California prop 8

[Darth_Bill]

Just to give you another place where this is being discussed, generally among LDS members, I submit:

Prop-8 and Polygamy : The Millennial Star

I’m no lawyer so I won’t make any legal arguments. I’m not sure they are necessary anyway. It seems law tends to follow social trends. Once you liberalize marriage it’s pretty hard to keep limits on it. Eventually someone will find an argument for legalizing polygamy persuasive. (I tend to think that what is seen as persuasive functions a more primordial level than what is strongly reasoned so law tends to follow social change)

Which gets me to my final point. The Church has a compelling interest to stop polygamy. For one the Church doesn’t want to be confused with polygamists. Everyone remember the FLDS confusions last year? Yeah.

But it’s worse than that. If polygamy is legalized you’ll have more people trying to both associate with the polygamist groups and mainstream Mormonism. Yes the Church will, to the degree they find out, excommunicate any polygamist. But when polygamy is out of hiding and it becomes normative it simply will be more attractive to many. Most of the arguments about normalizing gay marriage apply much more to polygamy than gay marriage. Especially if you, like me, agree that homosexual attraction is for most gays not really a matter of a simple choice. Polygamy is in a way gay relations simply aren’t.

I also think that if SSM does gain a cultural hold, there is nothing holding back polygamy. Once that happens, I think there will be a cultural upheaval. Not just because of how some will choose to live their lives, but legally. There are assumptions built into our society. Those will no longer apply. Imagine even more married men trolling around. Uhg. And I'm pretty liberal in this regard. As Adam and Eve, the tree is there. It was up to them to partake, but realize there are consequences. Unfortunately, our society isn't one to think about consequences.

[Darth_Bill]

From American thinker

American Thinker: It's Time to Speak Out Against The 'Mormon Boycott'

It's Time to Speak Out Against The 'Mormon Boycott'

By William A. Jacobson


Supporters of gay marriage have reacted with anger at the passage of California Proposition 8, which amended the California state constitution to provide that only marriages that fit the traditional definition (one man, one woman) will be recognized. The resulting protest movement has devolved into anti-Mormon bigotry which has been met with silence by liberal civil rights groups. The anti-Mormon fervor has become so nasty, and is growing at such a pace, that it is time to speak out against the "Mormon boycott."

The use of boycotts in support of gay marriage, including by some law professors, preceded the passage of Prop. 8. These boycotts, which aim at suppressing political speech, are distinct from the boycotts of the black civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. The civil rights boycotts sought not to suppress speech, but to provide access to goods and services by targeting those people withholding the goods and services.


Regardless of whether one supports the use of boycotts in the Prop. 8 context, the targeting of Mormons is gross hypocrisy considering that other groups, such as Blacks and Latinos, likely were the decisive electoral factor. A persuasive argument can be made that Mormons have been singled out because they are a relatively small group with political power mostly in one state. The irony of singling out a religious group which has itself been the victim of discrimination appears lost on anti-Prop. 8 boycott groups.


The anti-Prop. 8 boycott efforts have not been limited to Mormons, but Mormons have been the primary focus of public vitriol and at the center of the boycott movement. The evidence is mounting daily that the "Mormon boycott" efforts of pro-gay marriage groups have gone too far, and have devolved into anti-Mormon hate speech.


While the web is filled with hate speech by fringe elements directed at many groups, the anti-Mormon efforts are openly embraced and promoted by a wide range of anti-Prop. 8 groups. Anti-Mormon hate speech no longer is on the fringe, it is at the heart of the post-election anti-Prop. 8 campaign. The examples are too numerous to list completely. This sampling reflects the breadth and increasing scope of post-election anti-Mormon activities:

