What now?

Well, it's over. We have been hashing, arguing, debating, posturing for months now, and it has finally come to an end (for a few days). Barack Obama will be our next President. How do I feel? Dare I say "hopeful"? I learned a few things watching the election returns come in and from the speeches last night that I would like to share.

First, both McCain and Obama were incredibly gracious, and I appreciated that. They set an example the rest of us should follow in dealing with each other and working together. McCain is a good man.

Second, some parts of Obama's speech gave me hope and one part worried me. As a conservative, here are things I was glad to hear Obama say:

Let's remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican party to the White House, a party founded on the values of self-reliance and individual liberty and national unity. Those are values that we all share. And while the Democratic party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress . . .

To those who would tear the world down: we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security: We support you. And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright: Tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope. . .

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as president. And we know the government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.

I also liked the story about Ann Nixon Cooper and found it inspirational (but it is long, so please read it if you did not watch the speech). The one part of his speech where my little red flag went up was this:


So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other. Let us remember that, if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers. In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people.

You know - it sounds good, it really does. If it were President Monson saying this same thing, I would probably stand on my car and shout "Yes we can!" But, I can't help but feel that it sounds a lot like a campaign speech for socialism, too. I guess my big question is: HOW? How are we going to pitch in and look after each other? Is this a call for individual action and charity or more government? I am nervous, Barack. Please prove me wrong.

I had an epiphany this morning. I realized that I tend to vote for and support politicians that are much more right-wing than I am. I figure that if they are extremely conservative, they will balance out all the liberals and we'll end up somewhere in the happy middle. I also realized that I DO NOT extend this same courtesy to left-wing politicians. I assume that they are going to come in and enact all their liberal agendas and lead us as a nation to the left. However, I suppose there is the possibility that with Barack being extremely liberal, he will balance out the few remaining conservatives, and we'll end up somewhere in the happy middle. Please prove me right!!

There were a couple of other interesting issues on state ballots. First, abortion. In South Dakota, a law that would implement an abortion policy very similar to the church's position failed. This tells me that abortion is not going away. It has never been my big issue. I kind of have this feeling that our nation has already spoken about abortion, and it is just not going away. So, people who vote on this one issue, please stop. It doesn't really matter if your candidate does want to abolish abortion in every case. If the people won't vote to abolish it, it isn't going to happen. And, it is way too easy for a candidate to get your vote by saying that he is pro-life but then not doing anything about it. There are other issues out there to consider. I have already established on this site that I am pro-life and support a position like the church's position. I would vote that way. But, I think that values voters are being taken advantage of by focusing on this one issue that doesn't seem feasible to change.

Second, Prop 8. It passed by a thin margin. I have to admit I am honestly surprised. Yesterday, when I saw the missionary commercial, I was afraid. I was afraid that if Prop 8 passed, Mormons (and especially missionaries) would face more persecution. But then I realized that I was letting FEAR influence my feelings rather than FAITH. I was allowing myself to be intimidated into not standing for what I feel is right, and that is WRONG.

In a lot of ways, I view Prop 8 as a battle between good and evil (or, more appropriately, truth and error). Yes, this is a great over-simplification, and I already have my shield up to protect me from internet arrows. But, for a lot of people (like me) this came down to a decision of "equality" vs. "traditional values".


The campaign in California pitted those who argued that a same-sex marriage ban was nothing more than outdated discrimination against gays and lesbians, and conservatives and Christian groups who countered that the state and the courts have no right to unilaterally change a definition of marriage that has existed for centuries.

The fact that Prop 8 won tells me that a majority of the population in California still supports traditional values, and I take heart in that. In California, that crazy liberal state, every wacky proposition out of San Francisco failed (prostitution will not be legalized, they will not name a sewage plant after George W Bush, ROTC will not be banned from high schools).

One very interesting thing I noted about the Prop 8 returns is why it passed. I had to check the California exit polls to be certain, but it appears that African Americans supported Prop 8 in great numbers.


Blacks turning out in droves to support Obama also threw their support strongly behind Proposition 8, which would overturn the state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage. Opposition to the ban held a small edge among whites, while Latinos and Asians were split.

I find that fascinating. Mormons may not end up being the group "blamed" for Prop 8 passing. It may be the African American population in California. Isn't that interesting that the group who fought discrimination on the basis of their skin color, who fought for true civil rights and equality chose the value of traditional marriage in this vote?

From all of the past two days, I have learned this: we don't need to let political parties define us and our values. We don't need to let them divide us. As Barack said in his speech last night:


Let's resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.

We share values that cross party lines. The Democrats try to claim that they are the party for minorities, yet African Americans crossed party lines to support Prop 8. The Republicans claim to be the party of faith and values, and yet people who stood in support of traditional values voted for Obama. This gives me hope! We are not defined by our party. We are defined by our values. Let's work together and find shared values and possibly buck our two parties or reshape and define them.

Obama, you have my attention. As I watched the crowds of people celebrating and crying last night, I wondered, "What do they see in him that I don't see? Why do I feel like I just got punched in the gut while they feel like the world is dramatically changing for the better? What am I missing?" I don't know. But, I am willing to look. And, I pray that we all are willing to look for the good in each other and the good in each party and work together to make this a stronger, more unified America. God bless.

104 comments:

The Faithful Dissident said...

Great post, Stephanie. Can't really think of anything else to say except that you're definitely more optimistic than I am about how the passing of Prop 8 is going to affect us as Mormons. Even if we were right, I think we're in for some stormy weather and I think that this will hurt the Church, if not in the long run, then certainly in the years to come -- at least in CA.

I just want to second what you said about the speeches. Both were great, and I think that I even liked McCain's a bit better. Not because he lost, but because it was so gracious, humble, and unifying.

I just wanted to mention that the election of Obama has given people here in Europe reason to be optimistic about America again. I know that everyone is on this Obama-high right now and eventually everyone is going to come back down to earth, but I think that this is setting a precedent for the whole world. If America, a nation of slavery, lynchings, and civil rights riots can now be colour-blind when electing a president, then it's setting a huge example for Canada and Europe, who are all multicultural and yet still have not really had any minority presidents or PM's. We've had women as leaders, but not minorities.

Ruth Anne said...

You can't say that people didn't speak their mind. The popular vote was pretty close. And for the props, roughly 400,000 votes separate yes and no votes on California's prop 8-gay ban. I may not trust the politicians, but I trust the people.

When I found out McCain was nominated for the Republican party, I thought about voting for Obama. Palin quickly turned me back on.

With so many people depending on him, I think he will be responsible. I even reread his position on Iraq dated last Friday. He states it may take a couple years, but he promises a "responsible draw down". I am excited for positive moderate change.

I will now support and pray for you President Elect Obama.

(Just don't do anything stupid like this after all.)

The Wizzle said...

This was a great post, and in fact I think I agree with darn near everything you said! I too am feeling hopeful, but trepidatious - I am praying for unity and grace in our nation and the world, hoping that we can move on from this period of division and hate. One man can't change the world, but if so many people *believe* he can and they act accordingly, then that is how positive change happens. Right or wrong, a lot of people believe this is the start of a new era, and I truly hope that it can be.

I am waiting to hear the fallout on Prop 8, and our similar Proposition 102 in AZ. I personally did not vote on it either way, that was the best I could do. I am hoping it has basically no effect, but I am very curious/afraid to see what the legal implications are, as well as the social perception of us as a church because of it.

Ruth Anne said...

The faithful dissident,
It is nice to hear your "over seas" analysis. I hope that America can rebuild it's reputation. This, however, still worries me.

I am not worried about the reaction regarding prop 8 and the LDS church. I believe we have "Christian Courage", see October 2008's conference talk.

I also believe it is why in another conference talk from October 2008 we were asked to get out into the community more. Meet our Christian neighbors and spend time with them. I currently belong to a non-denomination Christian mom's group as well as sending my son to a great Baptist preschool. I am proud to join with other Christians as we come together to love Christ and follow in his footsteps.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stephanie said...

Hmm. Okay. I was going off The San Francisco Chronicle, but the California Secretary of State itself is probably more accurate. Darn it. So much for that theory.

Coy said...

When has following the prophet ever NOT come with secular persecution in some form? Why would anyone give any clout to fear of backlash? Do you think Samuel the Lamanite was overly concerned about the backlash coming at him (in the form of arrows and stone) or was the purposes of God being accomplished?
May we well remember this...
the Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.
I havent heard any "the work is done" yet, so I assume we better keep working.
Instead of looking at this as many of you have, complaining about the church leading this effort... keep in mind that clearly this effort would NOT have won if the church had NOT led this effort.
When Pres Monson spoke, it became the word of God that marriage should be sanctified and protected in law. Therefor, the purposes of God DID go forth boldly and nobly THANKS TO the church standing for right.
The church remains politically neutral... but Morally STRAIGHT.
(no pun intended ;)
Reminder from Joseph Smith...
a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation

Jackson Howa said...

I agree. Prop 8 was a battle between good and evil. Today, bigotry, hate, discrimination, and, yes, evil, won out. But it won't be that way forever.

We have elected the first black president of the United States, and that gives me hope that discrimination can be defeated.

Gay Americans will keep on fighting for what is right. We will live together with our partners with love and compassion, we will raise our children with love and care. We will teach our kids that love is more powerful than fear. Prop 8 can't stop us, Prop 102 can't stop us, Amendment 2 can't stop us from living our lives.

