"8: The Mormon Proposition"

[LeSellers]

have you seen the Warrior Song video?

...

Very good stuff- especially the Patton voice-overs.

Saw it a couple of months ago, I believe. It's great.

I am too old to do those things now, but I trained to do exactly that. War is ugly, it is brutal, it is hideous. War is not the ugliest, the most brutal, nor the most hideous of all things. Slavery is far worse on all those counts and a myriad of others.

Slavery is my greatest fear, one that the movie of the OP and the implications on the political front makes me feel is coming down the road at high speed.

For that reason, I am most grateful to those who serve today, for those who served in the past, and for those who will see the importance of serving in the future.

May their leaders have the vision of our forefathers and the guts to secure our freedom as the heroes of old once did.

Lehi

[the narrator]

You cannot claim to have been in CA and not know the role the black churches played in the Prop 8 win.

I know very well how traditional black Churches tended to vote for Prop 8. It is, however, completely irrelevant to my comment.

I'm a CA Mormon who finds your comments about CA Mormons offensive and inaccurate.

Do you still live in California? Did you live here during the 2008 elections? If so, you know exactly what it is that I am talking about.

Now start attaching names, dates and locations to your accusations if you expect us to pay any attention to your allegations.

I'm assuming that you are smart enough to realize how pathetic and ridiculous of a demand that it, and how imprudent of me it would be to start naming everyone in my stake.

There are always going to be badly behaved Mormons. But they are never a majority.

I never said they were behaving badly. I was merely pointing out that a majority of Mormons (like most people) did not question and think about their support of Prop 8. They just did so because they were told to. This isn't some new and startling discovery. The same thing goes with most things in Mormonism. And they have scriptural precedent to do so (Moses 5:6)

So start documenting instead of throwing rocks if you want us to believe that.

You know very well how wrong that would be.

[the narrator]

Word came from 50 East North Temple to support Prop 8.

And thus most stepped in line without questioning how ridiculous it was when Bednar claimed that, " It is not just wild and crazy to suggest that there could be sanctions against the teaching of our doctrine."

The vast majority game passive support.

without questioning

A whole lot gave material support either in funds or volunteer hours or both.

I am well aware. I was repeatedly asked to join in.

Your assumption that the call for support and the very few statements in support and $.50 won't buy java.

this doesn't even make grammatical sense. Can you rephrase it so that I can figure out what it is that you are attempting to accuse me of.

Your bigoted assumption, expressed with such clarity in this thread, that the supporters within CA Mormondom were unthinking twits, says nothing really other than you despise your alleged coreligionists.

You are an odd one. Gratefully, several on this board have privately told me that you don't represent them. Also gratefully, my experience has taught me that most Mormons are not like you, and in fact the vast majority of Mormons are not the pharisees your example might make others believe Mormons to be.

(and please Julian, don't ask me to name every Mormon who is not like USU.

[Ceeboo]

(and please Julian, don't ask me to name every Mormon who is not like USU.

Now THAT was funny!

Peace,

Ceeboo

[selek]

I was merely pointing out that a majority of Mormons (like most people) did not question and think about their support of Prop 8. They just did so because they were told to.

Call For References.

You've repeated this bigoted and obnoxious chant at least a half dozen times.

Short of near-omnipotent mind-reading, you don't have a clue in hell about how much thought "most" Mormons- or anyone else- put into thier support. You are generalizing, rationalizing, and stereotyping- but you are NOT reasoning.

Either support your claim with facts or retract it.

This isn't some new and startling discovery.

No- it's a wholesale fabrication by bigots and demagogues who seek to demean those who disagree with them. And you're carrying their water for them.

The same thing goes with most things in Mormonism.

Same thing. Call For References.

Just for fun, let's try a little thought experiment, shall we?

Which of the following statements are bigoted, stereotyping, and logically untenable?

• The vast majority of Mormons in California who supported Prop 8, did so without thinking.
  
• The vast majority of Blacks in California who supported Prop 8, did so without thinking.
  
• The vast majority of Women in California who supported Prop 8, did so without thinking.
  
• The vast majority of Jews in California who supported Prop 8, did so without thinking.
  
• The vast majority of Mexicans in California who supported Prop 8, did so without thinking.
  
• The vast majority of homosexuals in California who opposed Prop 8, did little thinking,
  

And the answer is: ALL of them.

As has been noted repeatedly in the thread, you are not engaging the real reasons why the voters in California supported Prop 8.

You are simply trying to dismiss, illegitimize, and dehumanize those who disagree with you out of hand.

You are engaging in stereotyping and bigotry- and no matter how much you try to obfuscate it, you cannot disguise the ugliness and contempt at the root of your argument.

[frankenstein]

Everyone has experienced thirst and everyone has been in an emotional state that alcohol would assist in at least making the partaker feel better. As for the erection you speak of, what one wishes to do with it is of course a complex interplay between biology and societal teachings, is it not?

yes, everyone experiences thirst, but that is completely different from a sexual attraction.

when one who does not know alcohol, does not think "this sure seems a fine to time to start drinking alcohol" your body/brain does not trigger a thrist for alcohol (which mind you, you have never known) it only triggers thirst

however,

a little boy or girl, minding their own business, just happens to see a member of the same sex and something in that little boy or girl starts the chemicals of attraction going. or I go to party with my significant other, and there are other people at the this party, and at this party during the typical introduction I am introduced to someone who i find attractive, I can not help that this person is atractive, as that is controlled by things I can not control, but I do not have to follow through with that attraction.

[the narrator]

Call For References.

You've repeated this bigoted and obnoxious chant at least a half dozen times.