• The creation of a boycott list of Mormon-owned hotels. The creator of the list states as follows: "I personally won't do business with any Marriott hotels, as they are owned by Mormons. I'm done with this ****. They just use the money against us."
• Additional calls for a boycott of all Mormons: "While much ado is being made about the overwhelming support of prop 8 by black voters in California, there is little ado being made about getting even with the Mormons...."
• A boycott of the entire state of Utah because of the high percentage of Mormons, and other efforts targeting Mormons as "hate's banker, and we need to make sure that their moral bankruptcy becomes a fiscal one as well."
• Protests at Mormon churches around the country, including New York City, Salt Lake City, and Los Angeles.
• Postings on Daily Kos and elsewhere calling for boycott of Mormon owned businesses: "Businesses owned by Mormons, who tithe to the Church, should also be boycotted. Large amounts of Church income comes from tithings. Vote with your wallets! Every dollar less that you give to a tithed Mormon is a dollar less that can be tithed and spent on anti-gay activity."
• Postings on YouTube of blatantly anti-Mormon videos calling on people to "Boycott the Utah Hate State and the Mormons."
• The creation of high profile websites devoted to portraying Mormons as having betrayed the U.S. by taking control of the Boy Scouts and other devices: "The Mormon people have been able to flourish because of this country's generous spirit. But now, history has reversed, and it is the Mormons who have become the oppressor."
• The production of an anti-Mormon musical by the creators of South Park, which is expected to start rehearsals soon.
• Calls not to tip Mormon waiters: "Now do not tip, hire, or do any business with a Mormon. 10% of their income goes to the church that worked tirelessly to take the civil rights away from people. They are a Nazi organization who only what their point of view followed. I asked my waiter if he were a Mormon, when he said he was I did not tip him, telling him, I was sorry but I can not support bigotry."
• Suggestions that Mormon businesses that do not wish to be harassed should post signs in their windows against Prop. 8: "Any business, Mormon or otherwise, can take the simple step of posting a sign on the premises urging the repeal of Prop 8, or make a public statement against it."
• Calls to fire a Mormon employed by the American Jewish Congress because he supported Prop. 8.
• The forced resignation of the Mormon director of the Los Angeles Film Festival for support of Prop. 8.
• The investigation by the State of California of the Mormon Church's tax exempt status, even though religious organizations routinely support or oppose political causes without losing their exempt status.
• A hotel in New Mexico luring visitors away from Utah by using a web address that incorporates the words "mormon-boycott-utah."
• A call to boycott businesses, including Macy's and Nordstrom, which plan to open stores at a shopping mall owned by the Mormon church: "The Mormon Church came after our rights, and if we don't stop them, they will be back again and again."
• A call to boycott businesses which have Mormons in senior positions: "Universely [sic], we need to avoid putting any more money into the Church's coffers by boycotting all companies where a Mormon church member holds an officer's position or a large majority interest."
• Efforts to create and distribute lists of businesses "either owned by the Church, owned by Mormons, having a Mormon in a high executive position, or generally benefiting Mormons," including on Facebook and elsewhere.
• The boycott of Mormon business has been likened to a war: "There is a war cry being sounded in gay communities all across America - Boycott Mormon owned businesses. This is a war cry that should be heeded."

[Darth_Bill]

More

The singling out of Mormons, and the hateful nature of the boycott, is not coincidental. Prop. 8 is being used as an excuse to vent pent-up anger at the Mormon Church, and the traditional lifestyle of Mormons. With each passing day, it seems that the web is filled with more and more hate speech directed at Mormons. As others have noted, the attacks on Mormons would not be tolerated if directed at other religious or ethnic groups.


What is most disturbing is that there has been complete silence from groups that normally defend religious freedom. The Anti-Defamation League has not stepped forward to defend Mormons against the current boycotts, even though the ADL has spoken out against anti-Mormon hate crimes in the past.


The silence of the ADL and other Jewish groups is unconscionable. Economic boycotts of goods and academics have been condemned as veiled anti-semitism by ... the ADL.


In the end, the supporters of gay marriage who engage in anti-Mormon hate speech will realize that they have damaged their own cause. Lashing out at others and engaging in religious bigotry does not constitute an argument in favor of gay marriage.


Regardless of one's position on gay marriage, it is time to speak out against the "Mormon boycott." There simply is no one else who will, if we don't.


William A. Jacobson is Associate Clinical Professor of Law at Cornell Law School in Ithaca, NY, and author of the Legal Insurrection Blog. The views expressed here are his own, and not on behalf of the university.

Some comments. and then I'll shut up.
yeah, right.

I'm not sure how you identify mormons. We don't dress, act, talk any differently than anyone else. Is someone proposing we wear a yellow star or something?

Marriot is not "Mormon owned." The Marriots have a decidedly minority stake in the company, and it is publicly traded. I get sooooo tired of that.

Not all mormons live in Utah. Most of the membership is outside the US. Most if it is in South and Central America. Boycotting utah, where mormons are quickly becoming a minority, won't help much. Mormons are used to moving. Many mormons that I know don't want to live in Utah anyway, myself included.

I did not donate money to Prop 8. Why are they targetting me? (Well, I supported prop 8 in theory. I guess I'm evil.)

Enough of my rant. I have to work now.

