headed up by one of each. Why do we think we can overthrow within one generation the family unit that has sustained life since the beginning on this planet when we really haven't spent the time and effort necessary to understand the consequences of such radical decisions? Why not at least take a Pascalian wager-type approach: If I have an abortion I may or may not be taking a human life. But if I give birth to the baby, I know I will not have taken a human life and, especially if I give it up for adoption, my nine-month inconvenience, maybe even some misery, will have provided someone a life and maybe provided an unhappy couple somewhere an otherwise unavailable chance to rear a child of their own. (By the way, Mormons don’t generally believe that abortion is never an option. All the circumstances need to be weighed in every case. They usually don’t want to judge individual cases. But they sure question how abortion could be essential in the 100,000’s cases a year when abortion takes place in this country.)

Why is there any debate about whether Romney's religion was the reason he didn't win the Rebuplican nomitaintion? Look at this bigot, which is typical of the feelings of many Americans against the Mormon population.

Go ahead Utah Republicans, run another national Mormon candidate.
YOU WILL NOT WIN A SINGLE STATE IN THE SOUTH.
How many times are you going to do this? You are crazy if you are expecting different results.

Most people aren't so bold faced truthful with their hatred. Surely this man considers himself a Christian. Yet would never vote for a Mormon. No matter the support that George Bush recieved from the Mormon population. Or the ways that Mormons have taken it on the chin over Prop 8. At the least the statements from OnTheLeft can be viewed in the context of the what the Mormons have done to him. The question I have for Native is what have Mormons ever done to you, besides support the Republican agenda? If your response is full of religious dogma, you condemn yourself, as one who has no respect for another's religion.

My point is that the statements in the article that the Republican party takes the Mormons for granted is spot on. Any Mormon who continues to support the Republicans is not thinking about his best interests.

Arguments that Democrat = proabortion are foolish. Yet among Mormons this is the primary reason I hear stated as to why they are Republicans. The church supports abortion in cases when a woman's life is in danger, or in cases of incest or rape. This position doesn't mirror either party and is as close to the Dems as it is to the Republicans. Additionally, what have the Republicans done to solve this issue? The answer is not much because if they did people would be free to live their party.

This Spring an expose film of the BRUTAL CAMPS mormon gay teens were forced against their will to endure for MONTHS and YEARS, will rip the roof off Chris Buttars, who ran these Boys Ranch (mormon gulags) West Ridge Academy. Teens were kept from their parents contact for 4 weeks, parents are instructed to IGNORE any complaints of abuse. NO outside observers or even medical personell were seing any of these kids. They were brutalized in ways which didn't leave bruises and marks, they were forced to run laps in freezing night temperatures in only their underwear. The State of Utah licensed thes HELLHOLES and many careers in Utah will go up in smoke when the harsh light of this film is shined on them.

The LDS Church does not allow its members in good standing to drink alcoholic beverages. However the Church is not actively engaged in prohibition of allowing non-members to have access to alcohol.

The LDS Church does not allow its members in good standing to use tobacco products. However the Church is not actively engaged in removing tobacco products from store's shelves.

The LDS Church does not allow its members in good standing to outwardly express that the Book of Mormon is not a translation of golden plates. Yet the Church fully embrances freedom of religion for all, including those religions that would attack the Church.

The LDS Church does not allow members in good standing to live together or bear children out of wedlock. Yet the Church is not engaged in any effort to outlaw living together or to take children away from unmarried couples.

The LDS Church does not allow members in good standing to enter into same sex marriage. I believe, as a member of the LDS Church, that we should follow the same tradition as we do on so many other beleifs and to not interfere with allowing others to pursue their own dreams and to live loving, satisfying lives if they possess same-sex attraction. There is no harm to LDS members from others living different types of lives. They already lead very different lives in dozens of different ways.

Mark,
Get them to show the film. Expose the abuses. Get the people who run them to pay for the abuses. Ruin their careers and bring them up on charges. Such actions as you allege are atrocious. But Chris Buttars does not speak for the LDS Church. Most active LDS I know find him an embarrassment. To call these camps "mormon gulags" as if the Church sponsors or approves of them is either ignorant or libelous. There are some that hate Mormons so much they will take the outlandish behavior of any of its members and attribute it to the Church. Sad.

The National candidate who ONLY wins in Utah.....loses

The bigger danger Utah's TOTALITARIAN stances, they can shove through their 85% Mormon legislature, don't play well for their tiny minority Mormon communities in other states. It's these non Utah Mormon's kids who get ridiculed and shunned in BLUE and PURPLE states. Since prop 8, LGBTs have watched EVERY mormon population, they will NEVER blind side us again. Nauvoo Bishop can't even send out an email to a town under 1000 residents without gays and lesbians seeing it.
WE are EVERYWHERE and we can become invisible, at will, that makes us a FORMIDABLE ADVERSARY,

Zola said post # 35:

“Well, this is all interesting. Where to begin? Dave obviously has an axe to grind. But Latter-day Saints don't believe any of those things, despite what some individuals earlier may have said and despite their position in the church”.

My comments:

Of course I have an axe to grind when the mormon church leadership continues to distort, lie and misrepresent. Latter-day Saints don’t believe these things because most of the LDS population knows nothing about these hateful, murderous doctrines.

To compare the restored gospel, one and only true church, to other religions and say look what they did and see what their heinous pronouncements were, is ridiculous. To purport to have direct revelation from god and to higher light and knowledge and than say everybody else was saying dishonorable things and involved in disgrace in a copout.

Further Zola states:

“None of these pronouncements cited by Dave caught on as part of Mormonism.”

My comments:

Lola you apparently only study what is taught in Gospel Doctrine, Relief Society or any other correlated meeting. The truth is these doctrines were practiced and “Mountain Meadow Massacre” is not what I am referring to, though that murder was despicable beyond expression. The church to cover up the whole dastardly thing.

During the theocracy ran by Brigham Young and before, there were numerous beheadings, castrations, and other barbaric acts performed by so called worthy priesthood holders.

The adopted son of Brigham Young, John D. Lee, who participated in Mountain Meadow Massacre, stated:

In Nauvoo it was the orders from Joseph Smith and his apostles to beat, wound and castrate all Gentiles that the police could take in the act of entering or leaving a Mormon household under circumstances that led to the belief that they had been there for immoral purposes. I knew of several such outrages while there. In Utah it was the favorite revenge of old, worn out members of the Priesthood, who wanted young women sealed to them, and many a young man was unsexed for refusing to give up his sweet-heart at the request of an old and failing, but still sensual apostle or member of the Priesthood. Warren Snow was Bishop of the Church at Manti, Sanpete County, Utah. He had several wives, but there was a fair, buxom young woman in the town that Snow wanted for a wife. She told him she was then engaged to a young man, a member of the Church, and consequently could not marry the old priest. He told her it was the will of God that she should marry him. The girl continued obstinate. The 'teachers' of the town visited her and advised her to marry Bishop Snow. Then the authorities called on the young man and directed him to give up the young woman. This he steadfastly refused to do. He was promised Church preferment, celestial rewards, and everything that could be thought of all to no purpose. He remained true to his intended, and said he would die before he would surrender his intended wife to the embraces of another. The young man was ordered to go on a mission to some distant locality, so that the authorities would have no trouble in effecting their purpose of forcing the girl to marry as they desired.

But the mission was refused. His fate was left to Bishop Snow for his decision. He decided that the young man should be CASTRATED;Snow saying, ("When that is done, he will not be liable to want the girl badly, and she will listen to reason when she knows that her lover is no longer a man)." It was then decided to call a meeting of the people who lived true to counsel in Manti.

The young man was there, and was again requested, ordered and threatened, to get him to surrender the young woman to Snow, but true to his plighted troth, he refused to consent to give up the girl. The lights were then put out. An attack was made on the young man. He was severely beaten, and then tied with his back down on a bench, when Bishop Snow took a bowie knife, and performed the operation in a most brutal manner. The young man has been an idiot or quiet lunatic ever since.

To make a long story short, I will say, the young woman was soon after forced into being sealed to Bishop Snow. Brigham Young did nothing against Snow. He left him in charge as Bishop at Manti, and ordered the matter to be hushed up. This is only one instance of many that I might give to show the danger of refusing to obey counsel in Utah."

(Confessions of John D. Lee, photo reprint of 1880 edition, I pp. 284-286.)

Now Lola for you say that these things were never put into practice is an outright lie. Let’s look at some other documented examples.

Said Heber Kimball: "I do pray for my enemies; I pray God Almighty to damn them." Said Brigham Young, in his sermon against the "Gladdenites" (Journal of Discourses, Vol. I., p.82): "Now keep your tongues still, or sudden destruction will come upon you. Rather than apostates shall flourish here, I will unsheathe my bowie-knife, and conquer or die. * * * Such a man should be cut off just below the ears."

And again, "I would take that bosom pin I used to wear at Nauvoo, and cut his d—d throat from ear to ear and say, 'Go to hell across lots.'" If such words were spoken in the pulpit and published by the Church, what may we not suspect to have been said and done in secret?

From D. Michael Quinn’s, a historian who has focused on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. From 1976 to 1988, he was a professor at Brigham Young University, he writes:

Joseph Smith had both volunteer and paid bodyguards from 1843 to his death in 1844. Brigham Young had personal body guards from 1844 on . After, 1847 Young used several of these loyal and violent men as an internal security force of “enforcers” for the Mormon commonwealth centered in Utah.

Concerning one of thee men, Brigham Young’s son wrote that Lot Smith “was the [most] violent man I ever associated with.”

Some of Brigham Young’s other enforcers specifically referred to their group identity and violent role as protectors of the Mormon”Zion” or Kingdom of God. When the Salt Lade high council investigated former Danite Hosea Stout for attempted murder in 1848, he said: “It has been my duty to hunt out the rotten spots in this Kingdom….even now I have a list [of] who will deny the faith.” Ten years later Stout specifically referred to his associates Howard Egan, Porter Rockwell, and Ephraim Hanks as “some of the ‘Be’hoys’” an American slang term meaning “gang member” or “thug.”

Aaron Johnson later affirmed that “Brigham Young had men around him who aided in ridding Salt Lake City of gamblers and desperados.” Another BYU professor of religion has acknowledged that Young “sanctioned at least some of their doings.”

Elias Smith (former Danite) and current member of the council of 50 gave his own vindication of Aaron Johnson, bishop of Springville, UT, on the charge of ordering the murder and throat-cutting of apostate Parrish family members.
Widow Parrish petitioned Young the return of her horses taken after the killing of her husband. Young ignored her.