In the end, justice will prevail.

Stephanie said...

We will live together with our partners with love and compassion, we will raise our children with love and care. We will teach our kids that love is more powerful than fear.

I am glad, jackson, because Prop 8 didn't take any of that away. It won't prevent you from living your lives.

Stephanie said...

The church's official response to the passage of Prop 8:

Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendments, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society.

Anonymous said...

Jackson, I understand this is a very important issue for you. I for one don't want you to stop living your life and I don't think that the majority of people that voted against gay marriage do. Please go on being a productive member of society, you are important to our world. If you want us to be tolerant of your moral issues, you also need to be tolerant our issues. Calling us hate mongering bigots only make your cause look worse in the end, especially with the "courage campaign" (quite an ironic name)ads.

Unknown said...

Stephanie - The Chronicle was reporting the national results on the presidential race. Look at the raw votes :)
Though Cali is large I think 110Million people would make it a little crowded. Though if all America voted it would have been interesting to see where prop 8 would have ended up.

Jackson Howa said...

Prop 8 won't stop me from living my life because I won't let it, not because it didn't take anything away from me. It DID take things away from me. It took my dignity, and it took away vital rights I need to live with my husband and raise my kids, when I adopt them.

Stephanie said...

Ruel, I figured that out (a little too late - definitely not soon enough to prevent embarassement - you'd think that the 64 million people voting for Obama would have clued me in). It threw me off because it listed the national presidential results above all the CA state issue results (I never actually looked at the number of votes - just the percentages). I have deleted that part of my original post because obviously it was erroneous and irrelevant.

Stephanie said...

jackson, I really don't want to inflict more pain when you are already hurting, but what vital rights did it take away that weren't already prevented by the federal DOMA? It seems to me that the federal DOMA will be the next battle.

Stephanie said...

Also, jackson, dignity can't be taken away - it can only be given up. I understand that you feel hurt because the small majority of Californians don't want to call your union a marriage, but that doesn't speak to your dignity, and I sincerely hope you won't give it up.

There is a post over at feministmormonhousewives.org where many Mormons (ex-Mormons, atheists) are expressing sorrow and grief over the passage of prop 8. Regardless of what side of the issue you are on, I feel there is an element of pain and sorrow from the process and outcome.

The Faithful Dissident said...

Jackson, I still have very mixed feelings about the whole thing. Part of me is happy that Prop 8 passed and part of me is sad. That being said, I'd like to ask you a question, since the word "bigot" seems to be thrown around a lot lately (not from you, but from many others on both sides of the issue).

First of all, I know that some fellow Mormons of ours have treated you and other homosexuals poorly. Some Mormons do deserve the title "bigot," in my opinion. That being said, I want to share a quote from a post that I found today on one of my favourite Mormon blogs. The author of this blog is someone that I admire very much because of his views and approach to Mormonism, which is very similar to my own. Now, whoever wrote this quote has obviously never taken the time to read his blog and didn't even take time to read the post, which was about George Washington and alcohol! This is what he wrote:

I came across your post while searching for news on wine. However, since you are a Mormon, I need to tell you how awful and sordid it is that your religion has interfered with the rights of Gay Californians concerning Proposition 8. Like all right-thinking Americans, I wish you would keep your religion to yourself. You may have won this round, but you will lose the ultimate fight. God bless America, Gay people, democracy and human rights! Down with American Taliban theocrats!

Do you think that this blogger truly deserved this reaction? Do all who oppose same sex marriage purely because of religious reasons and not because of personal hostilities towards gays truly deserve the label "bigot?"

big.bald.dave said...

Stephanie wrote, It seems to me that the federal DOMA will be the next battle.

Yes, it probably will be, and if it goes to a responsible court it will be overturned faster than you can say "equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution".

Anonymous said...

Great post! What a thorough evaluation of the speeches and the election. Stephanie you should a political pundit.

Stephanie said...

Well, thank you anonymous (you must be my mom or one of my friends). :)

Coy said...

FD. Will you be this worried about what the world thinks when the second coming arrives?
Should they have been this worried about what the world thinks when God gave the 10 commandments?
Should they have been so worried about what the world thought when God said leave your home and gather in zion a world away?
How have those people (the ones who worried about what the world was thinking) ever fared?
I seem to recall a dream by a man called Lehi, or was it Nephi? or both? The dream recalled those who pressed forward holding to the rod, up until they looked over at the scoffs and scorns coming from.... the world, and many fell away from the rod, let go, and went into the darkness to go be with "the world".
Persecutions may rage, mobs may combine... but the work of God will go forth boldly. We don't worry about the world. We DO care for those more like Jackson, who approach us kindly and have an option to talk.
We love Jackson as a child of God, and we encourage him to live his life in the way God asked us to. If you are a member of the church, you can speak to your bishop.
Is being Gay a choice? Well, thats a topic for another discussion, but I will say this Jackson. For many, alcoholism is not only choice, its in some races gene's to have higher addiction to alcohol. Once they drink, they can't stop. Perhaps there is more than just a choice for you, but it still doesn't make it right in Gods eyes. It makes it harder for some to work through, and the lord gives us no challenge we can't overcome. We care about Jackson and others, and we ask them to find Christ, and his help getting through this tough challenge.

Stephanie said...

We DO care for those more like Jackson, who approach us kindly and have an option to talk.

We care for ALL of God's children, whether they want to talk to us or not. Whether they care for us or not. Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.

Coy said...

Stephanie, Clearly I was referring to caring about their opinions and listening to their words. We Don't listen to or care about those who persecute us for doing right. While we love them (of course) as Gods children, we ignore their persecutions.
Those who do some to us kindly and open to talk, we DO care about their words, and we talk to them. I figured I wouldn't need to clarify, since it's obvious we love all of God's children, and want them all to be righteous and return to God.
But we don't cater to those who want us to follow the worlds view, and we are not concerned with the way the world wants us to go.

Stephanie said...

Coy, I am not sure you always come across as clearly as you think you do. Don't be offended if sometimes we need clarification.

The Faithful Dissident said...

Coy, I know you mean well and please don't take this the wrong way, but sometimes your comments come across as a little overbearing. I appreciate your strong faith, but you have to understand that the attitude of "everything will be OK when the second coming happens" may be good enough for us, but it doesn't give much comfort to those who don't share our faith and are deeply hurt by all this. And to be honest, bringing up the alcohol comparison and asking "is being gay a choice? is NOT what I would call bridge-building.

So, Coy, I'm sorry. I do sometimes "care about the world." And I'm trying my best to see this from both sides of the issue and point out where we have treated each other unfairly. I think maybe that's what President Hinckley had in mind when he said:

“I plead with our people everywhere to live with respect and appreciation for those not of our faith. There is so great a need for civility and mutual respect among those of differing beliefs and philosophies. We must not be partisans of any doctrine of ethnic superiority. We live in a world of diversity. We can and must be respectful toward those with whose teachings we may not agree. We must be willing to defend the rights of others who may become the victims of bigotry."

(in Conference Report, Apr. 1995, 94–95; or Ensign, May 1995, 71).

The Wizzle said...

Coy, it takes all kinds. I was created the way I am, Jackson was created the way he was, all of us are created in our Father's image, shortcomings and all. We are GIVEN challenges and different personalities so that we can help each other work together and see the whole picture. Just because someone has a different perspective than you do does not make them wrong. They won't be better, or smarter, or more righteous, once they start talking like you do, in your voice and repeating your words - or the words of the prophet.

I admire your courage to speak strongly for what you believe is right. That's all any of us are trying to do - find the truth in our own hearts and share a little piece of it.

I for one really appreciate the church's statement - that shows to me that there is room for both mercy and justice, as it were. I think I'll take my guidance from that, Coy, if it's all the same to you.

Coy said...

Yes, we care for the world, we love them and do ALL we can to help them. This is completely separate from keeping the commandments. We keep the commandments whether the world tells us to or not. God is in charge, not Bush, not Obama, not Chavez, not Achmenijad, not you or I.
I am coming across overbearing intentionally, because I am frankly tired of people on here sowing seeds of doubt in otherwise faithful happy people. We can discuss these ideas, and you lefties have brought out many doubts in Gods so many people, let us not forget how many people have left this blog because of the extreme left side without regard for the right. I have used my time here to say it like it is.
Honestly, it's well overdue to hear someone on here boldly saying we should obey God, instead of all the bold in your face attacks that we should doubt our prophet, and the previous name calling, such as your calling them racists. You don't think that is overbearing? Yes, I am overbearing, and happy to balance your liberal left overbearing comments sowing seeds of doubt. Do I err? Perhaps, but I'm happy to err on the side of God.
What I am hearing you say FD and Big Dave isn't as much that we should care for the grieving of the homosexuals, its we should care about their anger, and backlash. THAT is what I am saying we can't let overpower our faith. We cannot be overly worried about their backlash. But we feel with all our heart for those who mourn. Those of us who were baptised made a covenent to Mourn with those who Mourn, to Comfort those who stand in need of comfort. Right now, homosexuals in CA, AZ and FL are those who are mourning, and we should comfort them.
To clarify once again, we mourn with them and comfort them, but we do not lay our duty to God down at their feet and demands and allow sin to reign. While the world laughs and points a finger, we press forward holding to the Iron Rod. Our hearts are mourning for those who fell away, but we must not follow them away from the Rod.

The Faithful Dissident said...

