Nick replied: “Oh, I don’t know about that. Orson Scott Card, in the Deseret News, called for the violent overthrow of the government in the event that Proposition 8 failed.”

Nick, I just posted to you about this on Mormon Matters. You recently wrote an excellent article there about how even small untruths or misrepresentations via spreading rumors is harmful.

I tried to find where OSC advocated violent overthrow of the government if Prop 8 passes and I’m coming up blank. Please produce a link to this article.

I did find this article where he advocates a constitutional convention. (Extreme, yes, but nothing even close to a violent overthrow.) In fact, he said the following:

At that point, what can we do? I’ve heard frustrated people talk about armed rebellion, about overthrowing the government. Those of you with itchy trigger fingers, put away your guns. We are committed to democracy, not to violence.

Please read a history of the French Revolution. And then the Russian Revolution. Armed rebellion does not restore constitutional government, it most likely replaces one dictatorship with a worse one.

And while you’re at it, read a history of the U.S. Civil War and decide if you think that’s a good idea. I don’t.

Some documentation here, so that we can see what he really said in context, would be appreciated.

Jack:

You make a good point, everyone is entitled to their views including the right to express them. Youre “as matter of fact” statement, that the Church is right, of course cannot be proved and does little to engage the issue reasonably. This is the problem largely on both sides. The only real benefit you get from your statement is the ability to identify with the likeminded individuals within this community. Because you cannot prove that “The Church is right” you fail to address the broader community and values of those all across the spectrum. This intentional disenfranchisement of the gay community will do little to serve your ultimate agenda (I think), and give them more fuel to feel persecuted with. We shouldn’t need to agree with everybody’s choices or lifestyle to respect the liberty that affords each of us the oppurtunity to carve our own way and seek our own view of happiness.

The Church has every right to fight on the moral front. And if some folks think that entails “getting into other people’s business” well then … they have a right to feel that way–even if the church is right.

The appropriateness of the Church’s actions regarding Proposition 8 is certainly debatable and will be seen differently by many groups. That is fine, but if the Church didn’t “go around” getting in peoples business (damning is a stronger adjective than I would use), we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Also the notion that we are persecuted because “God still speaks and calls Prophets today” is very flattering to us and thats why we like to repeat it, however it grossly misrepresents the opinions generally of those who oppose to the Church. This is particularly true of those currently upset over Prop 8, they are damning us because they feel like their civil liberties were infringed upon by religious zealots/bigotts, etc.

I blogged about this very topic just a few weeks ago. If you’re interested, go to http://factorandrew.blogspot.com/2008/11/prop-8.html. It’s reasons that homosexuality is wrong, not backed by scripture. Take a look.

In conclusion, people just need to shut their mouths and go about their business. The Church doesn’t go around damning people for how they live, yet everyone is damning us because we believe God still speaks and calls Prophets today. Odd, huh?

Your position on the dissimalarities between 1890′s polygamy and the current prop 8 leaves a few stones unturned.

First, you are comparing the legal remedies and social consequences of former times and comparing them to now and suggesting that “therefore” they are not the same. If prop 8 had been the issue in the 1890′s, do you suppose that the consequences would have been different from the polygamists. Of course any reply here from either side would be merely conjecture, however we do have precedent for the opposite with modern polygamist groups. They are no longer imprisoned or threatened with seizure of property. The current legal assault on Mormon polygamist groups has nothing to do with polygamy except as it applies to cases of coercion of either adults or minors.

Second, you fail to address the complexeties of an institution which has fallen under federal condemnation vs. an undesirable social movement. Most of the threats towards the seizure of property were aimed at the Church (institution) directly, ie the temples and other like property. Because the SSM supporters represent a movement and not an entity drawing comparisons about seizing property is not valid. Would the government seize a gay bar for example?

A third point you fail to address is that at the time Utah was in a state of war with the federal government. This no doubt played as a crucial factor in the extreme enforcement by the government. Had Utah not been seen as a hostile threat, one might conjecture that the action taken against the polygamists may have been more civil.