In an unrelated comment, one of my favorite blogs moved to Beliefnet, for some reason. It has just opened up the blog to some of the most hateful speach I've heard in a while. I'm hoping that it is being targeted by others not of the believing community. If so, I think the world is in for a rough ride.

[Darth_Bill]

Fair has created a VERY good summary of the whole mess.

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
The passage of California Proposition 8 during the November 2008 election has generated a number of criticisms of the Church regarding a variety of issues including the separation of church and state, the Church's position relative to people who experience same-sex attraction, accusations of bigotry by members, and the rights of a non-profit organization to participate in the democratic process on matters not associated with elections of candidates. The proposition added a single line to the California state constitution defining marriage as being between "a man and a woman." This has lead to a number of claims that civil rights are being taken away. What many dont realize is that in California, those who have a civil union have exactly the same rights as traditional married couples. Any differences are on the Federal level and not the State level. There has been no change in any rights other than the use of the word.
In the aftermath of the election, people have been blacklisted, harassed, and have lost their jobs. Business have been boycotted.
Chapels have been vandalized, and white powder has been delivered to various locations. In California, some members are very nervous about their employment and maintaining good relationships with those around them.
A number of myths have cropped up about the proposition and the Churchs role. To combat these myths, FAIR has created three Web pages related to Proposition 8 and its aftermath. You can find these pages by going to the lead article at www.fairmormon.org and following the links, or you can go to each of the pages directly here.
The proposition, Church involvement and financing:
http://www.fairlds.org/cgi-bin/site.pl?s385
Post election questions and myths:
http://www.fairlds.org/cgi-bin/site.pl?s386
Post election events:
http://www.fairlds.org/cgi-bin/site.pl?s387
We are concerned about the level of vitriol toward members of the Church in California without a word from our elected officials decrying it. It seems that hate crimes are still fashionable toward certain out-of-favor groups.
These Web pages document the events leading up to and resulting from the effort to pass California Proposition 8 as they relate to Latter-day Saints. We recognize that there was a broad coalition of supporters, of which Latter-day Saints were only a small part.
However, given the disproportionate negative reaction to the Church after the passage of the proposition, it is prudent to clarify misperceptions and answer commonly asked question about Church members' involvement in this issue. We hope you find the pages to be helpful in understanding the issues and the aftermath.
--Scott Gordon
President

Noted in the Wiki articles are the fact that the RCC had asked the LDS Church to participate, that this wasn't started by the LDS church. Indeed, those knowing the history realize this came from a year 2000 law also restricting marriage to hetero only.

[michael_legna]

Originally Posted by Darth_Bill

Noted in the Wiki articles are the fact that the RCC had asked the LDS Church to participate, that this wasn't started by the LDS church.

Sure throw us under the bus.

Actually they know better than to mess with the RCC - we will get all medieval on 'em.

No one would exxxxpect zee California Inquisition.

[Darth_Bill]

Just highlighting the hypocracy of the times.

And my mind was just filled with visions of red-robed priests? running through San Francisco on their way to their next "appointment".

Dang, that was a funny bit.

[Darth_Bill]

This is actually in response to something earlier in the thread, but I thought it was interesting. Mostly for Pigtown.

In this thread
Abortion And Euthanasia - Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board
TOm Nosser, who knows more about early christianity than I can ever hope, describes how ensoulment played a role in early church discussions on abortion. What I did like is how the RCC and LDS view ensoulment differently, and why this distinction plays a role in the church's view of abortion. While I would hope that Tom's comments be read in toto (is that the phrase) I'll post a few here.

The killing of an non-ensouled infant may be approved by God who knowing the end from the beginning can see the consequences. I hope there are no rape victim abortions. I hope at risk youth who are rape victims receive Christ like service from there LDS and Christian brothers and sisters. However, I would suggest that given the following two scenarios an omniscient God could choose the one forbidden by Catholic thought.
1. A 12 year old incest victim presents herself to the man she thought was her Stake President, named TOm. TOm is uncomfortable with all abortion and very Catholic in his thought. He prays with this girl and seeks God’s guidance. But not being a Stake President (thus he has no stewardship here), and being less than a spiritual giant, TOm places his own anti-abortion thoughts over the top of the almost clear (it was clear, but TOm is too thick-headed to head) message from God. The girl protests because she heard the voice of God, but she acquiesces. She has had a tortured childhood and a difficult relationship with the church, but the only people who have ever treated her with any kindness have been her ward family (she loves even TOm). TOm does all the proper administrative things. He contacts Bishops and Home Teachers and professional councilors and …. Still later that night the little girl takes here life. You can substitute apostate Mormon TOm the Catholic preist in the above story with just a little modification. In any case on that night a 12 year old girl much loved by God the Father dies (having committed a horrible sin that she will hopefully be forgiven for) and a non-ensouled baby dies never uniting with an eternal spirit.
OR
2. A 12 year old incest victim presents herself to her stake president (probably almost any stake president in the CoJCoLDS from my experience with stake presidents). They pray and both hear God’s clear message that this growing life is more than this girl can handle. The same administrative things are done, but the girl is told that she will not need to give birth to this baby fathered by her dad. Maybe she does give birth to the baby after making it through the night she would have committed suicide. Maybe she terminates her pregnancy in accordance with God’s authorization and a non-ensouled life ends. Either way she ceases to live with her family, grows up in a loving Utah foster home (or better yet is adopted). She lives a full life and dies of old age a very different person than she was when she might have committed suicide. There are eternal consequences for the soul of the girl!