This was consistent with other examples of Brigham Young’s supporting after-the fact local leaders who committed bloody deeds without his personal authorization but whose acts had fulfilled Young’s frequently expressed rhetoric of blood atonement.

The Deseret News even emphasized that Mormon enforcers like Orrin Porter Rockwell could kill with impunity and immunity. . In Feb. 1860 it reported how Rockwell shot Martin Oats to death.
Thomas Jenkins…later told his son-in-law that Rockwell was a “dreadfully bad man.”
He acknowledged that Rockwell had “a mission” from Joseph Smith and Brigham Young “to avenge our people on their enemies by the taking of life. “ However, Jenkins said that Rockwell eventually turned “on good men as well as bad.” P. 244

A devotional LDS writer has listed “Porter Rockwell and Bill Hickman” as “tough and ruthless men” who were in close association with Brigham Young. P244

Hickman murdered Mormon apostate Jesse T. Hartley in 1854, allegedly by Apostle Orson Hyde’s direct orders relayed from Brigham Young and approved afterwards by Stout.

John Yong gave Hickman a patriarchal blessing: “You shall heave power over all your enemies, even to set your feet upon their necks.” This brother of Brigham Young also promised: “If you are faithful you shall assist in avenging the blood of the prophets of God. Salt Lake City’s Mayor Abraham Smoot (later of the council of 50) also accepted as a fact that Brigham Young used Hickman to kill the church’s enemies.”

D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994. pp 242-245.

Now Zola, when was the last time you learned about this in Sunday School.
Oh, how.. lovely… was the morning…not!

Allen Lambert, I challenge you to prove your point. There is no logic behind your argument. The platform for the democratic party has changed, and for the LDS Church to get into the Repub/Democrat debate poses specific difficulties that may be stayed for the time being. But make no mistake, political party candidates are most often at the mercy of their party, and if you vote for a democrat, you only add to that parties ability to achieve it's goals. If a LDS person is against abortion (in most cases) and against same sex marriage, then if they vote for someone who is for these things (such as Obama), they are kicking against the pricks, and will soon see their folly or lose their testimony. The Democratic party is not what it used to be, yet some LDS people refuse to see those changes. If the Republican party stood for anything in direct contradiction to LDS doctrine, it would be impossible for LDS members in good conscience to subscribe to such a parties platform. The Lord does not need to command His children in all things, they can figure these things out for themselves. Joseph Fielding Smith gave us the lesson of not patronizing (supporting) organizations that don't obey God's commandments when H. David Burton asked him why he went all the way across town to shop at a grocery store when there were others much closer to his home. President Smith said "Sister Smith and I patronize establishments that keep the Sabbath day holy.” This lesson applies to political establishments as well. Could you really support an organization who say they will make every attempt to achieve things abhorrent in the sight of God? Even though the Church has not directly said it or denied temple recommends for it, people who vote for democrats do indeed directly or indirectly approve of abortion and gay rights and are out of touch with the Lord. As you watch the direction of the righteous members of the church, you will see that for the most part, they make the right decision as to political parties. President Hinckley has let comments slip in the past about his feelings toward the democrat party, and if a prophet feels that way, it would be good to consider his opinion more than anyone elses.

Dave, it's easy to find things that are purported as history against the church. Satan's attempts to distrupt this work are as old as the history of earth. You are receiving conflicting accounts from what we hear, so you have decided what you think is true, and we have as well. Stop trying to dissuade us from what we know is true ,because we have received a witness from God that the Book of Mormon is the word of God and Thomas S. Monson is the Lord's prophet today. What greater witness can you have than from God?

Dave . . .

So instead of having an actual discussion with Zola you throw up more off-subject accusations, and your source for most of these is the convicted, executed, mass-murderer John D. Lee who covered up his crimes for 20 years? I find it interesting that the confession you reference is dated 3 years after he died, but never mind. He did say on the day of his execution that he no longer believed in the Church, so if the "confession" was really written by him (as I understand it there are still doubts in some circles) you can bet he would say anything with no regrets.

As for bodyguards--are you saying anyone who has a bodyguard is evil? So, is the US President evil?

The rest of your charges are just too outlandish and unreasonable to respond to. Alleged this and apostate thate.

I am a liberal Mormon living in California. I say Liberal but that doesn't mean I don't have conservative tendencies. To be completely polarized in either direction seems ridiculous to me. How can you not be liberal about some things and conservative about others? I have actually had a member of the church during a political conversation tell me, " We have to watch out for the chinese because they are descended from Mongols." I suggest that polarized politics don't lead to a streamlined belief but and ignorance to a broader spectrum of understanding those around you and our mutual differences. For the record- Brigham Young did not advocate slavery. He claimed a prophecy pertaining to people of African descent not being able to hold a priesthood. The claim was They were marked by caine. This was later withdrawn in 1973 if I am not mistaken. While I believe this was an abomination directed at a mass group of people I have to believe that our gay brothers and sisters also must have a fair and respected place in the church society for what could be a more fundamental christian belief than charity or good will towards your fellow "HUMAN BEING"? I ask all christians of any faith to pin point any scripture that declares gays as having commited anything so grievous as to be shuned out of the Lords light. We are all human beings lets treat each other as such

gaudette,
You expressed confusion at the use of words like "impose." Yes, both sides have similar weapons. The difference is in how the tools are used and what they attempt to do. With your examples, the RCC believes life begins at conception. I believe it begins at viability. Your views, if made law limit (theoretically) my life. Your position acts to protect life that I do not believe is life. The other side simply wants to be allowed to live life without having your morality forced on them. That is a far cry from what happens when their decisions, though contrary to yours, are allowed. Sex outside of marriage is a sin, to your faith. I don’t believe in sin, though I do believe in right and wrong. So why should that which is a sin to you be forced upon me and others who have (gratuitous cheap shot here *grins*) found freedom from the overbearing and antiquated RCC.
Similarly, with the same-sex marriage issue, people like you take a position based on marriage as a religious institution, based in tradition. Those who believe otherwise, obviously disagree. Here are the important facts as I see them. 1. Until science caught up it was thought, for centuries, that homosexuality was a perversion or a disorder, though even in ancient Greece and other places there were exceptions. We now are learning, scientifically, that this is not the case, that people are born gay, and that it is not a choice (unless you are p2bc or KJR and believe they should just live chaste). 2. The so-called “gay agenda” is focused on equal protection under the law. Being homosexual is not longer a societal death sentence. They want the same rights, protections and benefits that you or I do. This is, to me, a reasonable desire. 3. Marriage is a civil institution, which some choose to have recognized by their faith. It is ok to marry without a church to condone it, but not without the state… It is a civil institution which conveys certain rights, privileges, responsibilities, protections and status. To deny these people equal protection is being found unconstitutional in the courts. 4. Coming from a background where people came to this country for religious freedom, the Founding Fathers spoke of the “tyranny of the majority,” which is part of why we have a bicameral legislature.
To give you a comparison (questionable, as they all are, I think the base point is sound though it ignores things like the First Amendment) I would like you to imagine that the majority of people in the state determined that due to the positions of the RCC, accepting/eating the Eucharist was tantamount to cannibalism, and it was banned… how would the Catholics in the state respond? Would the ceremony go underground? Would the Eucharist be abandoned? How would it feel for the majority to rip that away from you? How does it feel for same sex married couples in CA after Prop 8? How does it feel for same sex couples who, because they are not legally married, cannot enjoy the ability to visit their loved one, their partner, in the hospital or enjoy any of the other rights and privileges of marriage?
Christianity, based on the reputed teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, is supposedly about love, acceptance (the man who hung out with lepers and prostitutes) human dignity and peace, is (in some areas) intolerant, venomous toward certain segments of society. And this, the above, is why the “other” side uses words like “impose,” because the view of those like you, KJR, p2bc, etc, takes rights away from people, infringes on their lives by forcing them to live according to your beliefs, which are founded in mythology, in ancient texts with nothing to back them up but faith and tradition. The view of those same people simply requires that whether you believe in how they wish to live or not, does not directly affect you, at all. It requires that you let them live their lives they way they want to.
I am also still composing (dodging life) a response to you on a previous thread… not sure if you still follow this one, but I enjoy sparring with you, even when you are wrong (prepares for the water balloon). In the immortal words of someone famous, “Every morning, the first thing I do is brush my teeth and sharpen my tongue.” (that was Dorothy Parker)

I can no longer take Dave seriously. Though Dave, my career writing and teaching university American history has taken me well beyond Gospel doctrine classes; it's even taught me how to judge the reliability of purported historic documents. The only hateful murderous doctrines I'm hearing come from you. But again, I can no longer take your words seriously and will now move on.

Mark, I am sincerely sorry you consider Latter-day Saints your adversaries. I don't think even most of us who don't think gay marriage is a good idea see you in the same light. Some of us get nervous when it sounds like you hate us and are going to be gunning for us, but I've yet to hear an LDS sermon that teaches hate against gays. It makes you look better if it sounds like we hate you, however.

Hate to break it. But here is the deal: I am a Republican and an active LDS member (shocking!). However, just because you are LDS does not mean you have to be Republican. I personally know members of the Twelve Apostles and privious members of the First Presidency who were/are Democrates (ie James E. Faust). There is nothing wrong with Democrates, they just have a different view of government then Republicans do. It has NOTHING to do with religion.

As an active member of the LDS Church (and happily married with 5 children), I have been dismayed and saddened by the Church's homophobic activities. So much hate has been generated. And for what? Nothing in the long term. A temporary halt in a few states towards recognizing the equal protection rights of those with same-sex attraction.

All of the anti-gay referendum votes are trending toward pro-gay attitudes. Each vote is closer than the one before. Three states now officially recognize same-sex marriages. Within 1-2 more years there will be more. Within 20 years I expect it will be several, probably a majority of the states.

The Church needs to pull back from these efforts. LDS marriages are not threatened. And with each passing year, the Church will look more and more right-wing extremist. It will hurt the Church's missionary efforts more and more. And nothing will be accomplished.

This is a lose-lose situation for the Church, and the sooner they realize that, the better. Get back to preaching the message of God's love and eternal happiness.

Kai,

I love all homosexuals but feel same sex attraction is a disorder. I also believe me being an alcoholic and drug addict (thankfully I've been drug and alcohol free for several years) is a disorder. We live in a fallen world and are all disordered and sinful to some degree. Having disorders and being sinful doesn't make anyone bad and no one has the right to judge anyone. I KNOW through Jesus although we will remain sinners He can heal us of many of our disorders and/or give us the strength to carry our crosses. I don't believe we where created for this world but for paradise which is eternal. Personally what I have found from living my Life by following Christ even when it's challenging is that I know now more joy and contentment that I ever thought was possible here on earth. I'm a happy man.

