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”.