Coy, I just wish you could understand what I'm getting at. I struggle immensely with some aspects about Mormonism. I know that therefore, many Mormons regard me as:

a) an apostate or being on the road to apostasy

b) on a mission to pull others away from the faith

c) having a weak testimony or lack of faith

d) perhaps all of the above

When I, for example, call a prophet a "racist," it's not because I'm out to accomplish any of the above. It's because it's what I believe. We've had this discussion before, where I explained how and why I can still be an active member of a church where some of the prophets have been racists. I still have faith, but I am not at the level of trust and optimism and complete embracement that you are. I may never get there in my lifetime and I know that that makes me look weak, or some people think that I just haven't prayed enough or done enough to have the faith and testimony in those difficult aspects of Mormonism that they do.

We talk about "mourning with those who mourn," but some of the "mourning" goes on within the Church and among the members. I am one of them. I definitely "mourn" a lot of things that have occurred throughout Mormon history. I just wish that those who have moved on could understand that. I may have spiritual strengths that even you don't. We all struggle with different things and we all excel in different areas.

Coy said...

Great thoughts FD,
I sympathize with you in your struggles. As I told Rick in an email before, I also have many many questions about the church and the plan of salvation, much that I will never know until after this life.
May I suggest that instead of coming on the blog and calling them racists, which is guaranteed to bring out the defenses on the other side, instead perhaps try another approach. A nicer approach like the one you are suggesting you have, which is searching sincerely for an answer and understanding.
You are not wrong for having these questions and concerns, and we all share our own. But bring them to this table productively and we can discuss it productively, as we have somewhat before already.
I am just not going to sit back quietly while others are breeding doubts and fears about following the right. Pres. Packer told us to "follow the prophet to the polls and vote in defense of marriage." therefor, we must not be saying that it was the wrong decision of the church... our discussions should be more along the lines of why is this the RIGHT decision? And how will the lord protect us from the persecutions.
The glass here is half full.

The Faithful Dissident said...

I'm sorry if I have offended anyone in the way that I have expressed my opinions. It was never my intention. I guess I've just never one to mince words when it comes to racism. It's something that I feel so strongly about that it hurts and angers me when I feel that people are rationalizing it in any way. I believe that when they do, it just perpetuates it, which I have unfortunately occasionally witnessed from fellow Mormons. The subject of the priesthood ban and all the surrounding rhetoric connected to it is something that I've studied at length, in order to try to understand it. What I have found out doesn't sit well with me and that's why my reaction can appear a bit extreme to some.

big.bald.dave said...

May I suggest that instead of coming on the blog and calling them racists, which is guaranteed to bring out the defenses on the other side, instead perhaps try another approach. A nicer approach like the one you are suggesting you have, which is searching sincerely for an answer and understanding.

You are not wrong for having these questions and concerns, and we all share our own. But bring them to this table productively and we can discuss it productively, as we have somewhat before already.


Coy, might I suggest that you try to more often practice what you are preaching here? There have been several times where I and the other liberals here have been berated by you because we have an opinion that differs from yours. I have a hard time with you calling out FD and myself for speaking our minds when you are doing the same thing from the other side of the political spectrum. There have been several occasions when you have basically admonished several of us to get on our knees and come to the same conclusion as you. It's condescending and unnecessary. Just because you don't like what we say doesn't mean we're wrong, and doesn't mean we aren't just as in line with the Church's teachings as you - perhaps we have even come to a different conclusion via the same methodology.

I suppose I just don't see a lot of respect for our viewpoints coming from you, which makes it hard to read you asking for it from us.

Coy said...

haha. Big Dave, you always get me laughing. Thanks man.
I didn't realize that sharing the quotes of the prophets and making it clear that we must have faith to follow is equal to ME being right. (I suppose if I chose to follow God, I AM right.)
You see, I dont pretend to be right all the time, and I dont pretend to be a perfect follower of God all the time, I try as you do, but I am weak, as all are.
But TRUTH is not weak.
If you feel God and the prophets were condescending by telling you to vote for marriage, well take it up with them personally. Otherwise, I again will not sit quiet as you sow seeds of doubts about following the prophets. I will defend having faith in them.
Again, Big Dave, always trying to make it seem that I always think I am right. Let me make it clear to you in a "patronizing" way...
THE LORD is right. And his PROPHETS are right. If I
encourage you to follow them, I suppose by default, I am also right. But I am not saying it is MY way, or MY words.
I am wrong a lot, just ask my wife! lol. But I have not used my own words...I have quoted the lords words, not my own. And I have the same challenge to follow them as you, but they are nonetheless his words. And if god asks... what else matters?
No, there is no confusion on this.

big.bald.dave said...

You're not getting what I'm saying. I'm asking for you to respect other people's views when they differ from your own. As I've said before, I'm not concerned about who is "right". If you'll recall, I even voted for the darned thing.

But you seem to disregard with near glee the fact that other people struggle mightily with the Church's political involvement on this issue, and I think I speak for most of us when I say that we don't need to reminded that the prophet has instructed us to vote a specific way. We are keenly aware of this fact -- trust me -- and we don't need you to keep shoving it down our collective throat.

Unknown said...

Wow is it hot in here or is it just me?

I was thinking about the comments made regarding racism in the church. I know from my own experience that your environment can influence your attitudes. I remember as a boy growing up that my dad would us terms that are not really PC wehn talking of people of other races. Now I don't really think think my dad is a racist, but he comes from a different generation and terms we may cringe at were the ones he grew up learning. Now I think he has picked up on the fact those terms are no longer really used in polite conversation. I must admit that I have wondered about the blacks and the priesthood, but as I am a white man and have never really experienced discrimination, except for the reverse sort, I have not really felt the need to delve in to it, I guess that makes me ignorant :) I do understand that it is a big issue to a lot of people, served my mission in Ohio and a lot of inner city people were not very intersted in talking with us. I think that it is something I will come to understand at some point but I do not allow it to 'damn' my progrssion in other areas. I think some times we have to put something out of our mind for a while and revisit it later and then take the wisdom and knowledge we have glean over that time to reflect again on the issue.

I also think that there are cetain words that when used are ussually used to get everyones attention, bigot, racist, etc fall into this category. I think they should be used with care as they are fully loaded words and can bring out excited responses from those that don't appreciate the way they have been applied.

Peace

Anonymous said...

Coy, If this site were a church sponsored site I might agree with you. Yes it has LDS in it's name but that doesn't limit participants emotions or beliefs to conform to LDS standards, It's just a common starting point. While I understand what you are getting at, it does come off a little condescending.
Anon David, Rick, and others certainly have ideas I don't agree with, but at the same time I have to respect where they are coming from.

If what is said about the church or it's policies agitates you, the best response is to be calm and at least act as if you aren't that bothered by it, and then give your response. If we get all fired up about the courage campaign ads then they win. That's what they want to happen. In the end they look like the B*#@ts:)

On another note, I met a lady that knew my grandma back when blacks received the preisthood. This lady told me that my grandma commented, (in a grumpy tone)"they may get the priesthood but they'll never be allowed in the temple!" I didn't know my grandma had these feelings, but like Rap08 said, It was a different generation back then. Im not saying any prophet was a racist, but maybe had "tendencies" kind of like the gay thing. It's a hard one to be sure of. I can understand why one would ask, "why would God allow this to happen?"
I don't know, maybe a "test of faith" as they say.

Coy said...

I am satisfied that finally the complaints are sounding like the right is overboard. That must be a good sign. lol
Don't mix my words with those of the prophets, I have quoted their words strongly, so you may feel they are condescending.
This issue is not similar to the blacks and the priesthood as I said before. Gay marriage is COMPLETELY against the laws of God and nature. The Blacks history with the church is a separate matter, not comparable. I have posted on this earlier. Yes, there may have been church leaders with personal weaknesses or prejudices, I didn't know them personally, but the churches stances were not so biased.
Again, don't mix my words with the prophets. The prophets told us the blacks were cursed for some reason and had to wait for the priesthood, then the wait ended and God allowed it. Blacks are not sinning to be black, they were just perhaps like the lamanites who lost favor with God for some reason. Being Gay is against Gods Law, and Sin will never be allowed in Gods eyes.
Blacks and Gays are not comparable.
In the words of another famous Black pastor... "Don't compare my skin, to their sin". (lol it was with s bit of jest)
Now, can we stop talking about You and Me, and making this so personal, and get back on topic...
Don't take my words personally, its not a 5th grade playground.
But you are welcome to feel the prophets words are condescending. Those are the ones you keep calling overbearing.
Back on topic(?)... May we discuss Why do you think the lord asked all of his church members to get out and work on Prop 8 and 102 when truly he had all power to make it pass himself if he wanted? Why would the lord ask US to get out and do it? 555-4444... Discuss ;)

Frank Staheli said...

I enjoyed your article, Stephanie. I didn't vote for Obama (or McCain) as you might have guessed, but I, too am optimistic.

I particularly found poignant this political cartoon by Horsey.

Coy said...

haha, ya know, I net if I changed my picture to a rose you might not takle my comments so strongly. I put up Mr T to spread some humor and lightness, but maybe its coming off a bit overboard eh? lol
I pity the foo!

Coy said...