Now, all pro-choice folks can weave a yarn as I just did. To you who believes the baby is ensouled at conception such a yarn is worth little. To you who MAY wish to argue that no evil act (such as killing a non-ensouled human) is tolerable even if much good comes of it, such a yarn is worth little. I will suggest three things:

A. Ensoulment for the LDS is not the same as it is for the Catholic and our views cannot be consistently condemned as immoral if a special Catholic POV is required to do so.
B. Catholics in some instances seem to violate double effect and celebrate the righteous actions of those who do. Even when this is not the case, Catholics are quite clear that God is not bound by the laws He defines and may act in ways that humans cannot. The LDS position involves direct communication with God and thus is a divine act in our mind.
C. Even if B. is not Catholic in any way it is not perfectly clear that some instances of good intentions that violate double effect conditions are absolutely immoral. LDS scriptures specifically speak of the killing of Laban to prevent future evil. The Old Testament had God killing and may have God commanding killing to prevent future evil.

There is Catholic thought out there that the LDS God is not so big and that LDS deification is not so big because we merely say men can become the smaller God that is God in the LDS definition. LDS usually claim that our God is not small, it is just great and glorious what He promises His children. There are reasons that Catholics can argue that our concept of God is too small. In our concept of God, He did not create everything but Himself ex nihilo. Our concept of God is very personal (even though I would say not merely a person) while there are currents within Catholic thought that view God as the ground of being. God is pure being or God’s quiddity is being itself.
But in keeping with the LDS response, “Our God is not small, it is just great and glorious what He promises His children.” And taken a step farther, “In Catholic thought the soul of a man is just too small.” Perhaps the reason the Catholics here are having such trouble seeing just how important ensoulment is, is because they have no concept of the eternality of our Spirits (and are missing this in our emphasis). In Catholic thought (though there are variants) the Soul is created ex nihilo at the moment of conception. The ensouled human is just a non-ensouled human plus a 1 second old ex nihilo created soul. In LDS thought the ensouled human is a wonderful creation formed by a man and a woman AND a pre-existing spirit with eternal roots. It is not so much that the LDS values the non-ensouled human too little; it is that the distinction between the non-ensouled human and the ensouled human approaches infinite in its importance.
In trying to communicate this I inspired “lab rat” comments. That IMO is inaccurate. But, the presence of a pre-existent Spirit Child of God within the pre-born body is a HUGE deal IMO.

[michael_legna]

Let me explain how I understand the LDS position and then ask a question - then feel free to correct my understanding before answering the question.

Before the child is born there is a pre-existing soul, and at conception this soul is either intended for the body being developed or it is not (and only God knows this - except where He communicates this answer in a specific case to the prayerful) then at some point the body is en-souled or ...or what? This part I am not clear about - maybe in some cases it is aborted, in other cases it is still born, etc. I hope there is never the case where the baby is born without being en-souled. In the RCC view even these forms of human development, which end so prematurely lead to an en-souled body.

That brings me to my question - when does the body become en-souled under LDS theology? Where do we draw the line in the sand if not at conception? Is it when the baby exits the birth canal? What then in case of surgical births? Does the thin two inch cross section of flesh that makes up the mothers body really separate an en-souled birth from a non-en-souled birth?

Tom Nosser said a couple of things I want to address:

First he said -

Originally Posted by TOm

A. Ensoulment for the LDS is not the same as it is for the Catholic and our views cannot be consistently condemned as immoral if a special Catholic POV is required to do so.

Sure it can be consistently condemned if the special Catholic POV happens to be correct - just as the Catholic view of en-soulment would be condemnable if the LDS POV turns out to be correct.