As a Catholic I am called to follow the laws of my government unless they are in direct violation of my God and Church. If the Eucharist was deemed to be illegal I would have to break the law and like many less fotunate Christians throughout the world might have to worship in your so called underground.

I have never forced or treid to force anyone into believing anything as you state in your post # 48. I have also never stopped loving or being there for anyone whom disagrees with me. I appreciate the compliment but I am not powerful enough to make anyone do anything. Just like I have learned about Alcoholism that no one could make me stop I had to make that decision on my own. I love speaking of my faith, my God, and my Church but always make sure to tell people I love them whether they decide to follow what I KNOW (believe if it makes you more comfortable) to be the Truth.

Happy Holy Week.

Well, I've struggled through most of the previous posts and probably should just leave...but, I have to have a short say. I am a registered Republican and a conservative. I sometimes wonder at what a "progressive" is all about. Does it result in progress? Perhaps not as I look at some of the things we are dealing with in these days. I have voted for Democrats and Libertarians....and Republicans in my voting career and have to say I see rather questionable candidates in every party. However, on a national platform, I vote for conservative values and will continue to. National platforms can be misleading, but unfortunately, they are what most of us have to go on. Both parties tend to have friends whom I would rather not be too close to. The Democratic party in my view seems to have sold themselves to too many special interest groups whom I will not and cannot support. I have many friends whom are more liberal than I and we agree to disagree and get on with our friendship. Maybe that's what we need to focus on. I do find it amazing to read how the LDS Church "forces" itself on all others, by using our right to vote. There are many sour grapes in these blog comments and it's too bad. However, I do see a future where we will no longer have the luxury to be able to sit on the fence as members of the Church. This is already seen as some members claim we have no business in "politics", confusing that with the basic moral fabric of society. Maybe some of the sifting has begun..

Steve Moore (Comment 2) said: "Thurston either doesn't know his own church history or he is miss telling it to make himself feel better. Brigham Young never condoned or encouraged slavery. Why would he if Joseph Smith was very publically against slavery, he ran for president under a anti-slavery stance. He should do some reading and not just interpret what he thinks he knows."

Steve, as others have pointed out, Brigham Young not only condoned slavery, but encouraged the Utah territorial legislature to adopt it. More to the point, he also was a bitter opponent of miscegenation. In 1852 Brigham Young successfully urged the all-LDS Utah legislature to pass a law making interracial sexual relationships unlawful, whether in or out of marriage. He suggested that such relationships were an abomination. “If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain,” said Brigham several years later,” the penalty under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so.” Even Joseph Smith, whose views on blacks were more progressive than Young’s, said that if he had anything to say about it, he would combine blacks “to their own species.”

I recite these quotes not to denigrate either Brigham or Joseph, because their abhorrence of miscegenation was shared by many in their day, both Mormon and non-Mormon. I mention it merely to illustrate how continuing revelation sometimes results in the leaders of our Church embracing conduct that earlier leaders have strongly condemned (as in the case of miscegenation) or expressly condemning conduct that earlier leaders have held sacred (such as the practice of polygamy).

Unlike the Catholics, who (if my understanding is correct) believe the Pope is infallible when speaking ex-cathedra, our Church does not have a tradition of prophetic infallibility. That is why I accept Brigham Young as a prophet, even though I do not believe every word he said came directly from God’s mouth. Like prophets before him and after him, he was a human being, not a God, and was subject to human error.

I am not a prophet and I don’t purport to be able to see the future. I’m not trying to tell you what to believe about same-sex marriage. Let’s permit each other to reach our own conclusions after study and prayer. In the future, however, I would suggest you refrain from accusing others of not knowing Church history until after you have thoroughly researched the issues. That sort of response does no credit to you or the gospel we both embrace.

response to eric and Zola,

You can deny and refuse to accept the words of these murderous prophets all you wish. And regarding the discrediting of John Lee, he was sent to work the ferry by present day Lake Powell, by Brigham Young. The church tried to cover up The MMM and protected the others involved. Lee was the scapegoat and the only one executed for his role.

Now regarding Lee's accounts, it can't be discounted when other faithful members tell the same stories in their diaries. What did they do, get together for meeting and decide to write the same accounts? The account of Bishop Snow is a documented one and not just by Lee. A lot of the carnage and abuse was reported in the papers and used as a detering mechanism/ fear tactic to keep the mormon masses in line.

And ryanwin, this cliched, hackneyed process of bearing ones testimony is hardly a defense of the undensible. I know, I did it on my mission as instructed as a last ditch desperate attempt.

No I am not trying to disuade the rank and file mormons about their beliefs, nor would I like to deter others who are thinking about joining the church. If they want to join that is fine with me. I believe though, that all the information should be provided before making a decision to be baptized. I hardly think anyone would believe they 'd receive any sort of good feeling about the murderers of mormons past and not any good sensations about the present leadership for their blatant lies, misrepresentation and dishonesty about how the church really got its start and what really went on during those bloody years. Yes, the mormons did get their share of persecution and bloodshed, but what the mormons did to others is hushed and swept under the proverbial rug.

A small nit: revelation isn't "perceived" it is "received" (at least that is how latter-day saints would say it).

I do believe Jesus of Nazareth lived. I do not believe he was divine. Prayer is, however, an interesting thing. I think of it as a form of meditation, helping to clear the mind and settle/center one. The answers that come are already in you. I also do not believe I said that you forced anyone to believe anything. My point is that if your beliefs become law, then you force others with different beliefs to live according to standards you set. For example, if science and the courts tell us that life begins at viability and your faith tells you it begins at conception… by trying to set the laws to recognize a belief rooted in faith, not science, you force someone to live by the standards your religion sets. The same can be said of homosexuality or a dozen or more other issues.
One thing I would ask you to consider is this: In 1959 JFK almost did not get elected. He had to make what was a pretty spectacular speech about faith to answer concerns that he would get his “marching orders” as president from Rome. There was a fear of that. Now, politicians are regularly criticized if they are Catholic and do not take their marching orders from Rome… Thoughts?
The point I was making with the Eucharist and cannibalism was not about what you would do, about what your response would be. I wanted you to consider that concept, a majority stepping up because of something they do not understand about your faith, and voting it out of legality. Your right to exercise your faith, to participate fully in what you consider a holy act, denied, because a majority found it offensive and voted that you could not do it. Now, look at same-sex couples. They love one another, they form a partnership, but have been denied equality. They have been denied basic social rights. Your faith is trying to step in and keep them second class citizens. Various religious organizations are imposing their religious values on a social/secular privilege, with the likes of Prop 8. I gave the example of the Eucharist to get you to think of how it would feel to have something dear to you voted out, a minority trampled by the majority.

Kai,

I respect your opinion and appreciate how you are calm and respectful in your posts. As far as prayer goes, I believe it is simply a conversation with God. The difficult part for most is listening to God which for me is easiest done through meditation on scripture. I know God answers prayers becuase if He didn't I wouldn't be where I am right now.

Science tells us that upon conception a babies gender, eye color, etc are determined. I'm not sure how you feel but I'm surprised that many on the pro choice side can't understand why pro lifers could feel killing a baby in the womb is equal to killing a 1 day, 1 week, 1 month old etc baby. The majority of abortions are done after two months and frankly, anyone seeing an ultrasound of a two month unborn child is ignoring that everything about them is a person. Pro lifers believe that an abortion is equal to any form of murder and therefore must attempt to change the laws. Of course we know the key is change of hearts and education. I deal with teenagers and it's amazing there reactions when they see what the procedure actually is (the baby just doesn't dissapear) and when they realize a third of their generation has been aborted.

I can sincerely understand the position of those whom believe gay marriage should be legal. I do however feel it is unnatural and against God's will just as any sex outside of man and woman marriage is. And also although I'm not convinced one way or another that people may be born with same sex attraction I feel strongly many turn to this lifestyle due to events in their childhood just like many other traits in people can be directly effected by their childhood and environment. I believe by allowing marriage we as a culture are accepting something disordered as normal. I also feel strongly that children are best served with a fulltime Mom and Dad whom I believe play important and different roles in a childs life. That being said I do know some wonderful singe parents doing marvelous jobs with their children. I have people leading homosexual lifestyles in my life and I always treat them with respect and love and nerv judge them.

I also undertood the point you were making about being denied a right. Again if I was not allowed to receive Jesus legally in the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist I would do it illegally becuase my religion takes precedence over the government. I would be upset and feel like I was being discriminated against but I don't live for this world but for eternity with God and feel through Jesus I WOULD remain a content man.

Happy Holy Week

Kai,

I just noticed what you wrote about Catholic Politicians. As Catholics when we are confirmed and when we say Amen and receive Jesus we are saying in front of God and the Congregation we accept ALL the teachings of the Church. As I said before we are called to follow the laws of the government unless they go against the tachings of the Church. I believe a Catholic can still be a politician but they should never support issues such as abortion. In our country due to checks and balances put into the system by our founders means no politician has entire power. Therefore any politican can still put their God and Church first and still be a fair and wonderful representative of the people. I'm going to guess you agree that overall our current politicians aren't behaving as the original founders planned.

It is also my understanding that Kennedy was one of the first to use the phrase I'm personally opposed to abortion but won't impose on others. This coupled with way to many leaders of the Church starting to compromise Church teachings led to major problems that have hurt and continue to hurt the Church.

"I respect your opinion and appreciate how you are calm and respectful in your posts. "

AND

"I have people leading homosexual lifestyles in my life and I always treat them with respect and love and nerv judge them."

Nonsense.

"it is unnatural and against God's will"

AND

"I believe by allowing marriage we as a culture are accepting something disordered as normal."

Yeah, I can feel YOUR respect.

More of your sugarcoated, sweet talking insults.

Peter,

My last post was directed to Kai. You have already judged me and I don't feel further discussion with you will be of any benefit as it apeears to hurt you which in turn offends God. This is the reason I stopped the discussion with you in the other blog. Although you don't believe me I love you and will continue to pray for you to find peace.

Oh, OK.

You're done offending me so you've moved on to offend and insult others.

I get it.

Well, in reading your post, in which you convey yet again, despite our personal testimonials, that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice," a sin against God and nature, you are indeed insulting and offending me, so I have every right to comment on it.