I was thinking... ya know maybe I do some across a bit stronger than intended sometimes. Perhaps sharing something with you will help you understand...
As of today, I have received 692 hate emails in response a beautiful commercial I made for the Yes on 8 campaign. I have never seen so much hate, filth, etc. Almost every email comes from those who vote No on 8, 102, etc. You should see the evil comments, wishing My family and I would suffer unimaginable things. Death threats, on my family and kids, etc. My wife has cried many tears over this.
My car and house have been egged, and property stolen, (including 5 Yes on 102 signs.)
Those comments/actions coming from they who call US haters, and intolerant people.
So, Do I come across strong? sure. Do I know what "backlash" is first hand? you know it. And am I trying to share my experience so you can see that (instead of sowing doubt) we can strengthen faith if we build it together? "Yes we can" ;)

Emma J said...

Hey, nice post, Stephanie - and a fine site. Great to find (mostly) intelligent LDS political debate. I think a lot of us hope the example of graciousness and willingness to work for unity catches on.

I was encouraged by the response at my own grassroots: Tuesday night, my 3rd-grader met me at the door almost in tears because McCain had lost. What does an Obama-voting momma do? In the kitchen, his older sisters were listening to the official news of the count with a guarded jubilation out of respect for their brother's distress. We turned the radio down and listened to him pour out his worries and woes. I listened and nodded and put my arms around him. I told him that democracy is a great thing and that it was going to be important that he vote when he was old enough. I said I'm glad to live in a country where even if we disagree over an election, we're not facing fighting on the streets. Then he asked for some paper and a pen and we turned the radio up to listen to the acceptance speech.

His dad (and political ally) came home. Our 3rd grader asked him, "Are you mad that McCain didn't win, Dad?" Wise words from Dad about being one nation and praying for the new president. Then our son showed us what he'd been working on - a letter introducing himself to the new president and inviting him to our house and his school. It began, "Hi, President Obama. Good luck!" and ended, "P.S. - if you come to our house my sister will make cookies." When we pointed out that the new president might be awfully busy this next little while, he added: "You are always invited."

This from a former and unrepentant McCain supporter. Okay, so he's young - maybe there's a reason we're told over and over to become as a little child?

The Faithful Dissident said...

Emma J, that's a great story. You'll have to tell your son that he's giving us adults a great lesson in humility. Hopefully he'll never utgrow it. :)

Thanks for sharing. :)

The Faithful Dissident said...

Coy, I'm truly and deeply sorry for the vandalism and hate mail you've been receiving. Regardless of how much someone may disagree with it, I think their actions are foolish and immature. So in no way do I excuse them.

I've noticed that political ads -- whether I agree with the creator of them or not -- tend to be inflammatory. In an ad, you have a very short time to make a point and unfortunately, facts tend to get twisted or pertinent information is left out that can affect the message. I think that political ads (at least TV) should be banned. There are better and more accurate ways to spread the word about something. TV ads seem to me to always be so polarizing and exaggerated. The emotions that such ads generate (which is their purpose, after all) is what leads to extreme reactions such as those directed towards you. It doesn't excuse it, but I'm sure you must have seen it coming, knowing that there are hateful people out there on all sides.

The Faithful Dissident said...

Your "beautiful commercial" may be beautiful to you (and even me), but it's not so beautiful when you disagree with it. I mean, did you ever think to yourself when you saw Obama's ads, "wow, that was beautiful?" No, because it wasn't what you believed in. Ask a lesbian couple what they thought of that ad with the Elders and they probably think it's beautiful because they see it as protecting their rights and way of life from discrimination. You don't have to agree with them, but that's how they see it. And vice versa.

Stephanie said...

Nice rose, coy. I am so, so sorry to hear about the hate directed your family's way, and, unfortunately, not surprised. It is scary, and I know that as the battle rages on, it will come my way. I pray that I have the faith to stand strong amidst that, and I admire your courage and example for standing up.

On the radio last night, they were reading comments on gay sites directed toward the Mormon church about burning churches down and all sorts of torturous, injurous threats. Doesn't sound much like tolerance to me. I can imagine it is even worse when it is directed not only at your church, but at your family. Thank you for sharing your experience with us.

Stephanie said...

May we discuss Why do you think the lord asked all of his church members to get out and work on Prop 8 and 102 when truly he had all power to make it pass himself if he wanted? Why would the lord ask US to get out and do it?

I'll give you my honest opinion (and it may not be popular or appreciated). I think it has a lot to do with this scripture: Mosiah 29

26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.
27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.


I feel that the Lord is giving the people of California the choice. They can't make the choice ignorantly - that would invalidate the choice. So, He had to ask His followers to stand up and share what they know to get the information out there so it can be an informed choice. IMO, the people chose "that which is right" in the eyes of God - to keep marriage defined as one man and one woman. What happens now will be interesting to watch. Will judges overturn the voice of the people (as Mosiah 29 also warns about)? Will the vote come up again in another few years and go the other way? I feel that the Lord gives us as many chances as He can. The BofM repeatedly says that it is only our own iniquity and transgression that can bring destruction upon us.

Coy said...

Thanks Stephanie for the great post on topic!
Loved the scripture, it truly is applicable here.
FD. I am not blind to my side of things, I know an ugly ad when I see one. The ad I made was the most peaceful beautiful ad possible. If you doubt, email me and I will share it with you in confidence.
You are right however, that when there is so much hate against us, (ironically) they will hate even the most kind things if they are against them. I am convinced where the "hate" has been.

Another question on the topic...
Do you think the other 20 or so states will now follow Cal, Az and FL in the next elections to get the remaining states a constitution change?

Anonymous said...

so according to jackson all prop 8 supporters are evil bigots. have you been keeping up with the news in cali? protests at mormon temples. threats of arson to mormon churches & temples. death threats to volunteers & donors whose names & addresses have been posted on gay websites. threats to pres monson. threats to overturn the church's tax-exempt status. is this tolerance? where is our religious freedom? the california media is nightly reporting false statements that the church donated $20 million to yes on prop 8. it's a lie but they don't care. my sister lives in cali & she is frightened for her family because she donated. her personal info is on public record. i guess some will say this is the price one pays for taking a stand. that she deserves what she gets. if the gay community really wants the american public to support them then they are going about it the wrong way. intimidating people and threatening their lives counteracts it. that aside, prop 8 would not have even passed if the black community in cali hadn't had such a high voter turn-out for obama. 69-70% of african-americans voted for prop 8. where's the outrage? where's the threats to their lives? i don't see any protests in front of african- american churches. free speech in america is dead but religious bigoty is certainly alive and well, at least in california.

big.bald.dave said...

All the hate towards the Church as a result of the passage of 8/102 reminds me (ironically) of a great bumper sticker I once saw. It went something like "Guns don't kill people; militant pro-lifers who blow up abortion clinics kill people". I'm afraid the extreme left is just as capable of hatred, bigotry, and violence as the extreme right.

The Wizzle said...

Coy, I am very sorry you have been the subject of vandalism. I would feel extremely threatened if such a thing had happened to me. You surely understand, though, that not everyone who opposes the things you believe in is that kind of person. Just as not all proponents of these propositions are hateful bigots. It does no one any good at all to lump in a whole group of people and assign them all a uniform set of characteristics and behaviors. It's not accurate, and all it does is promote fear and division. Those are not in the spirit of Zion, no matter the ideology.

As for myself, I can only speak for myself but I never said I was concerned primarily for the backlash against the church. I think the church should speak up for what it stands for - we all should - and the consequences will be what they are, but that doesn't mean I find the backlash to be desirable or a good thing. It saddens me when my church and my people are thought of as hateful, whether or not it is deserved. It's not a good perception. I'm not saying we should alter our behavior or compromise our values to avoid the backlash, but I do wish the perception of our church could be different right now. That's all I'm saying.

And again, I really REALLY am insulted by the outright statements that "lefties" are "planting seeds of doubt". This blog is for Mormons from both "sides" of the spectrum, to demonstrate that both lefties and righties can be members of the church in good standing - faithful members, and righteous people. We just see some things differently, and maybe we can learn from each other. If you truly believe that lefties and liberals are all bad people who are out to turn the upstanding conservatives away from Christ, then perhaps this is not the blog for you, since its stated purpose is completely contrary to that idea.

I have never once used you as an example of a "conservative" who is typical of all "conservatives" trying to make me feel like an immoral socialist heathen (just an extreme generalization, not what I actually believe). I wouldn't do that because you are just one person, and your actions and words do not apply to everyone who would place themselves in one category in common with you (ie. "right-leaning"). You are Coy, and I am addressing you as your individual self - I would appreciate it if you would extend me the same courtesy.

You feel like it is your "calling" to come and speak strongly for building Zion, for this amendment, for following the prophet. I feel like it is my "calling" here to speak out for God's love of the individual, and for charity and love for everyone. It's not that you have no other viewpoint, or that I have no other viewpoint - it's just what speaks loudest to our own hearts. I have no problem with that, and maybe you don't either. But I sure wonder sometimes.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to hear what people think about Obama's picking Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff. He's not a very centrist choice. A deep partisan who worked for Bill Clinton's White House.

The Wizzle said...

I don't know much about Rahm Emanuel, but funnily enough what I have read described him specifically as a centrist. Bill Clinton was hardly a far lefty. Guess I've got two directly conflicting descriptions, which means I better get reading lots about Mr. Emanuel!

He is very good-looking, does that count for anything? :)

big.bald.dave said...

I just started a new thread on Obama's appointments, including Emanuel. Let's get back to gay marriage, shall we?

KIDDING. :)

Coy said...