Next he commented -

Originally Posted by TOm

B. Catholics in some instances seem to violate double effect and celebrate the righteous actions of those who do.

I am unaware of what he refers to here as I know of no official Catholic sources which discuss any moral problem in allowing of abortions to protect the life of the mother. This is not a violation of double effect because the RCC always defends the right to self defense.

[Darth_Bill]

Well, as TN said in the thread, I have no idea when the spirit enteres the body. There is nothing official nor do I think there needs to be in LDS thought. Our paradigms are different enough that it really isn't an issue. I think TN was putting things in some catholic terms to further the discussion.

Yes, LDS believe, as I have expressed several times here, that the spirit of man is not "creatable". It is as eternal as the Father is. We are not created or made, we just "are". However, that doesn't mean we were and are on nearly the same plane as the Father, just that we share an attribute and are lacking in others.

>That brings me to my question - when does the body become en-souled under LDS theology?

Don't know. Doesn't matter.

>Where do we draw the line in the sand if not at conception?

Why not somewhere else? I'm not saying that conception is arbitrary. I personally think that is a good starting point. The only thing that might make me think otherwise is brain development. My wife had a miscarriage so these things have entered into my mind. Still, it really doesn't matter much in LDS theology. You see, if ensouled, then abortion, still birth, miscarriage etc does nothing to impede the spiritual progress of that spirit. That is taken up in the atonement. Those bases are covered.

That also doesn't mean that LDS are running to abortion clinics. We are told not to murder nor do anything like unto it. Abortion, I would argue, is like unto it. While abortion wouldn't take salvation away from the baby, it definitely could from the mother. Which is why in certain cases, if the spirit dictates, and I don't take that lightly, it is allowed. In some cases, carrying the baby to term can affect the mother's salvation. My wife has counciled these women. Do not underestimate rape in completely messing up one of Heavenly Father's daughters. That is why in certain, limited instances, with the sanction of deity, it can be allowed. I wouldn't advocate it without HF's approval. I don't advocate it at all, as I'm not in a position to judge that situation. There have been and will be excommunications if abortion occurs without leadership involvement.

>Sure it can be consistently condemned if the special Catholic POV happens to be correct - just as the Catholic view of en-soulment would be condemnable if the LDS POV turns out to be correct.

I'm not sure if that is what is being said. If you judge LDS by catholic standards, we are a bunch of heretics anyway. The same the other way around. Our different views of pre-earth existance, our relationship with deity, etc are such that we aren't on the same footing to cry foul at this particular point. I certainly don't judge non-LDS by LDS standards. If you judge me by RCC standards, you will constantly be disappointed. More than usual, that is.

I'm a firm believer that God will sort it all out in the end, and that he is most merciful in that regard. You might hold a different view. That's fine.

I have found that TN and you do have different opinions on some things. I've disagreed with both of you so I'm equal opportunity.

[Darth_Bill]

Now Tom Hanks thinks Mormons are un-american.

FOXNews.com - Tom Hanks Says Mormon Supporters of Proposition 8 'Un-American' - Celebrity Gossip | Entertainment News | Arts And Entertainment

Tom Hanks Says Mormon Supporters of Prop-8 “Un-American”
Tom Hanks, an Executive Producer for HBO’s controversial polygamist series “Big Love,” made his feelings toward the Mormon Church’s involvement in California's Prop 8 (which prohibits gay marriage) very clear at the show’s premiere party on Wednesday night.
“The truth is this takes place in Utah, the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church, and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,” he told Tarts. “There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here's what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed, and people can see who's responsible, and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting Constitution, and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards. So let's have faith in not only the American, but Californian, constitutional process.”
When informed of the "Forrest Gump" star's comments, Kim Farah, a spokesperson for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, told Tarts, "Expressing an opinion in a free and democratic society is as American as it gets."
Bill McKeever, a rep for the Mormonism Research Ministry, added, "Personally, I find it un-American to tell people that they shouldn’t vote their conscience. Hanks said he doesn’t 'like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper.' Considering that just about every law discriminates in some form or another, makes this comment ridiculous. Hanks’ comment shows that he very much believes in discriminating against people with whom he disagrees. I may not agree with Mormon theology, but I certainly defend their right to express their opinion."

Hanks' comments about discrimination are inane. All laws discriminate. Traditional marriage laws do not discriminate. Any man can marry a woman. There are restrictions but laws allow me to marry a woman, just as that right exists for a gay man. A gay man can marry a woman too. There, no discrimination. Equal protection and all that.

Idiots. Not very christian of me but get over yourselves.