lds4gaymarriage.org

We show how supporting CA’s Prop. 8 / AZ’s Prop. 102 is CONTRARY to LDS theology. We do so in a methodical and logical manner.

We look forward to your feedback.
CM

Drop it. That horse died long ago.

“In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive office), or by the public in referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure. It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.

An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.”

Individuals have every right to vote their conscience or support whatever cause they want, but the church (any church) has NO RIGHT telling them what causes to support, what party is best and, most disgusting of all, telling them how much money they are expected to contribute in order to support or oppose a particular cause. Outright violation of the law they claim to uphold but instead thumb their noses at!!!

Cheers,

BR

Both Jewish and Christian traditions state that the Prophet Isaiah was killed by being sawed in half * by people who were offended by his words of warning. Isaiah one of the most political of the prophets seemed to stick his nose into everything. He paid for his audacity.

Now come Dr. Neilsen and others who want it two ways. They want prophets when they like what they say and don’t want them as prophets when they don’t like what they say. Thus they saw the prophet in two like Isaiah. Great are the words of Isaiah except when we differ with him.

*Hebrews 11:37 (King James Version) They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being

I would only add one thing where I think there may be a misunderstanding. Professsor Nielsen is not advocating or demanding that religions (the Mormon church in particular) desist from taking a stand on matters of morality. Quite the contrary. If that is your belief, you may have missed his point. He states clearly that he believes that churches/religions, in a democracy, have every right to take such stands….that such morality is inextricibly linked to our democracy. After all, positions of relgious morality naturally absorb into the democratic process and the morph into collective values of our society.

What he is saying is that WHEN the church makes religious statements (which, again, is their right), they should not expect a pluralistic society to accept the rationale of “god told us so.” Religious statements and arguments by this religion or that, must be, themselves subjected to a broader test of moral applicability….in other words, mormon “dictates from god” must contain moral values that can be embraced by society…since all of society does not believe that Thomas S. Monson regularly speaks with God.

The church made an appeal to California mormons to support a political cause. Because it put one foot in the democratic ring…members a democracy (who also happen to be members of the church) should have the ability to question, ask for clarification and participate in a democratic process contra to the church’s doctrinal position…and not be expected to vote for something, support something, or refrain from entering the political debate on something they see as wrongheaded simply because their church leaders told asked them for political support. I think that is fair.

Finally, despite what many people think….disagreement on a political issue (even when that issue has a moral component) is not a sign of apostacy or spiritual peril….although many mormons I know believe otherwise (some, perhaps…in this thread). In fact, there have been many occasions (Mitt Romney’s candidacy, for example) where political diversity was trumpetted by the church (i.e. we don’t tell our members how to vote) as a sign of strength, diversity and lack of eclesiastical control over the democratic process. Another point of irony…..

I liked what DavidH said in #91…..perfect.

My personal conviction is that Dr. Nielsen is wrong in demanding that the Church and the apostles in particular desist from taking a stand on matters of morality. The church and it’s members have every right to do so.

Thanks for reading Lance Starr’s article.

I do appreciate your tossing the challenge out to look at Dr. Neilsen’s work with greater specificity. It was a worthwhile exercise.

Be well,

I don’t think it would be a waste of your time to discuss your feelings with the Bishop. Gaining direction from our ecclesiastical leaders is an essential part of the spiritual development process. I would certainly and have previously gone to my church leaders with issues that I felt strongly about and I never came away feeling anything but edified. Not so much because of anything that my leaders did but because I did what I could to voice my opinion and fulfill my responsibility as a Melchizedek priesthood holder. However, I understand what you mean about it not being the best use of time so I can appreciate your point.

That is a fair question adcama. I am glad you asked be to examine Dr. Nielsen’s statement carefully. On the whole Dr. Neilsen’s statement gyrates widely from demands
for rational discourse to clearly heartfelt emotional appeals. It is not a great logical argument, but rather a very personal statement of convictions, to which he is entitled. Unfortunately in his angst he takes the route of ad hominem abuse to me, others like me and to the prophets Seers and Revelators that I whole heartedly sustain even six months.

In the following posts, I will examine the whole statement and offer my own views of the rhetoric and logic. It has been a long time since I studied Rhetoric and logic, but here it goes.

“I am a member of the Mormon Church, a married heterosexual, and a supporter of marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples.”

[The first sentence is clearly argumentum ad hominem is the inverse of argumentum ad verecundiam, in which the arguer bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it.]

“It also does tremendous damage to the great progress in civil rights we’ve made in our country respecting the equal dignity of each person and towards a more certain legal equality for all citizens. “

[This is an emotional appeal to unsubstantiated consequences and fear. If sames sex couple can have access to all the legal accoutrement through domestic partnerships why is the denial of marriage a burden.]