Finally, you criticize society for condemning polygamy while endorsing promiscuity. While morally I can agree that it is unsettling to see society so embraceful of infedelity, the notion that once you have had a ceremony it is considered appropriate is one many people would disagree with. Even Brigham Young suggested that Polygamy was an outlet for men to “sow their wild oats” – Sounds like promiscuity under a different name to me. So are you offended at notion of men who are unable to restrain their natural urges, or the technicality of neglected ritual.

I insist on this example because of the paralles of the definition of “marriage” by a minority, and how a majority forces a minority to obey the law according to the majority’s definition of “marriage.”

As I have written here: http://amateurscriptorians.blogspot.com/2008/11/mormons-polygamy-and-prop-8.html The issues between early Mormon polygamy and prop-8 are completely different, and should not be confused whatever your position on prop-8 was.

Uh, don’t those judges represent a legimate part of the democratic process?

“The Church has stressed over and over again that it doesn’t oppose legislation to give homosexuals the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.”

This may be true of Prop 8, but likely only because anything more would have been “pushing it” in California. If you recall, four years ago in Utah the Same Sex issue was for marriage under what was then, Proposition 3 – I think. Some legislators proposed a comprimise of Civil Unions, which would naturally differentiate between heterosexual marriages and homosexual unions, thus protecting the sanctity of the family, while still extending the State given rights of marriage to Same Sex Couples. During this debate the Church issued a statement saying that they entirely oppose all measures offering marriage to homosexual couples, including any measure which which provide for marriage under a different name, ie “civil unions”.

I was never under any obligation to support Prop 8. If it comes to Colorado, I may rethink that position.

Secondly, your position in civil contracts and stuff is basically the same argument as “separate but equal” under segregation.

Sure, it’s not as serious, of course. But it’s exactly the same concept.

As long as gays get the same rights, why should they complain?

I’ll tell you why. Because the label of marriage carries a certain prestige in some quarters. If the government hands out marriage licenses, the government is de facto granting prestige to one class, but not another.

As long as government gives “marriage” to some but not others, you are going to have inequality.

Thus, my solution – take government out of the marriage business entirely.

If there is a round 3 on same-sex marriage here in California I’ll again pay my share of what ever it takes to defeat another attempt to redefine marriage. I think the 4 Judges of the California Supreme Court who created the Prop. 8 battle should resign in shame at their desdain for the democratic process and for our US constitution first ammendment that says there should be no government establishment of religion. Overturning a definition of an institution that has profound religious significance to the great majority of the citizens seems like government trying to establish their political corectness religion with no regard at all to rights of the religious majority.
All the whining about something being taken away from homosexuals is just nonsense. Where did they ever get the right to take our word “marriage” and redefine it?
There never has been any right to marry anyone you want. We observe rules against incest and polygamy for example. And, homosexuals have the same right as anyone to marry under the current institution. A homosexual man can marry a woman, a lesbian can marry a man. Or, they can choose not to and still enjoy virtually all the legal privileges of marriage through a civil union or domestic partnership whth their same-sex partner.

Both of your comments paint my sentiments exactly, well said.

I’m completely disgusted with the reactions of the GBLT community.

The cries to revoke the LDS tax exempt status is hysterical and shows an utter ignorance of the law, or the social/moral reason why we protect religious tax-exempt status. It’s also doomed to fail I think.

I have read commentary on gay blogs in the past week that I would have expected from a neo-nazi website.

One guy boasted that the next pair of Mormon missionaries to show their faces on his doorstep would leave “with a dozen new orifices” (I’m paraphrasing – his language was much more foul). There were about ten different commenters on that thread who thought that was a great idea.

Another blogger declared “open-season” on Mormons to general applause. Calls have been made to deface Mormon structures. Then there have been vicious attempts to dredge up every bit of uncomplimentary information about the Mormons as possible. “Pedophile Joe” “kooky magic underwear” “brainwashed cultists” “raving idiots.” The gay online community is awash with these terms right now.

Then racial epithets were thrown at black protesters at the LA Temple because apparently a lot of the black vote supported Prop 8. Are you kidding me?

Gay bigots is a totally appropriate word. And the irony of a picture with a guy flipping off the temple while holding an “end H8″ sign was not lost on me. I don’t think there’s any doubt in anyone’s mind that his heart is a hateful little cesspool.

And I do not like the fact that my fellow Mormons are being beat up for simply voting their consciences.