Wizz kid, why do you guys insist on making every post some personal advice to me? Seriously, I have never event typed the word Wizzle in this blog, so stop taking personal that which is not.
Man the irony is so thick I could cut it with a spoon. lol.
I am not apologetic for contributing my side, as your "side" has unapologetically offered your contributions. (not to mention previous disrespectful attacks on posters such as Jon etc.
Also,Please, no more "this is not the blog for you" stuff. I am here to contribute just like you, and I have the reader in mind when I contribute, not you wizzie. Some comments directed at BBD, Rick, David or FD are related to specific posts of theirs. I appreciate their oppinions, and I respect them.
But yet again I say that there have been sooo many comments I have heard saying there is no balance on the site.
Perhaps since I am trying to come on as strong from the right as you do from the left, you percieve it as overboard? Hey, I am not gonna tell you to find another blog. Just please, lets talk about the topic, and not take it so personal? Mercy!
If every time I offer contributions from our side, you say its not acceptable, then what iiiiisss ok with you???
Your perceptions of me are ironically not so tolerant.
I will try to make my point in a way that you wont take it personal, sound good?
Now...
Anyone have any thoughts about whether this gay marriage battle will be taken now to the remaining 20-ish states?
(thanks for some humor too BBD)

Unknown said...

I don't know how the SSM debate will progress in the other states but I was talking with a sister in the ward last night, her husband was just called into the Oakland temple presidency, and they are concerned about continued demonstrations. I guess you have seen what happened down in LA yesterday.

The Wizzle said...

My mistake then - this was the quote of your to which I was referring:

"I am coming across overbearing intentionally, because I am frankly tired of people on here sowing seeds of doubt in otherwise faithful happy people. We can discuss these ideas, and you lefties have brought out many doubts in Gods so many people, let us not forget how many people have left this blog because of the extreme left side without regard for the right."

The phrase "you lefties" led me to believe that I was included in the group who were "sewing seeds of doubt" since my name is at the top of the blog under "from the left". If that was not your intention then I apologize. You have referred specifically to BBD, Rick, and FD in other posts but not in this one.

I am sure I'm touchy because while you may feel in the minority on the gay marriage issue, I assure you that at least in my area you would not be. I am the only one, the ONLY one, in my ward (for example) who I have ever heard express the slightest bit of inner conflict or anxiety over this issue. So this is the one place where I feel safe to come and air my thoughts as both a faithful Mormon and someone who has heard the prophets speak and just wishes she knew more about why. Someone who has questions, and yes - doubts. Others have them too, and it's not because I planted them there. I hoped someone else might read my thoughts and recognize something of themselves in them, and feel comforted and like there might be hope that they could gain greater understanding along with me, as I try to do just that.

We can definitely move along now. I accept your statement that you weren't referring to me - although if we can not use blanket terms like "lefties" and "righties" unless we really do mean ALL of them, that would probably eliminate some confusion. My husband does this too, BTW, it's not just a pet peeve with you. ;)

I personally have been wondering what the next step will be in the Church's fight to protect the family - maybe trying to reinstitute no-fault divorces? Seems to me that just based on the numbers, the family is in at least as much danger via heterosexuals demeaning marriage as homosexuals...

The Faithful Dissident said...

Wizzle, as a "lefty," I just want to thank you for sharing your views. I sympathize with your struggle because it is also mine. I know that the struggle can be intense, even though I'm nowhere near the "epicentre" and wouldn't even know about it if it weren't for the internet. People here have no clue what's going on with the Church, except on an official basis. Not even my family in Canada had heard of any of this until I told them about it. That being said, I feel for you because I know how hard it is even when you're so physically detached from it.

In another discussion with some friends, I summed up my feelings this way:

Now that Prop is over with, here is where I stand:

I totally support and believe in the sanctity of marriage and I just personally believe that the definition of marriage doesn't need to be changed. (Even though there are some VERY good arguments as to why it should be, and I appreciate and sympathize with them). I support any Mormon or anyone else who "voted their conscience" on the issue. So in that regard, I support the position of the Church, per se.

BUT

I totally disagree with the way that the Church went about it. I think that if Church leaders want to get up and preach to their heart's content that marriage is sacred and between 1 man and 1 woman, then that is our right to do so. If that translates into an influx of Mormons voting YES on 8, then that's the way it goes. People need to be allowed to vote their conscience and for most of us, our conscience is heavily influenced by our religion. But where the Church loses my support is where it EXPLICITLY tells its members how they should vote. To me, it's exactly as if the First Presidency had said "we encourage you donate of your time and means to get the Republican party elected" and then to have John McCain rallies organized by the Church. The only difference is that this was a proposal and not a person. To me, it's enough to "teach correct principles and let the members govern themselves," as Joseph Smith said. I would have liked to hear the Church teach the principles it views as correct, then tell everyone to vote their conscience, and leave it at that. If we had done this as a Church, Prop 8 probably would have won anyways. I doubt that there were many Mormons who hadn't already made up their minds about it. If anything, the Church's approach probably pushed more towards the NO side. And on top of all that, we now have to deal with the aftermath.

big.bald.dave said...

FD, very well put - my thoughts exactly.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

FD & Dave - since I know both of you live out side of California let me share my view as from someone to whom the prophet’s direction was addressed to. I have been told and agree that concerning this issue each member had to come to their own conclusion on what “All you can do” meant. This is not intended to sound like a cheap shot directed at Pres. Bill Clinton. In fact every member had to wrestle with this counsel and decide what they could to support this effort.

For some members it meant giving up their Saturdays for over 2 months walking precincts, making phone calls during the week, talking to friends and neighbors, and standing on street corners in the rain to convince voters this is an important issue for the people of California.

For others all they could do was to show up and vote or if that was too hard then abstaining from voting against the measure, but I think that each was obedient and will be blessed in response to their faith in following the prophet. But for those who have taken a direct and public stand against the counsel of the prophet I think they have erred and will need to come to grips with the consequences of their choice. In either case please note we all made our own choices.

For me personally it was not a hard decision I was here 8 years ago and helped passed Prop 22, so I had already resolved my views on the topic. Also it is easy due to the fact that if I had been told to do this by the Savior I would have done the same things, perhaps more, and this reflects the strength of my testimony regarding the prophet. I know that when he speaks in his capacity as mouth piece of God, especially in conjunction of the rest of the First Presidency, it is the same as from the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I do not care what the world thinks of me or the church when we have chosen to be on the Lord side.

Now I can see if a person does not have the same testimony regarding the prophet then they can debate whether what he did was in the best interest of the church, or what Jesus would do. I do not want to come across as thinking I am better than anyone, as I have enough weaknesses of my own, but in this thing I have a strong testimony. I honestly believe that we are all progressing in our growth and understanding of the gospel, so I would expect that there are not a few members who are experiencing these conflicts of conscience. I truly hope their testimonies will allow then to over come this obstacle and that they will have opportunity to receive a personal witness of the prophet.

Now I am not a lawyer and so what I say now is just my understanding. I have heard that the law allows churches to be involved in political issues and not candidates. I think this actually makes sense from the church’s perspective as an issue can be clearly defined, as prop 8 was, but a candidate like John McCain has a lot of facets and for the church to come out in support of him would then require that all those facets be inline with the church’s positions on all topics. As the church’s positions are based on the savior no man or group of men can meet that standard in which case it would not do for the church to back such a man, or his party. So I feel that there is a big difference between taking a stand on an issue and promoting a person, other than Christ, as our churches candidate. On a side note when Christ comes I do not think he will be holding elections : )


ps I modified my post. I wanted to change some wording so as to make clear I was not singling any individuals out.

Jackson Howa said...

I'm not keeping heavy tabs on this thread, because I'm sick of the hate I hear masked as religion. I know that God believes in equality and justice, and I know we will overcome.

For the record, though, all of the news reports I have seen (and I have been reading a lot about this) have said that the Prop 8 protesters were peaceful, and did not commit violence or property crimes.

On the other hand, I did see a video of LDS people attacking and beating peaceful protesters at the temple. http://www.latimes.com/video/?slug=la-me-protest7-2008nov07-vid

So, you tell me, which side is bigoted and violent?

Unknown said...

Jackson - in the video you had us look at the young man who I assume was involved in beating the protesters pointed to graffiti on the temple walls. I realize that they are not hurting any thing but I think the protester that are standing on the walls are in the least trespassing. I also don't think they should be putting signs up on the walls. They do have the right to be on the side walk and to have their protest. I wonder what lead to the altercation as it seemed like there was a lot of cameras on the scene but all we were shone were the young men, Polynesian?, tearing down the signs and swearing, which I think indicates they are not bishops and stake presidents, and then the poor lady with the bloody nose. I also noticed that they are investigating whether it was a hate crime, I think there are a lot of people who would react poorly to seeing something they hold sacred being vandalized. Since we do not have all of the information we are left to speculate on what happened there. I would guess that since a fight broke out the protesters did not simply watch the young men tear down the signs.

I would also like to add I think it is unfortunate that the temple has had to be closed to keep the protestors outside the grounds. This means that the temple work is not being done.

I will assume you comments regarding hate are directed to someone else and will let then respond.

The Faithful Dissident said...

Jackson, I sympathize with your cause, but I think you should be careful about throwing around the term "hate" so indiscriminately. This word is starting to lose its meaning, along with the word "bigotry."