If you truly wish to show me respect, you will respect my request that you refrain from your condescending, sweet talk and refrain from praying for me.

"Although you don't believe me I love you and will continue to pray for you to find peace."

proud2becatholic, what ticks me off about you, and those like you, is that you call gay people disordered sinners going against God, undeserving of equality under the law, and when we respond with anger, you respond as if we are merely "angry people" without peace in our lives.

And your "I love yous" only serve as lemon juice in the paper cut.

More evidence that the anti-same-sex marriage effort by the LDS Church is futile and harmful to the long-term public view of the Church ... Today Vermont became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriages.

In the end the Church is not going to be seen by the general public as an institution that defended marriage, but as one that fought against equal rights for all, and even did so despite their own history of fighting for their own equal protection under the law. Tens of millions will regard the Church as a home for bigots and homophobes. Instead of being known as the pro-family Church, we will be the anti-gay Church, which people will not want to associate with.

"as one that fought against equal rights for all, and even did so despite their own history of fighting for their own equal protection under the law"

Tom, that's what is so tragic and infuriating about this utterly unAmerican effort.

What most "No on 8" advocates don't understand is that Mormon's and others on the religious right oppose gay marriage for more than just a moral disagreement with the practice.

I for one feel that while there are many that seek gay marriage with a sincere purpose - to have their union recognized on the same level of other traditional unions - I feel that there are many more who either don't approach it with the same sincerity, or intend to use the platform as a way to label all of those that disagree with the practice as bigots or haters. In fact, this has already occured. This isn't about certain religious groups "imposing" their values on others, as it is so commonly claimed, this is about those on the religious right recognizing that their own right to dissent or disagree with the practice will soon be lost. The left agenda that is driving this push to gay marriage doesn't intend to stop there. Their intent is to effectively stamp out all of those that hold religious beliefs that oppose their views. They view this much like they view slavery, as a group of people, full of hate, not wanting to let go of these antiquated views. The problem is that these are not the same issues, and shouldn't be treated as such. Science is literally in the dark ages about the true causes of homosexuality. Furthermore, the jury is still out about the collective impact on society.

Promise me that my right to disagree with the practice, and allow me to teach my kids in the same manner will remain intact, and you can have gay marriage.

The Gay Rights movement GRMhas a hidden aganda and should be fought tooth and nail. If not for the fact that the Left or what we call the Left in America for want of a better word, see Gay Rights as cover for other agendas it would be as obscure as the movement to make marriage between first cousins legal. Two of the hidden agendas of the GRM are
1. Legitimize religious bigotry and persecution.
2. Provide 3rd world despots with anti-Western propaganda.

" They view this much like they view slavery, as a group of people, full of hate, not wanting to let go of these antiquated views. The problem is that these are not the same issues, and shouldn't be treated as such. Science is literally in the dark ages about the true causes of homosexuality. Furthermore, the jury is still out about the collective impact on society."

I view it as similar to the slavery issue, as well, being a gay man who KNOWS I didn't arbitrarily choose the so-called gay lifestyle.

Science is indeed leaning towards siding with us millions of gays who testify that we were just born this way, that we have been this way since we can remember.

The opposition? They conveniently and cavalierly dismiss current findings that would challenge their prejudice.

When homosexuality is indeed proven to be a natural occurring phenomenon, beyond the control of the individual, will you still teach your children that there is something inherently wrong with homosexuals?

I just can't believe people don't just see it for what it is: a variation on the human condition. I mean, come on...even when we were kids, you'll recall, there was that effeminate boy getting teased, or that butch girl ridiculed...

And chances are, they did indeed grow up to gay adults.

We're hardwired differently. I remember having a crush on my brother's friend when I was seven.

"Promise me that my right to disagree with the practice, and allow me to teach my kids in the same manner will remain intact, and you can have gay marriage."
Posted by lefthandedbutnotleftminded April 7, 09 12:01 PM

US Constitution - Amendment I - Ratified December 1791:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I'm going to address a few of your points - first, many of the opponents of gay marriage are, in fact, bigots and haters. You can read their posts here and pretty much anywhere. This is, in fact, about certain religious groups attempting to impose obedience to their doctrine on the unwilling, sadly, a thread that runs throughout the history of Christianity. Science is not in the dark ages regarding the "causes" of homosexuality. In fact, the opposite is true. And the jury is no longer out on the collective impact, for example, of conservatism and neo-conservatism on society - those doctrines have been an unmitigated disaster. Yet, there is no talk of abridging the rights of those who've driven this country into the ground, is there? By the way, the left agenda is this little thing called "equal rights for all". As for that promise, it's contained in the First Amendment. You can say what you choose. And others can respond to you by saying what they choose.

proud2becatholic, what ticks me off about you, and those like you, is that you call gay people disordered sinners going against God, undeserving of equality under the law, and when we respond with anger, you respond as if we are merely "angry people" without peace in our lives.

And your "I love yous" only serve as lemon juice in the paper cut.

Posted by Peter April 7, 09 11:46 AM

Peter,

Sometimes I feel you hear only wnat you want to hear and/or don't understand what I'm trying to say. Everyone is a sinner and I also believe everyone is disordered to some degree. This is all due to the initial fall of man. I believe my alcoholism and addiction is hereditary and a serious disorder. So please don't make it out that I think less of those with same sex attraction. You try and lump me in with a group of people when frankly just as I really don't know you you really have no idea about me. This is obvious based on the above post from you.

I never accused you of being angry or not being at Peace. I think you may confuse me with other posters. That being said I know (believe if it makes you feel better) that true peace and maximum joy and contentment can only come through a personal relationship with Jesus.

Dear lefthandedbutnotleftminded,

Your handle is too damned long. Aside from that, though, I don't care what you teach your children. Teach them anything you want. But please don't teach them to be a bigot like you are just because they don't agree with what their neighbors happen to believe. I think you watch too much TV, so we're going to curtail your TV viewing after half an hour. Why is what I do your business, and why should you have rights that I don't, special rights, like inheritance for spouses without tax impact? Social conservatives love to tell us that domestic partnerships afford us the same rights as marriage. They don't. Read your statutes and understand what you're saying before you go blowing wind.

"The majority of abortions are done after two months and frankly, anyone seeing an ultrasound of a two month unborn child is ignoring that everything about them is a person. Pro lifers believe that an abortion is equal to any form of murder"
Posted by proud2bcatholic April 7, 09 08:44 AM

Not everything - independent brain waves, at that point, are still at least 3 months away. And I'm still waiting for some of that "pro-life" outrage over the fully born killed in George Bush's war and occupation. Where are those so-called "pro-life" Christians? Abortions are happening when pregnant women are killed, and no outcry from the "all abortions are evil" crowd. But they voted, instead, in huge numbers for George Bush and his hoped-for successor John "100 Years In Iraq" McCain.

Let me mention one other thing on same-sex marriage - if you think it's unnatural, then don't marry someone from the same sex. This is a civil rights issue, plain and simple, which is why so many of us in opposite-sex marriages support the God-given right of our same-sex brothers and sisters to, with any luck, find and make a life commitment to their own life partner. Now, you get to practice your religion. You don't get to impose it on others. And all your talk of love is nonsense if you can't accept that, with or without your understanding of how people become who they are, ultimately, simply, people are who they are. Your references to your gay brothers and sisters are condescending at best, you insult Peter via a response to Kai - you cannot claim love for those whose very nature you seemingly despise. And before you respond with the usual Christian condescension about "love the sinner, hate the sin", I'll suggest that the only personal behavior that any of us is qualified to call "sin" is our own behavior. Same-sex marriage does not hurt you, proud2. If has no effect on your marriage, nor on anyone else's. You claim to follow Jesus of Nazareth. He was silent on gay marriage, but quite vocal on issues of equality and economic and social justice.

After the left wing demonstrations at the 1968 Democratic convention, the left wing took control of the party in the 1972 election, and then took the unnecessary position of putting the party behind unlimited and unregulated abortion after the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade. As the left wing of the Democratic Party became dominant, the party abandoned the moral views of not only Mormons but of many other religious people around the US. The Democratic party went from having equal or better representation in Utah elections to being a minority party, not because Mormons or other Utahns had changed, but because the party had changed.

lefthandedbutnotleftminded (Comment 66) said: “The left agenda that is driving this push to gay marriage doesn't intend to stop there. Their intent is to effectively stamp out all of those that hold religious beliefs that oppose their views…. Promise me that my right to disagree with the practice, and allow me to teach my kids in the same manner will remain intact, and you can have gay marriage.”

This view seems to be prevalent among those who oppose same-sex marriage, but I must confess I don’t understand it. To begin with, it is oversimplification to claim that the “left agenda” is driving the push to gay marriage – there are many conservatives who support the freedom of marriage choice. And nobody is trying to “stamp out” all of those who hold religious beliefs that oppose their views. What do you mean by “stamp out” anyway? Do you think that those in favor of same-sex marriage want to kill you or put you in jail?

Finally, do you really believe that you will not be able to teach your kids whatever you want to teach them?

Can you think of one thing right now that you cannot teach your kids? If you want, you can teach them that blacks are inferior to whites, you can teach them that the holocaust never happened, you can teach them that all who do not accept the gospel of Jesus Christ are going to hell, you can teach them that Barrack Obama is the anti-Christ prophesied about in the Book of Revelation (as several of my Mormon friends have claimed). In view of the Bill of Rights guaranteeing the freedom of speech and religion, does it make any sense to believe that if gay marriage is legalized you will no longer be able to teach your kids that homosexuality is evil?

I’m sure that every advocate of gay marriage would be willing to promise you that you can teach your kids whatever you want – now and forever -- in exchange for your supporting their right to marry.

"Progressive" is just a fancier word for "LIBERAL". Liberals made this word up because they knew that they could never campaign on a national scale touting their liberalism and win.

"'Progressive' is just a fancier word for 'LIBERAL'. Liberals made this word up because they knew that they could never campaign on a national scale touting their liberalism and win."
Posted by Da_man April 7, 09 07:55 PM

Actually, the word as a political term goes back over 100 years, and there was once a Progressive Party in the US. In 1912, for example, its candidate for President was Teddy Roosevelt. He finished behind Woodrow Wilson and ahead of then-President Taft, the Republican. So your first point is a factual inaccuracy. As for your second point, the GOP ran a campaign in 2008 slamming Barack Obama as the dreaded and feared liberal (yeah, the righty bloggers would have done as you did and put their Caps Lock on for it). Hell, they even said he was a socialist. How did that election turn out?