Whatever the hysterical rhetoric from the left may be, I do not think that wanting to deny the “marriage” label to gays constitutes prima facie evidence of “hate” or “bigotry.” I find the GBLT rhetoric on this point hysterical and overwrought. Certainly a vote for Prop 8 is a far cry from a “vote for H8″ in my mind.

However, I am seeing very real bigotry in the retaliation from the gay community.

If I were gay, I would be utterly ashamed at the past weeks events.

And to think I was sympathetic to the concerns of gay couples. A lot of that has distinctly cooled in the past week.

I opposed Prop 8 based on the idea that government should not even be in the marriage license business to begin with. There ought to be a standardized “civil union” law that applies to people, regardless of gender (homosexual vs. heterosexual) or number (monogamist vs. polygamist). Such laws could also be extended to non-sexual relationships – such as two elderly sisters who live together and take care of each other, but still don’t have right of hospital visitation or automatic power of attorney.

Government should be primarily concerned with protecting vulnerable parties, and in promoting relationships that confer societal benefits, and regulating those that pose societal risks.

There is nothing in that interest that requires the current marriage license scheme. “Marriage” is a symbolic and religious prestige marker. There is no benefit to government regulating who does and does not have it. And as long as government gives it to some unions, but not others, the situation is by-definition unequal.

So yeah, I wasn’t a fan. I felt like the Brethren saw the need to draw a line in the sand and stand up to the relentless societal encroachment they were seeing from amoral elements of society. They felt like they were being required to sacrifice morality in the name of “tolerance” and felt the need to make a stand.

Anyway, that was my impression. Could be wrong.

But I think that ultimately, initiatives like Prop 8 will damage LDS marriage more than they help it. What the LDS Church has done in pushing Prop 8 so heavily is CONCEDE that we derive our marital legitimacy from government sanction.

Really?

Last I checked, there was nothing in the scriptures that made a judge’s approval a condition for a temple marriage. My temple marriage was under GOD’S law, not the state of Utah’s. I actually kind of resent that the Brethren seem to think that Utah’s approval was necessary for my marriage to be valid. I think this is simply bad doctrine.

Marriage is authorized by God, not by Caesar. Government may have a stake in regulating human relationships, but it has none in playing pastor.

This de facto acknowledgment by the LDS that we need government PERMISSION to get married will come back to bit us in the end. I think this campaign was a mistake, and I don’t like how heavy handed it was. For instance, allowing local California LDS leadership to get utterly carried away and subverting our Gospel Doctrine classes to political rallies. Or combing local tithing records to suggest money amounts to donate. Or complete ostracizing of dissenting political views – even going so far as to take disciplinary action against some who opposed Prop 8.

The behavior of many in the LDS Church was downright ugly during this campaign, and I am ashamed of them. I think the over-the-top rhetoric from some of our local right-wingers has also been reprehensible.

But…

Ever read that passage that says “Thou shalt not bear false witness,” Steven? Now that you’ve made this accusation, I expect you to quote any instance where I have ever said that LDS members should have no right to speech or right to vote. If you have any integrity at all, you will retract your completely false accusation, ask forgiveness from the person you’ve wronged, and repent of the sin which Nephi said would result in you being “thrust down to hell.”

Alas, your attempt at cleverness falls short.

I suggest you reread 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 and reconsider your exegesis. Your point #5 is especially inapt: Nothing that Paul wrote in those verses tells Christians to stone sinners.

Paul does, however, warn the unrighteous they shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. It is a warning that we should all heed.

But I suspect your real interest is not understanding scripture. Instead, you seem to be trying to paint the religious supporters of Proposition 8 as intolerant hypocrites. Was that your intent?

If he means “all” Mormons, I agree. If he means “no” LDS would be picketing, I disagree. Your point?

Your answer presents a “false dichotomy,” a logical fallacy. You write as if you were unaware of the vast middle ground between “all” and “no”.

Let’s be clear: most Mormons have not and would not go out picketing homosexual weddings.

And when I say “most” Mormons, I mean the vast majority: I would guess more than 99.9%. If some among the remainder do go out and picket, they will be acting without the approval of the Church leaders or the majority of their fellow Mormons.

Do you disagree?

A couple of interesting observations here.

1. I have never read where god had a ratings system on sin…you know worst to first! So sin is all equal…you have sinned against your Lord.