I think that you could validly argue that some Mormons are using their religion to mask ignorance and intolerance. And yes, in a few cases, perhaps even hate. But to say that you're not keeping heavy tabs on this thread, because (you're) sick of the hate (you) hear masked as religion is an exaggeration. I think you mentioned before that you are a Mormon or used to be one. Surely you know us better than to accuse every Mormon who supported Prop 8 as simply using their religion to mask hate.

I've tried my best to see both sides of this issue and I have defended your side many times against Mormons who are not as liberal on it as I am. But I think your statement is every bit as unfair as Coy questioning whether gays are really born gay.

Go back and read all my previous comments on this issue, particular towards the end of the long Prop 8 post from a few months ago. Go ahead and read my blog posts regarding homosexuality. Keep in mind that I may have still voted YES on 8 if I had had the chance. Then tell me how I'm using my religion to mask my apparent hate.

C'mon, man. Be fair.

The Wizzle said...

Yes, again I have to side here with FD. (It's handy having you around to make my points for me when I'm too busy! :)) I wasn't there beating anyone, and if I *had* been there you bet your last shiny nickel I wouldn't have been beating anyone then either. Calling either side categorically bigoted, violent, hateful - anything - just isn't going to be true, and it hurts.

I am very sorry, Jackson, for the blow you must feel you have been dealt. It's hard to remain cool and collected when you're hurting, and families on both sides of this issue feel threatened, as evidenced by you Jackson, and Coy's death threats. I would hope that we can be gentle with each other over this.

Stephanie said...

This is part of an email I received. It was written by a young Mormon man who was at the Los Angeles temple during the protests (I will not include his name because I do not have his permission):

In light of the gay community's frustration in the passing of the proposition, our temple came
under attack. I was at the Los Angeles Temple assisting in the
security efforts and it was quite an experience. Our temple is safe and no damage was done on the grounds. It was a sight I never expected to see. At one point we
had let in about 20 police vehicles through the gates because they were afraid their vehicles would be damaged as civilian cars were being vandalized. I removed the Utah plates from my truck just so I could drive through the mess and park blocks away. My roommate and I traveled on foot after we had changed out of our dress shirts and ties so as not to be
targeted.

Two full squads of LAPD in riot gear set up their base inside the
temple grounds while SWAT vehicles and hundreds of officers followed the crowds run up Santa Monica and Wilshire Boulevards. I've heard that the crowd was estimated to be over 2,500. When I arrived, all of the gates were shut and a small group of members had to remain outside the grounds as the direction was to turn away others who had come to assist. After about a half an hour two sister missionaries ran up the drive to the East gate. I would have made
more jokes with them, asking them trivia questions to prove they were
LDS before opening the gate, but they were obviously nervous and had left on their name tags as they wandered the streets. When the crowd turned back
towards the temple from West Hollywood , we opened the gate to those members still outside so they would not be trapped in the crowd. The officers inside the temple grounds made a line on the front lawn by the fence. At one
point, with 7 news and police helicopters overhead, the crowd began to climb the fence and it looked like there was going to be a lot of trouble . . .

With lines of motorcycle cops with sirens wailing up and down the street with the latest outbreak, helicopters continually circling with spotlights cutting through the sky, and the crowd roaring being led my megaphones shouting every synonym they could think of that went along with "evil"...it
almost seemed like the very end was at hand. My dad called me every
few minutes to give me updates from live news through the Internet
because we did not have TVs and the police did not even seem to be informed on the movement of the crowd up and down the streets. I relayed these updates directly to the head of temple security so we could anticipate when to be ready.

While I was there, I was not aware of anyone actually breaching the
fence, but we were asked to move far across the parking lot as they were anticipating the need to shoot tear gas canisters. I never thought I would see the day when police officers would sit perched on the spire of our temple as lookouts. All of this happened at about 7:30 pm. It should be
remembered that most likely many of the law enforcement were not in
favor of our stance on Proposition 8, but nevertheless, the men and women were there doing their duty and protecting our property. For that we are grateful. And yes, there was an incident with some of our members who had gone to remove
the protest signs from the front fence. One of the protesters did
initiate physical contact with one of our sisters so the details are uncertain as to whether the response was fully justified.
The lesson to be learned is that
it's important to anticipate and avoid such confrontational
situations. Remember the world is watching our reaction and the media is everywhere. In the end, when we keep our cool, the video footage speaks the truth regarding
which side is really intolerant and appears hateful when we simply do not respond or do so in a loving and controlled manner.

In all the commotion, I had the chance to sit alone by the side of
one of the fountains and take in all that was happening. It may seem strange tosay, but despite t he adrenaline rushing in my blood ready for the next incident or next bit of news from my dad; I felt a tremendous peace. It came
over me in a wave as I looked up at the spire topped with Angel
Moroni . I can testify that I felt the presence of others protecting the temple tonight..those we could not physically see. I would even go as far to say that I felt the presence of someone personally related to me who was there for my safety. We were not alone. We were protected and our Father in Heaven is mindful of our efforts and willingness to withstand
persecution.

As I later read a quote from Brigham Young, it made more sense why this did not have to be a fearful experience- exciting yes, in a urgency sense, but
very clarifying as we were able to glimpse into things as the really
are, truth as is really exists, the adversary's war as it really is
raging. I wish everyone of you reading this could have been there just to be reminded as I was how real this war is. The great sadness is that so many of our
brothers and sisters are unknowing participants, manipulated and
deceived by the grand schemer of it all. The issues may be presented as complex, but the
adversary's agenda was as clear as day. Be prepared friends and family, it's bound to get much worse before it gets better . . .

Stephanie said...

All of the past week's events really put the conference talks in perspective, particularly Elder Ballard's, The Truth of God Shall Go Forth:

Of course, our challenges are different today, but they are no less demanding. Instead of angry mobs, we face those who constantly try to defame. Instead of extreme exposure and hardship, we face alcohol and drug abuse, pornography, all kinds of filth, sleaze, greed, dishonesty, and spiritual apathy. Instead of families being uprooted and torn from their homes, we see the institution of the family, including the divine institution of marriage, under attack as groups and individuals seek to define away the prominent and divine role of the family in society.

This is not to suggest that our challenges today are more severe than the challenges faced by those who have gone before us. They are just different. The Lord isn’t asking us to load up a handcart; He’s asking us to fortify our faith. He isn’t asking us to walk across a continent; He’s asking us to walk across the street to visit our neighbor. He isn’t asking us to give all of our worldly possessions to build a temple; He’s asking us to give of our means and our time despite the pressures of modern living to continue to build temples and then to attend regularly the temples already built. He isn’t asking us to die a martyr’s death; He’s asking us to live a disciple’s life.

This is a great time to live, brothers and sisters, and it is up to us to carry on the rich tradition of devoted commitment that has been the hallmark of previous generations of Latter-day Saints. This is not a time for the spiritually faint of heart. We cannot afford to be superficially righteous. Our testimonies must run deep, with spiritual roots firmly embedded in the rock of revelation. And we must continue to move the work forward as a covenanted, consecrated people, with faith in every footstep, “till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.”

Stephanie said...

Here is an article by an LDS LAPD officer with more details on the protests at the Los Angeles temple. One interesting paragraph:

The late local news showed scenes of several Hispanic females in tears outside the temple trying to remove the signs desecrating the walls and fences surrounding the temple. As these individuals – who according to a temple spokesperson were not church members – removed the hate-filled signs, the mob exploded and began beating the individuals to the ground. Police intervened and arrests were made, but the fact this was allowed to happen at all was appalling.

Anonymous said...

Mike, I have an idea for a new poll. We should vote on what the most annoying and overused political (politically related to the campaign) words are. Here are my votes:

BIGOT
(hate, fear)Mongering
Gaffe
Vetted

reb said...

I watched the LA Times video and it reminded me a lot of the documentary focusing on Chavez in Venezuela entitled "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". It showed how simple things like camera angles allowed the media to dupe the world into thinking Chavez supporters were the oppressors while in actuality the reality was quite different.

The whole Prop 8 thing made me sick and I have refrained almost entirely from commenting on it. My wife and I sat down about a week before the election and tried to find out what arguments the two sides were making. We are both very open minded and wanted to see what all the hype was about. What we found was a bunch of sensationalism and very little substance on both sides. The anti-prop 8 campaign was based on equality, something that should not matter because gay couples already have all the rights as heterosexual couples in the state of CA. The pro-prop 8 campaign was also based on similar misguided sensational claims.

Homosexuality is similar to global warming in that it has become such a politically charged topic that most of the arguments are based on junk science. People who have an agenda fund a study that backs their point of view, then others cite the same study. I am not saying these issues don't exist, I am not saying they do, I am just saying people getting so passionate about sensational arguments based on junk science shows ignorance. Mother Jones put out a great article on some issues with the gay rights movement late last year.

At the end of the day, imho, this whole prop 8 argument was as irrelevant as a woman suing a court because she wanted to be addressed by the title Mr. She could cry equality, but is she really not equal since only men refer to themselves as Mr.

As far as intolerance, here is an interesting press release from Sacramento

jenny said...

i like your idea, matt. how about:
change
hope
my friends

big.bald.dave said...

Oooh - I like this game too. My votes:

1) socialist, Marxist
2) [name] the [occupation]
3) my friends

The Faithful Dissident said...

Alright, a game! My turn! :)

1) "Ronald Reagan said..."
2) "When Ronald Reagan was president..."
3) "What would Ronald Reagan have done?"

The Faithful Dissident said...

This is a very moving piece from Keith Olberman that I wanted to share. Makes me think.