There are plenty of high profile Mormon Democrats. They may not be the majority by any stretch of the imagination but they are certainly out there. Harry Reid is Mormon, the Udall family is Mormon, Jim Matheson, etc., etc. They are probably more accepted in the Morman church than pro-choice Catholic Democrats are in the Catholic church. So this has to be put in perspective.

MORMON love for gay people = standing on our throats, while telling OUR families they know what's best for OUR lives.
They do this to gay people in Another State, they have never MET.

loving us to DEATH....no thanks

"Don't be truer than true. Being true is enough."

- Bruce R. McConkie

In the beginning, Mormonism was associated with progressive politics. In Missouri, Mormonism became synonymous with abolitionism. A list of complaints signed by Missourians as a petition against the Mormons included a complaint that Mormons had invited "free negroes and mulattoes" to join the church and take up residence in Jackson county. Joseph Smith ran for president as an abolitionist. Although Brigham Young undoubtedly had less progressive views than Smith with regard to race, he was a supporter of women's rights. Utah women recieved the right to vote under Young's tenure in 1869. Late 19th century Utah also had the most liberal divorce laws in the world. Utah women were disenfranchized by the federal government in 1887 (Edmunds-Tucker Act). Along with the right to vote, they lost the right to choose who they wanted to have babies with and who they wanted to live with. The pseudo-Left of 21rst century America defend this oppression today with double-speak arguments.

OnTheLeft,

You are in the top three most unreasonable people to discuss differences of opinion I've ever come across. In one post you told me you do understand that sometimes a person must vote for the lessor of two evils. You still don't get it. You believe say anyone that voted for McCain or Bush over Obama and Kerry agree with all their policies. Your unwilling to admit that people can make up their own minds and that it is possible for someone to believe that the act of tearing a child our of the womb piece by piece and toss in the medical waste basket with say the medical waste form liposuction is horrible. I'm actually literally nauseas even just writing this. Not one person in my community is happy when any innocent die be it war, accident, death penalty, abortion, etc. You definetely are not tolerant at all with anyone believing abortion is flat our morally wrong.

In addition you accuse me of not following Jesus teachings on equality and economic and social justice. Blogs are blogs don't try and use what's written here to JUDGE anyone. As I've said in the past I work with a woman who is married to another woman. When she asked me if I disagree with her lifestyle I said yes but I love her. Maybe it's because she looked in my eyes, maybe it's because she knows me as a person. She knows I would lay down my life for her as she would me if the opprtunity presented itself. Love is not an emotion but a decision and I love her and every other person whether I agree with them or not. You know why becuase it's natural and becuase Jesus told me I must. As far as social and economic justice. I am generous in both time and talent. I have had 4 teenagers including one who has been there for two years stay with me and my wife rent free because they have come form abusive homes. I spend ten to twenty hours every week in volunteer youth ministry. I am picking up a twenty year old man in CT Friday whom by the way is gay because his own parents won't and because since he's known me he knows I live him unconditionally and will ALWAYS be there for him no matter what decision he makes. Since you continue to be unreasonable and frankly becuase you are starting to get me angry and potentially leading me to sin by being unkind, I will cease speaking with you. You are arguably the least tolerant person I have ever heard from.
I will offer up the Mass I attend at lunch for you.

Peace and Blessings

"Everyone is a sinner and I also believe everyone is disordered to some degree. This is all due to the initial fall of man. I believe my alcoholism and addiction is hereditary and a serious disorder. So please don't make it out that I think less of those with same sex attraction. You try and lump me in with a group of people when frankly just as I really don't know you you really have no idea about me."

I lump YOU into a group?

Read again your post.

You lump ME in with "the seriously disordered," and turn around and tell me I am lumping YOU?

Sure, OK, proud2becatholic.

"When she asked me if I disagree with her lifestyle I said yes but I love her."

"proud," curious...did she use that terminology?

BTW, it makes perfect sense that you perceive OnTheLeft to be the most unreasonable person on these blogs, since I think he's the most reasonable.

Peter,

Again reading and hearing what we want. When did I say "serious disorder"?

"proud," curious...did she use that terminology? Posted by Peter April 8, 09 09:41 AM

What terminology? Do you think I'm making this up?

You believe onthe lfet is being reasonable when He says it's OK to vote for the lessor of two evils then ACCUSES anyone of voting for a candidate of supporting war? Do you also believe there is no basis for those whom find abortion to be an unjust and horrific act?

God Bless you and yours Peter

Morris:
Let me clarify my comments (I didn't choose to write a long comment, and as such over-generalized or simplified some points).
My comment:: “The left agenda that is driving this push to gay marriage doesn't intend to stop there. Their intent is to effectively stamp out all of those that hold religious beliefs that oppose their views….

Your response: This view seems to be prevalent among those who oppose same-sex marriage, but I must confess I don’t understand it. To begin with, it is oversimplification to claim that the “left agenda” is driving the push to gay marriage

My response: By leftist agenda, I should have said, pro-gay marriage advocacy groups. Not being a part of one, I admit that my comment is speculative. But I would guess that if an agenda checklist were created for some of these groups it would include:
- Gay Marriage legal in all 50
- Homosexuality as a protected class (for employement purposes) - as you probably know, it isn't right now, but many organizations have anti-discriminatory policies that include homosexuality. I completely agree with the policy, but I think that including Homosexuals as a protected class is wrought with definitional issues and would be very difficult to enforce.
- Mandatory teaching of Same-sex marriage as an acceptable practice in the schools as part of sex-education - gay marriage advocates in California claim this to be lie, and quote the wording of the law which specifies that this won't be the case. However, what is not mentioned is that while sex-education is not mandatory - 95% of schools already teach sex-ed. And what is required as part of sex-education is a discussion of the marriage, and the legal definition of such. Thus it will be taught in the schools as soon as it is legal.
- Legal action against persons or groups that provide unequal treatment (e.g., Boy Scouts, Mormon's or other religious groups that refuse to marry homosexual couples, Businesses (e.g., E-Harmony's recent bout with the ACLU) .

Your Response: And nobody is trying to “stamp out” all of those who hold religious beliefs that oppose their views. What do you mean by “stamp out” anyway? Do you think that those in favor of same-sex marriage want to kill you or put you in jail?

My response: No I don't think I will be killed or jailed. I should have clarified this with the statement - to stamp out the views rather than the individuals. Although there will definitely be an attempt to marginalize as much as possible those with these views and classify as an extreme portion of the population that is still in the dark ages.

Your Response: Finally, do you really believe that you will not be able to teach your kids whatever you want to teach them?

My Repsonse: I will hopefully always have the right to tell my kids whatever I think is right, but we have already seen cases where parents were refused the right to exempt their kid from a sex education program that they disagree with.

My general point is this: Does the average GLBT person think I am a bigot or hater for not condoning the practice of homosexuality? (even if I didn't try to "force" my views on them?)
As long as this is the case, I do think there will be a specific attempt by some groups of people to marginalize my views and reduce my position to that of an extremist/bigot/etc. As such, we will not have peace.

As for the scientific proof or evidence of homosexuality. As a trained psychologist (and yes I know the position of the APA) I can tell you that while evidence exists that suggests that some aspects of homosexuality are genetically linked or inherited, there is ample research that identifies strong social/learning causes as well. Sexuality is a mixed bag of causes and is highly complex. Why do people develop fascinations or fetishes for nonsensical things (e.g., doorknobs, tools, etc.). Should they be a protected class as well? I am not trying to downplay the size or normality of the Homosexual community, they are people just as much as I am. I am just saying that we really are in the dark ages from a scientific perspective.

Posted by proud2bcatholic April 8, 09 08:48 AM

Did John McCain indicate that he was willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years? When he said that, knowing that 85% of Iraqis want us out, did you really think there would be no wholesale violence? In 2004, were you aware of Abu Ghraib? Were you aware of the large civilian death toll in Iraq? Did you vote for Bush? This isn't simple disagreement over tax policy, or whether the space shuttle should be retired. This is life and death. Especially death. Your hierarchy has supported a party that represents a culture of bigotry, class warfare, destruction of our environment, and mass death for the benefit of GOP corporate cronies. You consider me intolerant? I'll grant you that I have lost tolerance for those on the right who have nearly destroyed this country, and have ruined or taken so many lives, and now have the temerity to lecture any of us on anything. I have no tolerance for those who would impose their religious views on others while claiming persecution by those who have the gall to resist such an imposition. We have discussed abortion, and the disagreement that exists, and you seem to believe that there is no basis, science notwithstanding, for those to whom first term abortion is not the murder of a human being. Now, I will certainly applaud the time, talent and energy that you expend in service to others. But those who are gay are not disordered. Your gay brothers and sisters have the same right to happiness as do you, me, or anyone else. They have the same right to self-determination, and the right to be left alone in the pursuit of their lives, to be free from interference from religious zealots. I will reiterate - stop saying you love people until you fully accept (not tolerate, but accept) who they are.

You inferred that, like what you call your "serious disorder," homosexuality is a serious disorder.

Give me a break.

"God Bless you and yours Peter"

I've asked you to save your religious blessings, etc.

I take it you are now merely trying to rile me.

Either that or you really can't help shoving your religion down others' throats, which is ironic because that's what you always say gays are doing with their "lifestyle."

You've missed OnTheLeft's point re: the war.

"Do you also believe there is no basis for those whom find abortion to be an unjust and horrific act?"

Generally speaking, if I were a woman I don't think I could have an abortion. However, I am pro-choice.

Same-sex marriage (SSM) supporters throwing out the word "bigot" every time they get to address Mormons or Mormonism doesn't further this discussion at all. Too often the SSM group speaks of SSM as if it is a revered, hallowed, widely-recognized civil right. It is not. Of course it is not. I am not saying new "civil rights" can't be created. Nowadays, under a constitutional system, especially one that no longer widely recognizes "natural" rights and obligations, then a majority of citizens can arguably create a new civil right. There is more doubt that the courts should be able to do this without the support of the citizenry, but let’s be honest, the courts have sometimes protected minorities. Judging the judicial history is going to be as subjective as most political discussions and people who are well informed about it will come down on different sides, concluding that some court decisions have been good for the country and some have not. Roe v. Wade remains one of the most controversial, but I think people who really want to move forward in this country will recognize pro-lifers are no more bigots than the pro-choicers are pro-baby killing. (I definitely come down on the pro-life side but know good people who disagree with me.)

