The Storm Over the Mormons

[Apex]

Time is publishing this article about the Church and the gay marriage debate. Overall I thought it was a fairly balanced article which is kind of surprising. The link is bellow for any other LDS who are interested.

The Storm Over the Mormons - TIME

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Apex

Time is publishing this article about the Church and the gay marriage debate. Overall I thought it was a fairly balanced article which is kind of surprising. The link is bellow for any other LDS who are interested.

The Storm Over the Mormons - TIME

Thanks, Apex! It's good to know that issue is on the newsstands. I'd like to pick up a copy. I agree that it was a fairly balanced article. I've seen a lot worse. At least they actually got the name of the Church right, didn't say that we worship President Monson or that John Smith was the founder of the Church.

[Scott C.]

Originally Posted by Apex

Time is publishing this article about the Church and the gay marriage debate. Overall I thought it was a fairly balanced article which is kind of surprising. The link is bellow for any other LDS who are interested.

The Storm Over the Mormons - TIME

Thanks for posting this article. It was very interesting.

[Apex]

I was surprised they highlighted some of the bigoted responses members received for supporting prop 8. I also liked this quote,

Clark Pingree, a Bay Area Mormon gay activist, says that of the various Mormon pro-8 rationales, the Prophet-made-me-do-it line was "the most infuriating, because people say, 'I'm showing my faith by voting against what I know in my heart.' It's a force field you will never penetrate."

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Apex

I was surprised they highlighted some of the bigoted responses members received for supporting prop 8. I also liked this quote,

I loved that quote, too! When I was getting static from my fellow Church members here on RF, I kept thinking, how can I not be true to what my heart -- and my conscience -- tells me. So here's a question: Is it better to vote the way the brethren tell you to if goes against your conscience or is it better to vote your conscience? It's kind of like the debates among members of the Church when it comes to birth control. I had only two children, by choice. Some people thought I was wrong to have purposefully limited the size of my family. It has made me wonder: Was my "sin" not having more children or was my "sin" not wanting to have more children?

[Apex]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I loved that quote, too! When I was getting static from my fellow Church members here on RF, I kept thinking, how can I not be true to what my heart -- and my conscience -- tells me. So here's a question: Is it better to vote the way the brethren tell you to if goes against your conscience or is it better to vote your conscience? It's kind of like the debates among members of the Church when it comes to birth control. I had only two children, by choice. Some people thought I was wrong to have purposefully limited the size of my family. It has made me wonder: Was my "sin" not having more children or was my "sin" not wanting to have more children?

We only want two children as well. And we do not plan on having them for a couple years (we get married next Friday) so we will probably get some weird looks from members for that.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Apex

We only want two children as well. And we do not plan on having them for a couple years (we get married next Friday) so we will probably get some weird looks from members for that.

Yes, you probably will. Congratulations, by the way! That's so exciting!

[idea]

Originally Posted by Apex

I was surprised they highlighted some of the bigoted responses members received for supporting prop 8. I also liked this quote,
Clark Pingree, a Bay Area Mormon gay activist, says that of the various Mormon pro-8 rationales, the Prophet-made-me-do-it line was "the most infuriating, because people say, 'I'm showing my faith by voting against what I know in my heart.' It's a force field you will never penetrate."

So... if it is to be an article on Mormons, they choose a "Bay Area gay activist" to represent the Mormon population? sense when does a gay activist represent mainstream LDS members?

only as a partner in a procreative relationship can a soul eventually create spirit children

They are making heaven sound like some big sex orgie. It is not revealed how spirit children are created. I personally believe that baptism is our birth, that they are not our parents through the prego means, but that is another thread.

The alienation felt by gay Mormons was highlighted in 2000, when one of them, 32-year-old Stuart Matis, committed suicide on the steps of the Los Altos, Calif., church headquarters

Again, totally one sided. No mention about all of the programs and support groups that are available through the church, about all of the gay people who have found love and help through the church.
Evergreen International-Helping Latter-Day Saints overcome same-sex attraction (homosexuality)

Monson, his two counselors and his apostles, who transmit orders downward through the Salt Lake City

transmit "orders"???? The prophet does not order anyone to do anything. They make suggestions, and members choose to follow or not.

Although Salt Lake City officially rejects wading in on most issues, it makes a large exception: matters of morals, with an emphasis on gender debates

I have not noticed an "emphasis on gender debates". Many moral issues have been addressed by the church, pro-life, drug issues - this whole thing was sparked because the church wrote one letter to a few stakes in Calif - that was it. They make it sound like all we do is sit around and bash homosexuals, that it is our #1 priority. This is totally ridiculous. It is a long ways away from being a #1 priority.

"do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time."

That was it, that is all they said - one little letter among hundreds and thousands of letters on thousands of different topics. It sould have been nothing more than just another letter had the "gentiles" not taken it and made it into something more.

Stewart says she intended from the start to vote yes. But she adds, "I can certainly understand why members of the gay community wanted to receive this rite. I think there were ward members on the fence, thinking, Why not give them marriage?"