Stephanie said...

Here is a talk by Neal A. Maxwell. It seems pertinent to the events going on right now in the world. Here are a few interesting quotes:

Discipleship includes good citizenship. In this connection, if you are a careful student of the statements of the modern prophets, you will have noticed that with rare exceptions—especially when the First Presidency has spoken out—the concerns expressed have been over moral issues, not issues between political parties. The declarations are about principles, not people; and causes, not candidates. On occasions, at other levels in the Church, a few have not been so discreet, so wise, or so inspired.

Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters, in the months and years ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions.

President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had “never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or political life” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1941, p. 123). This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ!

We are now entering a time of incredible ironies. Let us cite but one of these ironies which is yet in its subtle stages: We will see a maximum, if indirect, effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion . . . This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened . . .

It may well be that as our time comes to “suffer shame for his name” (Acts 5:41), some of that special stress will grow out of that portion of discipleship which involves citizenship. Remember, as Nephi and Jacob said, we must learn to endure “the crosses of the world” and yet to despise “the shame of it” (2 Ne. 9: 18; Jacob 1:8). To go on clinging to the iron rod in spite of the mockery and scorn that flow at us from the multitudes in that great and spacious building seen by Father Lehi, which is the “pride of the world” (1 Ne. 11:36)—is to disregard the shame of the world . . .

Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel.

There will also be times, happily, when a minor defeat seems probable, but others will step forward, having been rallied to rightness by what we do. We will know the joy, on occasion, of having awakened a slumbering majority of the decent people of all races and creeds which was, till then, unconscious of itself.

Coy said...

GREAT quote Stephanie! Thanks!!
Wow, it's as if he was talking about this very moment.

Coy said...

This is a very moving piece that I wanted to share.
Irony at its best. We see the true colors of those who are really intolerant, hateful and ignorant.

The Wizzle said...

That was a very relevant talk, Stephanie, thanks.

I always wonder, when I read or hear people's thoughts from previous generations (the late 70's, for that talk, or like people talking about Elvis or the Beatles for example) what exactly was going on a that time to prompt the comments. You know, for a hundred years at least, with every new generation you hear that the world is more wicked than ever before, Satan is attacking the family, the end is near, etc. I wish I could travel through time and experience all of it and see whether it's really true - whether it is really getting progressively "worse", however you define that, or whether it's just that people are resistant to change. Remember when long hair (on men) was a sign of the devil, or some such thing?

Not making a direct comparison, just sort of musing. I often wonder about this. I guess I'll never know, since I wasn't there!

Anonymous said...

FD, Thanks for the video.

As Glenn Beck would say, "there was blood shooting out of my eyes" when I watched that video.

Olberman, dude, this isn't 8th grade drama class, so over dramatic! Save the drama for yo mama. Kieth, here's the deal, we (Mormons, whom he was specifically speaking to) STILL believe in God and that He made man and woman with corresponding "parts" for a reason.
Families are important because they bring children to the earth. I understand that "marriage" brings gays happiness, but if we all did what made us "happy" we'd be in a much worse situation than we are now. And please, the "hate" argument is so nanny-nanny-boo-boo.

Sorry for that vent, I just really don't like intolerant people that that pretend to be so tolerant when is comes to politically correct issues.

*did any of you see the Ben Affleck spoof of Olberman on SNL? It was very funny!

The Faithful Dissident said...

Coy, thanks for that video. I agree that the woman was treated unfairly and I think that the crowd should be ashamed for the way that they denied her the right to speak.

I don't think this in any way justifies the way that they reacted, but when somebody comes carrying a big cross to such a protest, what does one expect? Not exactly bridge-building, IMO.

The unfortunate thing about this whole mess is that we usually only see the extremes of either side. Those are the ones that make the news and those are the ones that everyone reacts to. I wish that the focus would be on people from either side who want to sit down and have a respectful, rational conversation.

The Faithful Dissident said...

See now, Matt, your reaction is exactly the type of thing that perpetuates the fighting between both sides. You see a response such as Olberman's being too dramatic and so you simply dismiss it as being "intolerant." Personally, I think that Olberman's piece was one of the few that I've seen that I would say was fair and tolerant, as much as one can expect from someone with his perspective, and that his appeal was respectful and legitimate, whether we agree with it or not. Just as I think it was fair for that lady on Coy's video to want to have the opportunity to speak her opinion before she was so rudely interrupted.

Anonymous said...

I like what Elton John had to say about Marriage.


"Elton John says the reason Prop. 8 in California passed, banning gay marriages, is because of one word — marriage.

“I don’t want to be married,” he told USA TODAY’s Donna Freydkin at a New York fundraiser last night. “I’m very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership,” said John. “The word marriage, I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships.”

Of his partner David Furnish, he says, “We’re not married. Let’s get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage.”"

I really like his approach. I feel gays are trying to take something from the majority when they are not the majority. I know the minority has rights too, but as Elton explained, gays aren't denied any rights under civil partnerships.

FD,
One more thing with Olberman, he used the black argument yet again, does he not see how it just doesn't fit the debate?

Do you watch his show? He is the most unkind person I have ever seen on a political tv show (and his new friend Maddow). All they do is put down Bush and republicans as morons.
The funny thing is he calls himself a journalists when all of his material comes from 'media matters'.

The Faithful Dissident said...

So Matt, what on earth are we all bickering about then? All this ugliness is over nothing more than a title? We donated millions of dollars to the cause of a single word?

I have to be honest, I had no idea who Keith Olberman was. We don't get his show over here and it wasn't until after I posted that link that I discovered that he's about as popular as Michael Moore among conservatives and I so I thought to myself "dang it, it was stupid to post it on politicalds." But to be perfectly honest, I didn't really object to anything he said even if I didn't agree with it all. This guy isn't a Mormon. He doesn't share our faith. So how on earth can we expect him to understand? It's like us thinking that we know what it's like to be gay. We simply can't unless we've walked in their shoes. And likewise.

The Faithful Dissident said...

And I have to say that I like Elton John's approach too. I'm honestly very surprised. I thought that they were married, especially since David Furnish, if I'm correct, is Canadian.

Also, you may not agree with Olberman's black argument, but how can you not understand it? To them, it is a civil rights issue. The YES on 8 vote was not a vote to grant anyone any rights. It was a vote to ban something that many feel is already their constitutional right.

Jackson Howa said...

FD, Wizzle, and Others:

I think you misunderstood what I meant. (In your defense, I didn't convey it well.)

I do not think that all Mormons are bigots, or that they all hate gay people. However, on this thread, I have seen some examples of what is very clearly hate, disguised as religious piety.

Anyway, I'm done making emotional, impassioned pleas, because they obviously don't work. However, I have written a legal editorial explaining why everyone (even people who don't think gays and lesbians deserve equal protection under the law) should hope that the California Supreme Court overturns Proposition 8. If you are interested, you can read it on my blog here: http://www.civlib.com/2008/11/letter-to-califonians-on-true-danger-of.html

Anonymous said...

FD, If civil partnerships provide the same benefits as marriage than the gay community has not had rights taken from them.

This is a battle over the word and meaning of 'Marriage'. Here is my attempt at explaining my point of view: let's take the word female for example. For centuries the general public has recognized 'female' as, "of, relating to, or being the sex that bears young or produces eggs". What if over the years, more and more females that where barren or did produce eggs wanted to classify themselves as men, and therefor use mens restrooms etc. Then, over time we would have a vote to redefine the word 'female' so that women could participate in "male activites".
I wouldn't go for it. I feel it's the same with marriage. Call it whatever you want, but don't redefine it to fit YOUR (not you of course)world view when the majority want it the way it has always been.

hope that made sense:]

Stephanie said...

Well, I admit I didn't even get through 2 minutes of the Olberman video. The condescension was unbearable.

The Faithful Dissident said...

OK, so let's not redefine "marriage." But how do you feel, then, when gays are given the 100% equivalent, as you say they are getting through civil partnerships, except that we don't call it "marriage?" And how do you feel if gays in civil partnerships are allowed to adopt children down the road because they are, essentially, "married" in every sense of the word, even though we won't call them "married?"

Are you OK with that? If not, it sounds to me like you want to have you cake and eat it too.

I'm still not clear over what it is we're protecting. Is it the sanctity of marriage? Religious freedom? The Church's tax exempt status? Children? Or, as you seem to be saying, nothing more than a title? Whatever it is, it doesn't look like we're being very consistent in our argument.

The Faithful Dissident said...

OK, I just watched it again. Honestly, I just don't get it. You don't need to agree with him, but why is he being condescending here? I encourage you to listen to the rest of it. If you totally dismiss what he is saying about love and happiness, even if you don't agree with it then you are basically telling gays that you don't really care about their pleas, that they simply don't matter.

I have to ask, is it the message that is so offensive, or is it because it's coming from Keith Olberman?

Stephanie said...

But how do you feel, then, when gays are given the 100% equivalent, as you say they are getting through civil partnerships, except that we don't call it "marriage?" And how do you feel if gays in civil partnerships are allowed to adopt children down the road because they are, essentially, "married" in every sense of the word, even though we won't call them "married?"

I'm okay with that. FD, read "The Divine Institution of Marriage" that the church put out. It answers your questions.

Stephanie said...