2. Homosexual was inserted in the text in the late 1800′s. There is a footnote on this passage which takes you to the original greek and the word was CATAMITE. A catamite commits pederasty…the act of a high priest raping a slave boy. God’s word got changed to mean something else?? Hmm…is that sin?

3. Anyone that rails against homosexuals had better look up the definition of sodomy!! Because if you have EVER had sex for any other purpose than procreation YOU ARE A SINNER you dirty sodomite!

4. Nor Idolator! Hmm…interesting that so many good Christians hang idols in their home and from their neck. SINNER!

5. See #1 and then go look for your stones! Beware though that your good Christian neighbor will be aiming for you!

It looks like some rational analysis may be forthcoming:
http://malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1797

“When defeated at the polls, there are several potential courses of action. One can engage in endless recriminations and purify the movement (or as I like to call it, shallowing the political gene pool). On the other hand, if you’re a particularly reflective person, you could engage in a bit of self-criticism, use the data at hand to understand where you might have gone wrong, and vow to do better in the future.

There is a third option, however, and it isn’t one I recommend. You could have a collective meltdown, look for a scapegoat, and behave in the most cowardly, histrionic manner, one calibrated in such a special way that it appalls opponents while giving your allies serious pause.

No prizes for guessing what we’re doing this week.

Oops! I saw Todd’s name at the bottom of your comment and supposed it was your “signature.” Maybe I do need to read more afterall. ;>)

That said, I concur with Juliann. I don’t think the circumstances surrounding polygamy allow for a good comparison with Prop. 8. For one thing, Utah wasn’t a state when the Mormons got there. They ran for the hills precisely so they could live the way they wanted. That alone should qualify your comparison as “apples and oranges.”

If you would like to clear this one up I’m all ears.

A while back there was a trend among some very liberal churches to solemnize gay marriages. Such church almost universally lost membership. At the same time, churches that held true to their “conservative” believes regarding mariage, etc., grew exponentially.

I guarantee you that the Church will come through this comepletely unscathed, (except for missionaries getting a few more doors shut on them in CA).

Lance

Well that already happened. Some people are choosing voluntary amnesia though…

Lance: Correct me if I’m wrong, but many hundreds of our ancestors had their marriages decreed null and void by the voice of the government. (See Reynolds v. U.S.). As I recall, we took it pretty well, all things considered.

Lastly, I still have yet to see anyone actually provide an accurate description of what Prop 8, and the same sex marriage debate in general, are really about. No one really seems to under that actual legal issues in play here. Of course, I suspect they don’ t really care, since the emotionalism of the thing is much more fun.

Lance

So the question is, is it more important to stand and be counted in this case, or to strategically work towards desired outcomes? Again the liklihood that SSM will eventually pass is high, especially as homosexuality increases within the population. If that is the case then opposing Prop 8 was a bad idea if the primary goal was outcomes. If the primary goal was to promote ideology then support of Prop 8 was the better course.

Note: I realize this hypothetical is based on some broad assumptions, I am more interested in the question of principles or outcomes.

Thanks for stating the obvious, P.K. Too bad your co-religionists don’t use the same reasoning, when they see a very small number of the “No on 8″ protesters engaging in illegal acts, such as vandalism. It seems many LDS are quite willing to take those isolated acts as representative of all gays and lesbians.

Larry raised an important point: Mormons would not be out picketing gay weddings had Proposition 8 failed to pass. Do you disagree?

If he means “all” Mormons, I agree. If he means “no” LDS would be picketing, I disagree. Your point?

There was no celebration over this victory in Mormon circles.

Good observation. My impression is that most Mormons who supported Propostion 8 have mixed emotions about the outcome. We may be relieved that the proposition passed, but we are not gloating. We sense that our involvement in the Proposition 8 campaign will likely have unpleasant consequences. Nevertheless, we believe it was necessary.

The Gay marriage was already null and void as all gay marriages are. So LDS people and all the others Californians only expressed their opinion.

The No voters need to learn how to deal with the defeat.