But let’s be honest about SSM and recognize it for what it is. It’s not a traditional civil right. Marriage might be, but same-sex marriage is not. Bringing in the same sex aspect changes a lot of things, especially with regard to traditional morality. Someday the US may reach a consensus that SSM is a good thing. Right now we’re not there. It doesn’t make its opponents bigots. Calling them such is just an attempt to rally support from the uninformed. If people come to believe Mormons are bigots, they will in a knee-jerk way, oppose things Mormons support without really learning firsthand. But it’s a cheap shot: bigots, homophobes, none of these words move the discussion forward and none of them accurately reflects the concerns most Mormons and many other social conservatives have about SSM. Mormons are not taught to hate. They are taught to recognize the tradition of the family goes way back before any supposed SSM civil right, however. They can in good conscience work to preserve traditional family values without hating their opponents. Come on, both sides, be honest. But especially those who so freely call SSM opponents haters. It’s a ploy to gain support, nothing else.

Kai -
The RCC believes life begins at conception. I believe it begins at viability. Your views, if made law limit (theoretically) my life. Your position acts to protect life that I do not believe is life.

Does life end after viability as well, I hope so... sure would make my life easier. Grandpa's been in the nursing home for years now and just continues to drain any hopes of getting an inheritance. He just sits in that room drooling all day, the nurses have to feed him clean him and change his diapers. Maybe we should let families decide if they want someone to "off" grandpa. It would be nice to ask him what he'd like but since dimentia's kicked in he can't really communicate. Some would want to protect life that I do not believe is life...

The same goes for the three month old. No viability there as well... I'm sure she wouldn't last more than a few days without being fed.

I'm changing my stance to pro-choice, if we can get a few of these laws passed it would sure make my life a whole lot easier. I wonder how far we can push this... 18 months... 2 years? At two it seems, they are able to at least steal scraps off the table, then again I'm not sure if those table scraps would sustain life.

Let's say it's okay to end life as long as they are unable to prepare life sustaining meals for themselves. Let's propose up to the age of 5 and after the age of 75 ending ones life is okay.

I love this one as well Kai-

Until science caught up it was thought, for centuries, that homosexuality was a perversion or a disorder, though even in ancient Greece and other places there were exceptions. We now are learning, scientifically, that this is not the case, that people are born gay, and that it is not a choice.

I'm not an expert on disorders but this is why it sounds like a disorder to me. Most people have the mental capacity to make choices. If someone lacks the mental capacity to make a choice doesn't that appear to be a disorder?

Now, if you say they are born with a desire or tendancy to be attracted to the same sex, I'll agree. Just don't say that they have no choice. By saying they have no choice you are implying that they are weaker than heterosexuals and I don't believe that is the case.

Either Steve Moore doesn't know his history or he's mis-telling it to keep his mind blocked to truth. Brigham Young not only condoned slavery but pushed slavery down the Utah Territorial Legislature's throats in several profoundly racist speeches he gave to the legislature in January and February 1852. And of course, the all-LDS legislature dutifully passed the "Act in Relation to Service" in February 1852, legalizing slavery in the state. Joseph Smith was not very anti-slavery. Smith's presidential platform (which was only vaguely anti-slavery) was in fact written by W. W. Phelps and never really approved by Smith before he was killed.

Connell's comment is more telling for what it doesn't say. His selective use of facts suggests Utah was a haven for pro-slavery anti-unionists. That's just not true. Brigham Young was not an abolitionist, surely, to the regret of anyone who is aware of that today--but as an earlier post suggests, Mormons don't see him as infallible. Most early Mormons, coming as they did from conservative protestant backgrounds from the Northern states (and later, especially after the Civil War, from Europe) did not favor slavery. Again, let's be honest. Slavery was not the issue at the heart of Utah pioneers' social, political, religious life. They were too caught up in their own unhappy lot to be overly aware of the unhappy lot of the African Americans. Unfortunately that self-concern probably led to the ambivalence about race that continued in Utah for a hundred years (and, yes, it was ambivalence and ignorance, not hate.) Connell, if you want to pick on early Mormons (because you think it will help you discredit Mormons today), then go for polygamy or, suggest as others have done, that Mormons deserve being picked on because they were exclusive and thus not too friendly to other religions in the "good old days". But to make it sound like early Utah was a haven for the pro-slavery people distorts history and is just not true, no matter what Brigham Young thought.

OnTheLeft,

Thank you for helping me to CLEAR up who I love and who I don't. It was crazy for me to say I love everyone. Who do I think I am a Christian? Your right it's impossible for me to love those whose actions I disagree with. I believe in the Bible Jesus states Love All but what He meant was love only those whose lifestyles you totally agree with. I guess I won't tell the 20 year old man I'm picking up in CT tomorrow that I love him because He has same sex attraction. Obviously I'm just picking him up because I want to fool people into thinking I'm not a hateful, judging Christian. That's why my wife and I along with his counselor helped him get through high school and went to his graduation when his own parents wouldn't. That's why he has called us for the last six years when he needs something because he foolishly believes we care about him when it's only a big charade. Ha, Ha, Ha, I've got everyone fooled but you. Please don't give away my secret. I am so blessed you are in my life OnTheLeft as from knowing me on a blog for what ten days you know exactly who I am and what I stand for even who I love and don't.

Happy Easter to All. Alleluia, He has Risen!

"I'm not an expert on disorders but this is why it sounds like a disorder to me. Most people have the mental capacity to make choices. If someone lacks the mental capacity to make a choice doesn't that appear to be a disorder?

Now, if you say they are born with a desire or tendancy to be attracted to the same sex, I'll agree. Just don't say that they have no choice. By saying they have no choice you are implying that they are weaker than heterosexuals and I don't believe that is the case."

This makes no sense.

As a gay man, the only choice I had regarding my attractions was this: living an authentic life with a man or repeating the cycle of failed relationships with women where neither of us were romantically, sexually, and intimately satisfied because there was no authentic attraction.

Posted by proud2bcatholic April 9, 09 08:35 AM

What part of this don't you get - if you cannot accept people such as Peter for who they are, stop claiming that you love them. If you feel that an entire class of people - in this case, members of the gay community - are "disordered", then you have a long way to go before the acceptance that is a prerequisite for love. The "love the sinner, hate the sin" stuff is condescending and judgmental.

@lefthanded
THe ONLY thing you can count on is CHANGE.
You will never be able to teach your children gays/lesbians have a mental illness, or are caused by child abuse, or are the same as incest, pedofile or bestiality.
BECAUSE those are proven to be LIES. if you want to tell your kids gays/lesbians are committing a sin based on YOUR religion.....fine, no one will stop you.

Connell O'Donovan

Joseph Smith's 1844 presidential campaign was more anti-slavery than Abe Lincoln's 1860 campaign. How is calling for the eradication of slavery in 6 years only "vaguely anti-slavery". Furthermore, Brigham Young's later push to legalize slavery in Utah territory in 1852 was a strategic move to get statehood. For decades leading up to 1852, a slave state was admitted along with every free state. At the time there were 27 slaves in the territory. Some were black. Some were Native American. Please spare us your propaganda.

It is important to remember that Monroe McKay and his brothers all were part of the dominance the Democratic party had in Utah for some time.

Easy to forget.

"as from knowing me on a blog for what ten days you know exactly who I am and what I stand for even who I love and don't"

That's my point EXACTLY, proud2becatholic.

You don't know me well enough to feel authentic love for me. You're kidding yourself if you think you feel genuine, REAL love for me, or for any other cyber stranger.

I hope you're not pushing any conversion through Christ crap on that kid, which in the end only reinforces low self-esteem in gay youth.

Curious.

Was he kicked out of his parents' home because he's gay?

OnTheLeft,

Oh wise one as I have said numerous times before I believe I am disordered and to some degree all have disorders and are sinners. Based on your theory I can't love anyone. Although you state a good case I'm going to stick with Jesus whom taught me to Love everyone. Or is this all part of me and the Churches plan to hate all, bahahahaha.

Happy Easter

I for one can't figure out how any Latter-day Saint could be a Conservative Republican. First, the wars that the Republican party support go contrary to the scriptures. Second, imposing moral beliefs on people through the government goes against the scriptures. Read D&C 134 and pay special attention to the part were the government should secure "the free exercise of conscience." How about in verse 9 of the same chapter - "We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its religious privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied." Conservative members of the church can scream about protecting marriage through legislation and government intervention until they're blue in the face, but the position is and will always go against what is written in the scriptures.

And don't even get me started about who controls the Republican party. If my fellow Mormons thinks that aligning themselves with the same bigots who prevented fellow-Mormon Mitt Romney from being elected is a good thing, then I don't think we have any hope for the church politically.

Instead of being proud of Mormon politicians such as Mitt Romney, Mormons should be proud of church members like Jean Westwood who fought for progressive values and equal rights at a time when it was extremely unpopular. She may have failed in her time, but the election of Barak Obama as president is proof that the reforms she helped lead in the 1960's and 70's made a difference. That is a member of the church we should be proud of.

Peter,

I don't push anything on the teens. I just love them and instruct them in what I know (believe if it makes you more comfortable) the truth and then leave it up to them.

This young man who is twenty now seems to be maturing in many ways. His being thrown out of his house has nothing to do with his sexual desires. Actually like many parents they don't really know anything about him. Remember they didn't even go to his high school graduation. He does believe in Christ and much of what the Church teaches. He also knows how I feel about acting on same sex attraction but also knows because he has known me for over 6 years that I love him. I believe he may be in some sort of a relationship with a man now. At this point I will continue to just love him and keep him as part of my life as long as he wants me there.
One of the most influential statements in my faith life was "Love is not an emotion but a decision". I tend to feel more emotionally attached to those whom are most needy, especially those whom have had poor relationships (trying to be kind here) with their Fathers. I can still make the decision to Love Jesus first but also to Love all even those I don't know and those whom I struggle to like or have even hurt me. I trust God and if in a position to do the greatest act of love, which is lay your life down for someone I feel I could even those whom I don't know well like you. I know in today's world this probably seems like I'm just blowing smoke but this is exactly what Christ teaches. I also don't fear death as I know I was created for paradise with God for all eternity and although I would never assume to know how I will be judged I feel I am ready if God takes me from earth or if Jesus returns.

Peace brother.