I just watched the Olbermann video. I wasn't any more "moved" by the last 4 minutes as I was by the first 2. Perhaps if I actually was trying to do the things he accuses me of (extinguishing love, not wanting gay people to be "less alone", wanting gay people to form sham marriages with the opposite sex), I might agree with what he is saying. He doesn't seek to understand the reasons put forth by the church - he just mocks them.

The Faithful Dissident said...

What? So you are OK with gays adopting children as long as they can't call themselves "married?"

If I understand this right, then, we're not trying to protect children from living in a family headed by homosexuals. We're trying to protect them from living in a family headed by married homosexuals.

Stephanie said...

FD, I'm not going to discuss this with you anymore. It doesn't seem that you are trying to understand the church's position - just trying to undermine it.

The Faithful Dissident said...

I'm not trying to undermine it, I'm trying to understand it and get a consistent answer. I'm confused by it all.

I think I'm going to take BBD's advice from the other thread. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who is sick to death of Prop 8.

Time to call it a night.

Stephanie said...

What is it that you are seeking to understand? The church's position? Or why most Mormons agree with it?

Stephanie said...

If the church's position itself is what you want to understand, I would suggest that discussing online is not going to do it. Kind of like with gaining a testimony of the BofM, the only way to do it is to read the BofM itself and then pray about it. Some people gain a testimony and some don't. I can't tell you all the great things about the BofM and expect that you will believe in it. Same with this - read everything on the church site about the issue and pray about it. Ask if this was truly direction given by God or just President Monson's opinion. Ask God whatever questions you want to ask.

If you have already done that and still feel that this isn't the Lord's will, then asking why other Mormons would believe President Monson when you feel he went against the Lord's will is a different question.

So, which question are you asking?

Unknown said...

Faithful,

Here is the part from "The Divine Institution of Marriage" that I think applies to your question.

It is true that some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children –through prior heterosexual relationships, through adoption in the states where this is permitted, or by artificial insemination. Despite that, the all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?

from the proclamation on the family:

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

My understanding is that the ideal situation is that children would be raised by both their mother and father. In the real world all too often this is not the case, which does not mean it is not to be desired. I think as members of the church we respect the laws of the land, which vary across the world. In California gay couples can receive children in all the ways described. Do we wish the children could live in the ideal family, yes, would we think of taking a child from their parent because he/she came out of the closet, NO!!

I was raised in a traditional family so I can only guess what it would be like to grow up in a family with two moms/dads. I think there would be challenges for children of those families that they would not experience in a traditional family. Do I think they will not be loved, again NO!! I do wonder though, is love enough to overcome these challenges? Unfortunately as with many societal experiments we will not know empirically the ultimate impact until a generation has passed. I trust the prophets and belive there will be problems.

Bottom line is I think the preference is that children will be raised in a traditional family, but that in places where the law states otherwise we respect the law.

Coy said...

Homosexuals adopting children...
There are a few ways to look at this. As Steph/Rap08 already pointed out, the church has spoken that the BEST situation for children is to be raised in a righteous family, with Father and Mother.
Now here is where separation of church and state plays in. The church of course should not start using LDS family services to adopt to gays. But from a secular point of view, there is a good argument for why Gays should be allowed to adopt in government. If there were more children who need adoption than there are traditional parents who can take them, A gay household could arguably be better than an orphanage and its alternatives. Now, there is NO ethical way to discriminate who get first dibs on a child, so there is NO practical way I can imagine for a system to work WELL where we give preference to Heterosexuals, and the rest to the Homosexuals. But theoretically, if you are like me, (and dont change the channel when that "save the children" infomercial comes on,) you see the starving and needy children in other countries, and I can see where you could argue that they would be better with a Gay parent than to die in their current quagmire.
Could it be though, in Gods eyes perhaps it would be better for them to "die physically" and return to him than to be raised in immorality and "die spiritually", Perish the thought, but perhaps it is better eternally for them to perish now and live forever pure, instead of gender confused or immoral? I DONT KNOW, I am just suggesting that there is a good argument for both sides. Hence,if there was a good way to allow Gays to adopt children when there are not enough moms and dads, it might be better.
On the flip side, when Government allowed them to adopt in Mass. it forced out Catholic Adoption services because it was FORCING them to adopt to gays. Not cool.

I may not have typed this out as clear as it is in my head, as I have been studying pathology all day and my brain is fried, but perhaps if you try you will understand me.

The Faithful Dissident said...

I just have a few last things to say and then I have to take a break. :)

I'm not trying to undermine the Church's position. I, essentially, agree with the Church's position in the sense that I don't think marriage needs redefining. Honestly, I wish that all gays would be satisfied with what Elton John was talking about. But they're not. There is something that the title of marriage entitles us to that they feel they're not getting in a civil partnership. That's why I don't believe that we are simply fighting over a title.

I guess what I'm looking for is consistency from the Church and from the Mormons who supported Prop 8. These are my quips, besides the Church telling members explicitly how to vote:

a) I'm not sure whether a constitutional ban was the way to go about it.

b) The Church claims that it supports civil partnerships, but if what I understand is correct, the Church also fought against a law allowing such unions in UT and AZ(?). This is sending a very mixed message to the gay community and makes us look like hypocrites.

c) All the "problems" of church and state, tax exemption, adoption, Mormons being forced to perform gay marriages, gay marriage being taught in schools, etc, have already been addressed by lawyers -- even Mormon lawyers. I can't remember the name of that guy, but there was a document released a while back that addressed all those questions.

d) I think that the reasons that were listed, that Rap08 outlined, from the Divine Institution of Marriage are our most legitimate argument, simply because it can't be proven wrong. It can neither be proven right nor wrong that gay marriage will have an effect on children and families. Gays will tell you that there is absolutely nothing damaging to children about gay marriage and our side will tell you that there is. Both will have "studies" to back up their claim. The truth is that gay marriage is still in its infancy, we simply don't know how or if it's going to affect children and the traditional family. So if that is our ultimate purpose of making sure that gay marriage never happens, (i.e. protecting the family )then let's stick to that. But where I get so confused is when I pose the question of "What if they're allowed to adopt children even if they're not 'married'?" and then Stephanie answers "I'm OK with that."

That is why I get confused.

big.bald.dave said...

There is a good (and fair) article on Mormon involvement in the Prop 8 campaign in today's New York Times.

Stephanie said...

Sorry, FD. I don't think I'll be able to answer your questions, mostly because my answer to each one is "I don't know". The only answer I have is that I believe the First Presidency sees and understands things that we don't, and they give us the guidance the Lord authorizes them to give. So, even without scientific studies, I believe President Monson when he says that changing the definition of marriage will have a detrimental effect on children. I have thoughts and ideas about why, but I can't prove them. When it comes down to it, I just have faith that President Monson tells us what the Lord needs us to know. Beyond that, I can't really answer your questions. Perhaps someone else can give it a crack, but I really think that praying and asking the Lord himself while doing all the research you can will likely yield the most answers (and peace of mind).

if that is our ultimate purpose of making sure that gay marriage never happens

This statement gives the impression that you think the church is trying to stop people from being gay through legislation. I don't think that is it at all.

I am okay with single people adopting children, but I think preference needs to be given to married couples that are one man and one woman because the ideal situation for children is a married father and a mother. I think that legalizing gay marriage would put marriages between one man and one man on the exact same footing (isn't that the point?) so that you couldn't give preference to a father and mother. So, I like it the way it currently is where the preference is that children go to a father and mother. But, I think that banning anyone single from adopting (like that one state did this election) is a mistake. The objective is to get children into homes. Let's try to do that, starting with married men and women first. If there are still children who need homes after that, then let's get them into loving homes that want them.

I believe this point of view is perceived as bigoted by some because it gives preference to straight married couples. But, if we believe that the best situation for children is a married father and mother, then giving preference is the point.

Stephanie said...

FD, I know I am coming across as callous, and I apologize for that. For me, this all comes down to faith. When Olberman asks, "Why do you care?", I ask to myself, "Why do I care?" The answer is that the prophet told me to care, and I have faith that the prophet is on the Lord's errand. Everything I have read and studied teaches me that. If not for the prophet saying that legalizing same sex marriage will have a detrimental effect on children, why would I care? I wouldn't. But, I have faith that the prophet serves the role of the person authorized to warn us.

How many things in the gospel can be rationalized and explained in a logical way? Do we believe the BofM because someone explained it to us? Do we abstain from alcohol because we understand all of the ramifications (particularly when there are studies that show that a glass of red wine a day is good for your health)? I think it is all about faith, so I guess I don't see why this situation would be any different.

And, honestly, I am not trying to convince you to agree with "my side". You seem genuinely confused and upset about the church's involvement in Prop 8. I want to help you to find peace, but I don't think that I can because I really think this is the kind of thing that you have to figure out for yourself (through study and prayer). Either way you come out, I hope that you find peace of conscience.

Stephanie said...

And, as I have accepted the prophet's warning, I have come to understand the explanations and reasons given and to agree with them. But, at the core, it is about following the prophet to me.

The Faithful Dissident said...

I guess it'd be a lot easier to get on board and just "have faith" if I didn't see parallels between the 1960's and now. Our track record as a church isn't perfect. And who wants to be on the wrong side of history, right?

But I know everyone is sick of that argument, so I'll just leave it at that.

The bottom line is that none of us really know anything. We're just all doing the best we can.

The Faithful Dissident said...

BBD, good article. Thanks for sharing.

Stephanie said...

The bottom line is that none of us really know anything. We're just all doing the best we can.

I agree 100%.