“You should also know, not all faithful Mormons agree with our religious leaders’ encroachment into political matters. In fact, a growing number of active Mormons, who have gay friends and family members,”

[This is of course unsubstantiated wishful thinking which is an appeal to emotion and a logical fallacy.]

“…are coming to the conclusion that our current leaders are as mistaken in promoting discrimination against gays and lesbians as was the Mormon hierarchy in the 60’s when they opposed equal rights for people of color, and our Mormon leaders in the 70’s when they opposed full legal equality for women.”

[The use of the loaded word current and hierarchy rather than the use of their formal title is a clear appeal to ridicule. More over the characterization of opposing equal rights is an over simplification used to further the ridicule. Cleaver, perhaps, but it carries with it like and good propaganda effort the potent and bitter seeds of ridicule.]

“… faithful members, of that religious organization have the civic responsibility to express public disapproval of such dangerous and undemocratic behavior.”
[This is an emotional and unsupported appeal to fear. People in a democracy must make moral judgments and under our Constitution the right to join the polemic dialogue cannot denied based on religious ground. It is neither dangerous nor undemocratic.]

“… we need to allow everyone the freedom to live their life as they see fit…”
[Here we have an appeal to pity. Same sex couples can enjoy the rights of domestic partnerships. The public has chosen to acknowledge same sex partnerships, but they have every right not to honor that relationship as being identical in every way to heterosexual marriage—it is not and cannot be.]

“After all, religious values must be something an individual freely chooses, not something forced upon him or her by the state. “

[This is inside baseball for Mormons. It is for Mormons a loaded question. Is Neilsen saying members cannot chose? Or is he saying same sex couples cannot chose. He might have take more time to work this out]

“We should never allow our constitutions, whether state or federal, to become weapons in a crusade to impose a particular religious value system upon a pluralistic democracy. Today it might be a particular religious value that we affirm, but tomorrow it might be a religious system, which would seek to legislate against our own sincere beliefs. So now is the time to take a stand and keep separate civil and religious authority.”

[This is paragraph is an appeal to fear… In our pluralistic society we can and do make moral judgments with our laws and regulation. Clearly morality judgments can be the basis for both religious and political judgments. It is also presented as a loaded question. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Note also the use of loaded words like “weapons” and “crusade.” These are hyperbole at best. ]

I do not believe that people choose their sexual orientation any more than they choose their skin color or gender. So to discriminate and deny them equal protection and equal opportunity under civil law because of these natural traits; especially in this case, sexual orientation, is grossly unfair and should be rejected outright in a compassionate and just democracy. “

[That would be an appeal to pity based on unproven predicates… Nielsen’s entire argument is not really based on denial of rights which are already granted in domestic partnership laws, but the honor of marriage. It is in his view hurtful to deny same sex couples the honor of being called married couples. Pity same sex couples…]
“If anyone could give me a single reasonable argument against marriage equality in our civil society, which doesn’t make fallacious appeals to tradition, misplaced appeals to religious authority, or make some ridiculous claim about nonhuman animals, then I would like to hear it. So far, no one has been able to present me with even a single justifiable reason.”

[This is clearly an ad hominem attack . The reference to “nonhuman animals” is a gratuitous effort that betrays Nielsons deep seated animus toward Apostles and Prophets. It is also a loaded question as though there are no possible rational arguments. The Proclamation on the Family lays out the moral basis for supporting Proposition 9 posits no appeal to tradition or claim about non human animals. For legal and rational discussion couched in the law and public policy I recommend Lance Starr’s arguments here: here:http://www.fairblog.org/2008/06/27/same-sex-marriage-equality-and-california-mormons-a-response-to-jeffrey-s-nielsen/
“You should know that like you, family and marriage are very important to me. “
[This appeal to common interest is a good rhetorical technique]
“As I have become acquainted with gay and lesbian couples, I have been touched by their goodness, sincerity, and commitment.“

[This is an emotional appeal which is okay when stating ones personal convictions, but it is a little awkward placed as it is immediately after a demand that only rational discourse will serve.]

“I am persuaded that allowing marriage equality would, in fact, strengthen the institutions of family and marriage in our country. Perhaps it might even make all of us a little more considerate and responsible as both marriage partners and parents.’

[This is wishful thinking without a predicate.]

I can only hope that the citizens of California, and my fellow Mormons, will possess the wisdom and moral decency to reject the call to discriminate against our gay and lesbian coworkers, friends, neighbors, church members, and family.

[This is an emotional appeal which is okay when stating ones personal convictions, but it is a little awkward placed as it is immediately after a demand that only rational discourse will serve.]