The vast majority of LDS members are not on the fence. Again, using one minority member to twist who the majority are. It makes it sound as if the presidency was pitted against the majority of the members of the church on this one. That is so far from the truth. The vast majority of the members agree 100% with the first presidency - they were not being talked into doing anything. The vast majority would have voted yes/supported it with or without a letter from the first pres asking them to.

The new push for the proposition had a rational side: the church claimed that the legalization of gay marriage would threaten its tax-exempt status if it refused to perform gay nuptials

This is NOT why the church got involved. It makes the church sound like some money hungry entity - fighting to get rich instead of fighting for morals.

Mormons made calls, placed flyers and planted lawn signs. They thought they were being good citizens.

They did not just "think" they were being good citizens, they were being good citizens.

I thought the article was horrible, as most of Time's stuff is. They sent Time to us for free, I called and told them to stop, that their articles are a disgrace.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by idea

I thought the article was horrible, as most of Time's stuff is. They sent Time to us for free, I called and told them to stop, that their articles are a disgrace.

I don't know how long you have been a member of the Church, idea, but I have seriously noticed a pretty substantial improvement in articles about the Church over the years. This one was so much more balanced than the ones that came out twenty or even ten years ago. Any article written about the Church by a non-member is going to be biased. That's just a fact of life. Sure, it could have been better, but it was no where near as bad as many I've seen over the years.

[Watchmen]

Originally Posted by idea

So... if it is to be an article on Mormons, they choose a "Bay Area gay activist" to represent the Mormon population? sense when does a gay activist represent mainstream LDS members?

The article clearly identifies who Pingree is and what he's about it never says or implies that Pingree "represents the Mormon population." On a side note, I had his brother as a professor once - one of the best ever!

They are making heaven sound like some big sex orgie. It is not revealed how spirit children are created. I personally believe that baptism is our birth, that they are not our parents through the prego means, but that is another thread.

I didn't think they needed that in the article either.

Again, totally one sided. No mention about all of the programs and support groups that are available through the church, about all of the gay people who have found love and help through the church.

It's not one-sided - it's a tragic fact.

transmit "orders"???? The prophet does not order anyone to do anything. They make suggestions, and members choose to follow or not.

Issuing letters to every congregation to be read in Sacrament meeting is akin to issuing orders. The article also mentioned that a general authority said there would be no ill will towards members who did not support Prop 8. I wonder why you left that out?

I have not noticed an "emphasis on gender debates". Many moral issues have been addressed by the church, pro-life, drug issues - this whole thing was sparked because the church wrote one letter to a few stakes in

Calif - that was it. They make it sound like all we do is sit around and bash homosexuals, that it is our #1 priority. This is totally ridiculous. It is a long ways away from being a #1 priority.

I'm assuming you're not in California. It was not one letter to a few stakes in California. It was a letter read in EVERY SINGLE WARD in California. The letter was followed up by satellite broadcasts from Salt Lake and Salt Lake orchestrating a nation-wide fund raising campaign. In California, every ward was directed to organize committees to create phone banks, conduct fund raising activities, post lawn signs, and go door-to-door. Not a sacrament meeting, relief society meeting, or priesthood meeting go by without various mentionings of Prop 8. For a few months, going to Church was dreadful. I go to Church to worship God and remember Christ - not bash gays (which is what was happening - EVERY WEEK). I walked out of church on numerous occassions. On one Fast Sunday and became fed up, made sure I was the last one to share a testimony and got up and shared my testimony of CHRIST! I wanted the meeting to end on that note - not the endless fear-mongering that was taking place. So, I find your comment that the article was ridiculous completely uninformed. For many months, fighting gays was the number one priority of the Church (at least in California).

That was it, that is all they said - one little letter among hundreds and thousands of letters on thousands of different topics. It sould have been nothing more than just another letter had the "gentiles" not taken it and made it into something more.

As I said above, it was more than "one little letter."

The vast majority of LDS members are not on the fence. Again, using one minority member to twist who the majority are. It makes it sound as if the presidency was pitted against the majority of the members of the church on this one. That is so far from the truth. The vast majority of the members agree 100% with the first presidency - they were not being talked into doing anything. The vast majority would have voted yes/supported it with or without a letter from the first pres asking them to.

Stewart is not a minority - both Brother and Sister Stewart voted yes. But, as your experience on the RF should tell you, there actually are members who are on the fence. No where in the article does it make it sound like the presidency was pitted against the majority of the members. Just the opposite, in fact - it shows that members are rank and file ready to obey those orders from Salt Lake.

This is NOT why the church got involved. It makes the church sound like some money hungry entity - fighting to get rich instead of fighting for morals.

It most certainly is/was part of the discussion. It was one of the talking points I heard every single week for a few months.

They did not just "think" they were being good citizens, they were being good citizens.

You're taking that out of context. Mormons thought they were being good citizens and were surprised at the backlash. That's the point of the sentence - not the point you try and make it sound like.

I thought the article was horrible, as most of Time's stuff is. They sent Time to us for free, I called and told them to stop, that their articles are a disgrace.

Your response was horrible in that it revealed how uninformed you are about what actually happened in every ward in California.