BTW the entire international press (I live in Portugal) never said that the CoJCoLDS gave the victory to the Yes side. All the newspapers are saying:

“In the state of 37 million people the “Yes” to the “Proposal 8″ has earned points in the polls since August, when it intensified the campaign in favor of the measure, which was to target in particular the values of the Catholic Hispanic community, which represents more than 30% of the population of California and who in 2000 voted largely against the gay marriages in a similar query”
(Translated from a Brazilian newspaper)

So in my opinion the critics are coming from people who already used to criticize the Church.

Well that already happened. Some people are choosing voluntary amnesia though…

If people do know about Church history, then they are sure turning a blind eye on this one.

As for your judgment of “empty rehtoric” I would have to laugh at that one… I don’t see too much substance coming from you either.

As for “spans time and geography,” don’t fool yourslef. The polygamy issue is not exactly ancient history. The geography is pretty much the same: the United States of America. The issue is very similar “the definition of marriage and the regulation of govenrment upon it as dictated by a majority.”

Your attempt to simply discredit by saying something is not specific is absurd and childish. We could all make the same clame of each other; and most importantly, we would never be able to learn anything from history (I guess some people never do).

Nice try though!

As for minimizing scriptural statements made by God and Joseph Smith as “skipping through scripture,” I just say this: let that be upon your head. Those scriptures are there for you to take or discard, and you are free to make that choice.

I guess that’s how this thing can work anyway, take away Christ’s principles and everything fits just right. If you don’t see my point at all, that’s fine (but I highly doubt it).

Nate –

I entirely agree with this.

We as a church did spend millions to take away this right. Yes the electorate did also come to vote to take away this right.

I am not implying that gays would take up arms. I am saying that if some electorate made our marriages null and void for whatever good reason they had we would be mad as hell, and be tempted to take up arms. I hope we would not. I believe we should realize the reality of our actions and put away this childish winning and take protests and angry words. Angry words are small thing that can be legally done to greave over your marriage being made null and void.

Why do we wine that we are being persecuted?

Why are we complaining this is protesting the amendment process? We were protesting the judicial review process. These are both important processes in our systems.

If we think it is important enough to spend millions to take someone’s right to marriage to one of their choosing than we should stand up and take it like men when they are mad and legally protest. We should be grateful they are not taking up arms.

Oh, I don’t know about that. Orson Scott Card, in the Deseret News, called for the violent overthrow of the government in the even that Proposition 8 failed

Whatever Mr. Card actually said or meant, he represents no one other than himself.

Larry raised an important point: Mormons would not be out picketing gay weddings had Proposition 8 failed to pass. Do you disagree?

I just quoted Todd Compton in my post at the end, the rest of the post and my comments are not the comments nor the views of Todd Compton.

Yes, I was talking about criticizing the initiative process. Many protesters do, and we certainly have done it a great number of times in Church history. It’s not really that unnoble as we try to make it sound today.

It’s just people voicing their opinion. This is a democracy, and therefore the majority has the last word. What I was trying to say is, that sometimes, minorities don’t feel the majority should dictate what they can and cannot do. We as Mormons have been the minority many times. We have resisted and questioned what majorities have tried to impose on us. This is why Salt Lake City exists today.

Just a note: I do not have a problem in any religious organization donating money to whatever cause they decide to defend and I certainly do not have a problem with Mormons using their monetary power to support whatever cause they wish to support. My point is: we should be aware of the natural consequences (not the consequences that we think are fair or should happen), but the natural consequences of these actions, and place them in the context of Jesus Christ’s teachings and in the context of how persecution is defined in cases like prop 8.

You know, our leaders repeatedly lied about polygamy to the federal government in order for Utah to be accepted into the union and become a state. And as Wilford Woodruff states in the manifesto, the government pretty much forced the Church to stop practicing polygamy (although the Church continued practicing it under the table even post manifesto).

I insist on this example because of the paralles of the definition of “marriage” by a minority, and how a majority forces a minority to obey the law according to the majority’s definition of “marriage.”

This is what happened to us, and this is what is happening to the Gay community. To the Protestant based government, Mormon polygamy was an immoral aberration and a degradation of the traditional family; just like gay marraige is to the Church today.

What comes to my mind is the following:

“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” – Jesus Christ.

“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” Jesus Christ.

“4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others…” -Joseph Smith.

I am sorry this writing is so sloppy… took my sleeping pill and it is taking effect…. gnite!