Jon,
You may have hit on something here. I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican for both are right and both are wrong. Those who align themselves to one or the other are in my belief contrary to the teachings of the gospel and contrary to the ideals of the founding fathers of our great nation. The first election in this country hosted no political parties. The forming of the parties came later and has been a thorn in the side of the US ever since. The prophet often tells us to vote for the best candidates that represent our own beliefs, not parties! The 2 party system is a broken one and has been the source of uncountable woes. We need to vote for candidates on a case by case basis with no party affiliation. The reason we vote down party lines is that we as citizens are just too lazy to study the individual candidates. That is what got most LDS to vote for an evil man like George W. Bush. We just were not interested in who he was but what the party was.

Posted by proud2bcatholic April 10, 09 11:52 AM

You can certainly say that you are disordered, should you choose. But you cannot say that an entire segment of people are disordered. The difference here is obvious - you don't know every member of that group of people, and to say that they are disordered because of the manner in which they are born, because of who they are when there is nothing wrong with who the are, is utterly ridiculous. Yet, because a group of old men in robes, men who do not qualify in any sense as "holy men", say that these people are disordered, you parrot their statements. Then you claim to "love" them? Have you any idea the extent to which that sounds condescending? Or worse?

James Faust, Marlin Jensen and Hugh Nibley were/are all Mormon Democrats. Pretty sure these guys followed the prophet, held a temple recommend and were not stupid. Also I do not think any of them were in favor of abortions and gay marriage. If you are a democrat and agree with all points 100%, you are an idiot, and if you are a republican and agree with all points 100% you are an idiot. No political party holds all truth, republicanism does not equal mormonism. Besides 95% of all politicians are lowsy and thiefs so why align with either party???

OnTheLeft,

Talk about parrots, I've addressed these issues before but I'll continue to play along. I believe ALL (that's everyone of every race, creed, color, political affiliation, sexual orientation, dot,dot,dot) are disordered and sinful to some degree. It's all part of being human and stems from the original fall of man (person if you like) from Grace. There are people who are sexually aroused by feet, by children, by being spanked, crossdressing, etc. Obviously acting on pedophilia is more serious then someone whom wants to steal someones socks or high heels. I believe these are all forms of perversions as is same sex attraction. Now don't be getting all excited as all I mean is against the norm. I also believe through a deep and committed personal relationship with Jesus all these can be overcome. That being said it's not my right to judge any person but I believe as a culture allowing two of the same sex to be married we are telling people, especially our children that this is normal which in my humble opinion I feel it is not.

I can most certainly understand how someone my be offended by me saying I don't believe in gay marriage or that same gender sex is abnormal. Personally I am shocked that people can be pro abortion at any time.

Interestingly enough however those whom I know whom have same sex attraction even those whom are living a homosexual lifestyle KNOW I love them and always will even though I believe homosexuality is a sin. The 20 year old young man whom stayed at my house last week knows I love him.

Just like me having to make the decision to quit drinking/drugging, I also had to decide to follow the Bible and Catholic Tradition. I believe God has provided me with strong faith and understanding. This gifts have become factors in my life once I accepted Jesus as my Savior and now spend my life with daily prayer, regular Mass attendance and reception of the Sacraments, doing my best to follow the Commandments and God's will and serving Him through my ministry work.
Obviously you and i differ on what Love is. The reason I can love everyone is I believe Jesus is who He says He is and he makes it clear I MUST love everyone. I also believe as he said the greatest way to show Life is to lay your life down from someone. I believe with all my heart that if s bust was about to strike someone I would risk my life to save them without knowing anything about them. One of the main reasons is becuase I know I'm not made for this world but for eternity with Christ and trust in Him 100%. I don't believe love means having to agree with everyone.

I don't recall where you say your moral compass comes from and if you believe in a God or afterlife. The fact you can't understand or refuse to acknowledge that I can love someone whom is living a homosexual lifestyle leads me to believe you don't have the same relationship I have with God.

I have been praying for you and Peter regularly.

Peace and Blessings

Posted by proud2bcatholic April 13, 09 02:47 PM

Ah, the equation of pro-choice to pro-abortion. Actually, I'd guess that most pro-choice people are pro-family planning. But then most anti-choicers are anti-family planning as well. I also believe that very few anti-choicers are actually pro-life. They too often support politicians who are pro-war and pro-death penalty. They support politicians who treat all manner of people with utter disrespect. Proud, like it or not, your gay brothers and sisters are born with same sex attraction. It is not a perversion. The idea that love between consenting adults is a perversion is itself a perversion. Frankly, your doctrine of original sin is more than a little debatable, as well, and is too often an excuse for zealots to judge and condemn others. As for my moral compass, it comes from a lifetime of experience and study, of taking the worthwhile and discarding the hypocritical. It comes from observing the actions of those who claim moral authority for themselves and those whop don't. There are those who actually do have such authority, and there have even been some in your hierarchy in the past. However, I can't think of one member of your hierarchy at this point who has the moral authority of some agnostics and atheists that I know.

OnTheLeft,
What in the sam hill is antiplanning? Anyway I'm not sure who you hang out with in the pro life community but not one of my community is pro death penalty or pro war. Obviously in certain situations war might be necessary just like sometimes an individual has the right to defend himself but pro war none of those whom I know who believe tearing an unborn baby out limb from limb and tossing them in the medical waste pail are pro war. My guess is those in your life who are pro life on abortion and are for the death penalty and are pro war probably aren't truly pro life. I can't speak for them only myself and those who are part of my community. Fortunately for you instead of listening to those who obviously aren't pro life trying to defend the pro life position now you know someone who knows the true position of pro lifers. Your welcome.

And for the what tenth or eleventh time NO ONE supports a candidate because they agree 100% of the time. I can tell you right now I would most certainly vote for someone whom is pro death penalty and against abortion rather then the other way around. Of course their would be other considerations as well. I could still totally disagree with their stand on the death penalty but if my math is correct their are many more unborn children being killed then those from the death penalty. Every life is sacred but if your choice is one or the other the lessor of two evils is the only option. My guess is no one else is reading this anymore but you continue to make it sound like people agree with everything about a candidate just becuase they vote for them. I believe your intelligent so it appears you only bring this up to try and make people believe all pro lifers are war mongers and pro death penalty. I feel that is a genuinely unreasonable position to take and can't imagine anyone reading would respect that opinion. You try and tell people what they are and what they stand for because they have a different opinion then you.

I disagree that same sex attraction is not a perversion defined as going against the norm. I also believe sodomy in general is disordered. Fortunately we live in America where we are ALLOWED to have different opinions. It appears you believe no one can be born with a perversion or disorder?

I agree original sin can be debated. I only believe it to be true becuase I know Jesus personally through daily prayer, regular reception of the Sacraments, and asking Him. Oh and thanks for the compliment but it's not my doctrine but the Holy Spirits.

Based on your moral compass again fortunately we can disagree. Yours appear to come from your own intellect where as I turn to God to provide me with wisdom of clarity of right and wrong. I also try and follow Jesus prayer which states THY will not MY will be done.

I believe the reason you appear to not feel any practicing Catholic Priest or otherwise has a strong moral compass is twofold. One based on speaking with you for the past several weeks you don't appear to be in the least bit open to hearing others view point and or already have decided what they stand for. You continuing to say pro lifers supporting a candidate that isn't pro life in every way up into including being a member of PETA (kidding of course) is automatically a war monger and hater. Since you appear to know NO ONE whom is a true practicing Christian with a strong moral compass, then frankly you aint hanging around with true Christians.

Peace and Blessings

The 14th Amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It took a long time for the USA to recognize the rights for many of its citizens. At first only white male property owners enjoyed full protection. Eventually, white male non-property owners did. After more than 100 years, women were granted some additional rights, like the right to vote. Decades later, in the 1960s, more civil rights were finally given to Blacks.

Along the way, LDS had to fight for the recognition of their rights. In the 1850s the Federal Government refused to allow Utah to become a state due to not trusting the LDS to govern it. In the 1880s the Feds took over control of many of the assets of the Church, thus denying it Freedom of Religion. Later the Federal Government refused to allow duly-elected representations from Utah to sit in the House and Senate, solely because they were Mormons. But eventually the people become sufficiently enlightened to see this as religious persecution.

Full equal rights are still not granted to women, but that will come in time. Likewise the time will come when most Americans will become enlightened and realize that one's civil rights should not hinge upon whom you happen to love. We have been a nation for well over 200 years, and we are still learning how to interpret what "equal protection of the laws" means.

I hate political parties. I think they're all stupid.

Posted by proud2bcatholic April 15, 09 08:43 AM

Anti-family planning is, FYI, opposition to birth control. And "just say no" hardly constitutes birth control - just ask the Palins. The "rhythm method" is also not birth control. Yes, these can be part of an overall strategy of family planning, but so is birth control medication, including RU-486. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, the number of unwanted pregnancies must be reduced. And if you think, for one moment, that those politicians whom you support are serious about reducing unwanted pregnancies or reversing Roe, you're being played for a sucker. Should that happen, what do they have? What does your hierarchy have?

And the "tearing a baby limb from limb" is a bogus argument. Until independent brain waves, until viability, a fetus has the potential to become a baby. But that's all. Again, if you want to reduce abortion, reduce unwanted pregnancies. Other than that, all of you anti-choicers are simply blowing smoke.

By the way, I know Catholic priests who indeed have a strong moral compass. Funny thing is most of them are liberal, not conservative. None of them need to use members of the gay community or independent woment as their momentary boogeymen. And, proud2b, John McCain is, by his own statements, a warmonger. As is George Bush. As is Dick Cheney. Or do you think that Iraq is a picnic zone of some sort? You voted for all of them, regardless of their desire to use the US military to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians if that would advance their perverse priorities.

I have said this before, and I'll repeat it - you cannot be pro-war and pro-life. And you cannot be anti-civil rights and be pro-life. I think it takes one hell of a lot of nerve to label an entire segment of the population as "perverse" based on the circumstances of their birth, based on who they are. Yet, you judge them as such, and that is truly perverse. The difference between the zealots and the members of the gay community whom they disparage as "perverse" is simple. The zealots CAN change their attitudes. Oh, they won't of course - they convince themselves that their biases are sanctioned by the Holy Spirit, as they convince themselves that their pope is elected by the same spirit, rather than simply internal political machinations - Ratzinger was running for the job while his predecessor was still alive. There is nothing holy about bigotry. There is nothing holy about intolerance or condescension.

OnTheLeft,

I've missed you.

And the parroting continues. You continue to tell people what they can and cant be without really knowing them. No one I know who is pro life is pro war. You refuse to acknowldege or understand how someone could feel abortion is murder. The difference between abortion and war is abortion is never just because it is the killing of the most innocent of human life where as war is sometimes justifed. I'm not making a statement on the current war just on war in general. And even though you say you understand the lessor of two evils voting method you continue to put those whom voted for McCain or Bush and someone who agrees withh EVERYTHING they stand for. That is truly getting old. of course when you don't allow people to think for themselves and tell them they have no right to believe abortion is murder I guess your position makes sense. Never mind.