You are welcome, hawkgrrrl. (See #87.)

Nick: Frankly, I think you have a point on the gender comment. Interestingly, you see it as a dig on gays based on antiquated notions of what causes “gayness” (the old thinking that a gay man is a woman trapped in a man’s body and a lesbian is manly). Of couse, as a female executive, I initially took it as a dig on me for being an aggressive ball-buster (can I say that?) rather than being satisfied hosting scrapbooking parties.

But, I am open to the possibility that there is something eternal to one’s sexual identity. I don’t know what that could be, to your point, since different cultures have different gender norms. The differences don’t fly off the page at me, though – they are not obvious.

If so, the PoF is worded wrong (as a linguist, that’s obvious unless the interpretation is that the culture creating the gender is one created by God that exists in His presence and is “eternal” and yet not consistent throughout the cultures of the earth). The mistaken wording could because of what Ray suggests, or because the FP didn’t give the wording thought beyond what seemed evident to them (that gay people choose to confuse their own sexual identity for some unknown reason). As we know, it was evident to BY that people were living on the moon and the sun (I live in AZ, so he may be right about the second one).

Sorry about the confusion. I thought the parenthetical was your way of asking whether I considered myself a christian.

You are a gay, fundamentalist Mormon, right?

Yes, I realize the PoF is certainly viewed by many LDS as “scripture” in the very broad sense described in the D&C. Of course, the question remains whether it was written “by the Holy Ghost.”

Do you think most Christians (yourself?) believe that sex is a component of the afterlife – that men will be men and women will be women, even in a spiritual state?

Btw, I also agree completely that the Proclamation is not “canon” as we define it. I think it fits the more general definition of “scripture” for many members, but until it is sustained openly by common consent and/or included in the D&C as another OD it won’t be canon.

FWIW, I have a close friend who was in a UCLA student ward during prop 22. He spoke up in Elders Quorum when the ward was organizing a door-to-door campaign. Because he spoke up, he was asked to meet with his bishop. The bishop said, in essense, that while people were okay to disagree, they shouldn’t do so in church. I found this counsel (hearsay as it may be) incredibly ironic.

Ray, as I’m sure you know, gender is a social construct. It involves the “whole package” of what a culture considers “masculine” or “feminine.” Because it is a social construct, we have societies through history which have assigned a given task to either males or females, depending on which gender that society associated with the behavior involved. Of course, those assignments have not been universal; they often conflict with one another. This suggests to me that gender is not, in fact, “eternal.”

I suppose that some would be ethnocentric enough to conclude that their culture’s gender distintions are the ones that deity directed, and that any society that differs must be “degenerate” from “deity’s way.” I would not consider that to be a rational, educated opinion. I’d consider it provincial, closed minded, and downright ignorant (yes, that’s my particular bias showing).

I sympathize with your suggestsion (and that of others) that LDS leaders simply shied away from using that “very naughty” three-letter word, lest someone get the wrong idea. If it was the intent of LDS leaders to teach that men are “eternally” men, and women are “eternally” women, would it have been so hard to say that? I’d even be likely to agree with such a statement, given some caution regarding biological ambiguities that show up from time to time.

Ultimately, however, I believe that the PoF reflects a profound misunderstanding of the nature of homosexuality. It seems rather well-established that the statement was crafted primarily as a response to the issue of marriage equality, as it was then raised in Hawaii. As such, it appears to me that the claim that “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose” is intended to convey that homosexuality is wrong because men are eternally men, and women are eternally women. I just don’t see how anyone can pose this as an argument against homosexuality, unless they actually think that homosexuality is the product of “gender confusion.” My own experience, along with my interactions with many gay men and lesbians, tells me that this is simply not the case. A very tiny minority of individuals, both heterosexuals and homosexuals, consider themselves transgendered. It simply doesn’t correlate with one sexual orientation or the other.

To me, the PoF reflects this very basic misunderstanding of homosexuality. It happens that this particular misunderstanding was quite a typical assumption during the era when the current general authorities were maturing. As such, I personally must conclude that the PoF is a statement of opinion, based at least in part on rather archaic, faulty beliefs regarding homosexuality. To me, that doesn’t meet the standard of a “revelation.”

“Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent.”

While the statement does not explicitly extend to voters generally, I believe the principle does so extend. When we vote in a referendum, our judgment should consider the interests of those who would be affected by the law, not just the interests of our Church.

I believe the neutrality statement can also mean the following: “[Voters] who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other [voter], it recognizes that these [voters] still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies [who would be affected by the law].”

Smiley-faced emoticons or a (*grin*) help tremendously to convey humor – since sometimes it is brutally hard to catch.