You also refuse to acknowledge or understand that the increase in abortion as well as infidelity, divorce, children being raised by single parents, and the number of STDS and those infected has increased dramatically. It all has to do with sex becoming a leisure activity and not a wonderful sign of love between a man and wife. I know your going to say well just teach people to use protection. This has been proven not to work as no birth control is 100% from stopping disease and/or pregnancy. You are flat out wrong if you believe birth control and education on it's use will diminish any of the aformentioned. I hope you if you have a daughter and most Men want their daughters to wait for marriage or at least not to be having sex like a night out bowling. I ran across a young lady who flat out told me, she doesn't worry if her birth control fails as she'll just have an abortion. This is the mind set of may of our teen and young adult females. Frankly I'm sad for you if you don't find this disturbing. We teach this crazy idea of people having will power and self control. I really believe a person can live withous sex until their married and I know for sure they can limit it and not be a regular part of their entertainment.

If you believe those whom truly find abortion to be a horrific unjust act are all about an agenda, then I am sad for you. The reactions on people when they first see pictures or films of an actual abortion procedure from emotions that range from sadness to anger to shock to nauseu are real.

I keep going back and reading what you wrote and shake my head. Do you really believe the Palin girl got pregnant by saying no? It appears she said yes. I also think saying people are blowing smoke because they are horrified by a unborn baby being ripped limb from limb from the womb is a frightening statement. Again I'm sad for you if you can't understand why some people would find that wrong. I think that's the only part of our conversation that I find unreasonable. You don't appear to believe anyone could possibly fell differently from you in frankly, anything

Next time your palling around with your liberal priest friends please tell them that proud2b wants to give them a friendly loving reminder. There's no such thing as a liberal or conservative Roman Catholic Priest. It's a calling and even though they may have forgot, they swore in front of God to follow what the Church teaches.

We have enough average Priests.

If your free come to BC to the Catholic Men's Conference tomorrow. I sincerely feel you'll at least find out we aren't the people you seem to believe we are. I mean that.

Peace and Blessings,

Proud2,

Parroting? For starters, I'm not the one parroting an official party line, the one coming from the Vatican. You refuse to acknowledge the vast number of people out there who do not consider first term abortion to be murder. You refuse to acknowledge that the science indicates that Roe v. Wade was decided correctly. Not even all religions believe that ensoulment occurs at conception - some, in fact, believe that it occurs at birth. You take the word on a matter of science of a group that has never hesitated to ignore scientific evidence when it suited their political objectives. I don't take their word on it, and neither do most Americans.

And your hierarchy fully supported Bush in 2004, knowing the human cost of his war, knowing about torture, knowing about his callous disregard for the poor. They supported him. Votes matter. Elections matter. Their guy got to spend another 4 years slaughtering civilians and they have that blood on their hands. As does everyone who knew those things, yet blindly followed the hierarchy and voted to continue those murderous policies. Or did you all really expect that Bush would cease his bloodshed? And the same can be said of this past election. Votes have consequences. Elections have consequences. And many Christians are, in fact, pro-war. Some 70% of this country favored going to war in Iraq, and virtually every conservative in America was among that group. And I'd bet that almost every anti-choice American was in that group as well.

And Bristol Palin's pregnancy, in fact, is demonstrative of the utter insanity of abstinence-only sex education. As I said, "just say no" isn't going to cut it. And sex is a leisure activity - always has been and always will, and among consenting adults, that's not a bad thing by any stretch. If you think it should only occur in marriage, then live your life accordingly. Others will live their lives according to their own view of the matter. As for teenagers, they need comprehensive education in this area, and my guess is that, for many, abstinence-only is a joke. Yes, no birth control method is 100% effective. That bit of knowledge should be part of comprehensive sex ed, but do you really believe that the "rhythm method" is an appropriate response to that, or that, say, 99% is the same as 5% effective? Again, if you really want the number of abortions to decrease, the number of unwanted pregnancies must decrease. And that requires birth control.

And there most definitely are liberal and conservative priests. Your hierarchy is almost entirely conservative, and to pretend otherwise flies in the face of reality. In fact, your last 2 popes have been reactionaries, as are many of your bishops and cardinals. Vatican II has been under assault since the early 1980s and is, for many purposes, all but dead.

By the way, I happen to know practicing Christians and practicing Catholics, as I've said before, who walk the walk every day of their lives, inside their churches and out in the world. Many of them are decidedly pro-choice and anti-war, as well as anti-death penalty and pro-human rights. They vote for candidates who advance the cause of human rights, and they support marriage equality. And no one, not Sean O'Malley, not Josef Ratzinger, not any right-wing Catholic anywhere can challenge their credentials or their right to practice their religions as they see fit. It's their church as well, every bit as much as it's yours or anyone else's. And on the matter of the source of my moral compass, it's no different from yours. Yours comes also from your own intellect, from your idea of what God is. It comes from what you've experienced and what you've read, what you've accepted and what you've rejected. For those Catholics who claim moral superiority, I'd point you to the 2005 Pew poll on American attitudes toward torture. Only 26% of Catholics said that torture is never acceptable. 41% of secularists said it's never acceptable. Torture is a moral issue, and those who reject organized religion appear in this case to a much more highly tuned moral compass.

OnTheLeft,

I hope you had a nice weekend. Although the Catholic Men's Conference was genuinely edifying the highlight of this past weekend was the joy I saw in a 14 year old young lady's face after her first confession in a long time inclduing her tellig me she confessed something she never had.

Unless you know Jesus personally then your and my moral compass don't come from the same place. I lived without asking God for guidance and now with. I KNOW humans can have a personal relationship with God and if we are open He will guide us in right and wrong.

I also don't put ANY weight in polls about Catholics as by far the majority of them are Catholic in name only and don't practice and/or even know many basic tenents of the Church

I also believe we are talking apples and oranges with the conservavtive/liberal Priest issue. When a Priest receives the Sacrament of Holy Orders He is saying in front of God and all mankind He accepts ALL what the Church teaches. I find it hypocritical if someone takes this Oath and doesn't follow it. In America many more Bishops and Priests go aganst and/or are unwilling to Preach what the Church teaches. I know for a fact the Priest at our parish is disliked and thought to be a radical by other Priests becuase He follows His SACRED Oath.

I do have a couple questions for you. If you have a daughter or if not imagine you did.

Will you want her to wait for marriage to have sex?

If no do you hope she doesn't have sex while still
in high school?

If she does have sex will you be in the least bit concerned about her contracting an STD even if so called protection is used?

Is it possible for teens to not have sex if they are healthy and it is available to them?

Do you think it's abnormal for a teen to want to remain a virgin?

Do you think its' abnormal for someone to want to wait until marriage.

Peace and Blessings my friend.

proud2b,

First of all, you don't get to say who's "Catholic in name only". It's their church every bit as much as it's yours, even if they don't share your conservatism, or Ratzinger's conservatism. And on that poll, those numbers are accurate within the usual margin of error. And I'd bet that the small percentage of Catholics opposed to torture at all times are more liberal Catholics. In this country, torture has been a conservative Republican policy, not a liberal Democratic one. The so-called CINOs are probably the moral Catholics here. And secularists are apparently far more moral on this matter than Catholics, Protestants and Evangelicals (the latter 2 had only slightly better numbers than Catholics).

Now, if I had a teenage daughter, I would want her to have comprehensive sex education, dealing in fact, not in religion. She would know that sex is not an evil, that it is the opposite, and that it is something for adults, not kids. If I had a daughter, I'd want her to wait until she was an adult. Part of comprehensive sex ed is letting kids know the emotional pitfalls, but also letting them know the health aspects, including pregnancy and STD prevention. That includes condoms and other birth control. I would let her know that her body is her own and no one else's. Not a partner's, not a government official's, not anyone's in any religion.

OnTheLeft my friend

I actually agree with much of what you say. The Catholic Church also teaches that sex is not evil but opposite. As a matter of fact the teaching of Pope JP2 on the theology of the body states that the act of making love between a man and his wife mirrors the love of the Trinity and during climax is the closest feeling one can have to what Heaven is like.

We teach the teens in our group however that everything is God's including their bodies. Obviously as you do we believe they should wait until adults although we believe they should wait until marriage. We believe they are all beautiful and their beauty should only be unwrapped as a gift to their husband on their wedding night. We also teach them accurately that no form of birth control keeps them safe from disease and/or pregnancy. We also teach them to be accountable for their actions and that science now knows where babies come from. We tell them we have total confidence they can survive without sex and they also know we will love them no matter what they do and as many times as they do it. They most certainly know we are on their team. Much more importantly they know God is forgiving and merciful and there is nothing they can do that can make Him love them less. We also as Catholics have the amazing but sadly underused Sacrament of Confession.

Although I can't judge anyone and maybe can't speak to individuals if you are not a practicing Catholic whom follows the Oath you made during your Confirmation and every time you say AMEN when receiving Jesus, recite the Creed, or renew your Baptismal vows (usually done at Easter) then you are in name only. This doesn't make you a bad person of course. What are your thoughts on this? Do you feel it's OK to be saying in all thses situations that you follow all what the Church teaches and then to make up your own rules. No one forces anyone to stay Catholic and you aren't obviously excommunicated for disagreeing but that doesn't change the fact your being sort of hypocritical. The whole protestant reformation which by the way Martin Luther ahd a lot of good arguments for leaving
comes from the word protest. The Catholic Church is not a democracy. Once you start disagreeing or going against one teaching then it opens the doors to go against any of them. What we have today is many Protestants who go to Mass. And you know what I love them all.

I am bringing four teens on visit to the best University in the World, Franciscan U in Steubenville OH, so I probably won't talk back at ya until next week.

As far as the torture goes although I am against it and i'm all about black and white and right and wrong I've heard a couple interesting arguments. Obviously I'm sure you'd agree the enemy know is different from in past wars. Also aren't there different types of torture. I mean denying food, sleep depravation aren't as bad as waterboarding.

If it was and could (I'm not so sure it could) be proven that torture say stopped an attack like the one on 911 would it be OK?

What about if someone knew say where your wife or child was and they where going to be killed in the near future would you be OK with some degree of torture to find out?

I'm looking forward to hearing your opinions.

Peace and Blessings my friend