It's not bigoted (do you even know what that word means?). It was a claim based on my own experience as an active Mormon in California during the 2008 elections.

Here is my reference: me. I was there.

No- it's a wholesale fabrication by bigots and demagogues who seek to demean those who disagree with them.

No it's not. It's a simple observation known to most scholars of Mormonism. Most Mormons simply don't question what comes down to them from the Church leaders. My friend Armand Mauss has written much on this. For a great summary, read his "The Mormon Church and Its Intellectuals: Traditions and Transistions" In Archivo Teologico Torinese 15, n. 2 (2009).

Just for fun, let's try a little thought experiment, shall we?

Which of the following statements are bigoted and logically untenable?

• The vast majority of Mormons in California who supported Prop 8, did so without thinking.
• The vast majority of Blacks in California who supported Prop 8, did so without thinking.
• The vast majority of Women in California who supported Prop 8, did so without thinking.
• The vast majority of Jews in California who supported Prop 8, did so without thinking.
• The vast majority of Mexicans in California who supported Prop 8, did so without thinking.
• The vast majority of homosexuals in California who opposed Prop 8, did little thinking,

And the answer is: ALL of them.

I can only answer for the community of which I am a part of, have much experience with, have studied academically, and have immediate observations of.

You are simply trying to dismiss, illegitimize, and dehumanize those who disagree with you out of hand.

No. I was simply pointing out that most Mormons did not question their support for Prop 8 and thus had a much easier time than those Mormons who opposed it and were often alienated and patronized by the majority in their wards--which was the entire reason for my initial comment on this thread.

You are engaging in stereotyping and bigotry- and no matter how much you try to obfuscate it, you cannot disguise the ugliness and contempt at the root of your argument.

I'm not though. I'm just describing an observation which I had first hand experience of.

[LeSellers]

And thus most stepped in line without questioning how ridiculous it was when Bednar claimed that, " It is not just wild and crazy to suggest that there could be sanctions against the teaching of our doctrine."

Hardly ridiculous. There are already laws in many European countries that forbid the same kinds of thing Elder Bednar warned of.

We have a past and (probably) future US Justice claiming that international law should be given high priority in deciding what USmerican law should be, even to the point of (reading between their lines) ignoring the Constitution.

So, you will need to show us that it is ridiculous to imagine that LDS (and other Christian and even Muslim) teachings on homosexuality would be forbidden.

It is interesting to note that the publicly stated intent of the proponents of many laws and amendments to the Constitution have been ignored by subsequent courts and legislatures who have brought the very things feared by opponents into being.

For example, the XVI (making an income tax legal) was advertised as never being greater than 3% nor applying to more than 1% of the populace. I believe there is little need to explain that these promises by the politicians have been proven unfounded. Why should any of us believe that the vague hand waving of the current crop of pols and bureaucrats, not to mention the homosexuals themselves (not all of whom even bother to make these statements, and some of whom proudly proclaim our fears to be their very goals) when they promise that all will be well, that all they want is "equality", that it will not affect marriage and families?

Once burned, twice shy. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. I refuse to be fooled again.

Lehi

[selek]

It's not bigoted (do you even know what that word means?). It was a claim based on my own experience as an active Mormon in California during the 2008 elections.

Here is my reference: me. I was there.

Not good enough. Facts, not impressions. Facts not assumptions. Facts not arrogant presumption.

Demonstrate factually that your claim is true or withdraw it.

No it's not. It's a simple observation known to most scholars of Mormonism. Most Mormons simply don't question what comes down to them from the Church leaders.

I see a repetition of your bigoted claim- but no facts to support it.

I can only answer for the community of which I am a part of, have much experience with, have studied academically, and have immediate observations of.

In short, you have no facts to back up your bigoted claim.

No. I was simply pointing out that most Mormons did not question their support for Prop 8

An assertion for which you have no proof and no logical means of supporting.

We know that you did not poll every single Mormon who supported Prop 8, and therefore have no objective evidence to support your claim.

We know that you do not have near-omnipotent mind-reading abilities, and therefore are only assuming that the vast majority of Mormons did not think this one through.

You are stereotyping and projecting. You are acting as a spear-carrier for bigots and demagogues. Nothing more.

and thus had a much easier time than those Mormons who opposed it and were often alienated and patronized by the majority in their wards--which was the entire reason for my initial comment on this thread.

Assumption and projection. Not one fact in your entire rant.

I'm not though. I'm just describing an observation which I had first hand experience of.

No- you are attempting to parlay limited subjective data into a blanket condemnation.

That's no different than claiming "All Indians walk single file- you saw one do it once."

Answer the Call For References.

Either provide factual evidence to support your bigoted claim or withdraw it.

[the narrator]

Not good enough. Facts, not impressions. Facts not assumptions. Facts not arrogant presumption.

Demonstrate factually that your claim is true or withdraw it.

I see a repetition of your bigoted claim- but no facts to support it.

In short, you have no facts to back up your bigoted claim.

An assertion for which you have no proof and no logical means of supporting.

We know that you did not poll every single Mormon who supported Prop 8, and therefore have no objective evidence to support your claim.

We know that you do not have near-omnipotent mind-reading abilities, and therefore are only assuming that the vast majority of Mormons did not think this one through.

You are stereotyping and projecting. You are acting as a spear-carrier for bigots and demagogues. Nothing more.

Assumption and projection. Not one fact in your entire rant.

No- you are attempting to parlay limited subjective data into a blanket condemnation.

That's no different than claiming "All Indians walk single file- you saw one do it once."

Answer the Call For References.

Either provide factual evidence to support your bigoted claim or withdraw it.

selek, I wish I could say that you were smart enough to realize how pathetic it is to CFR personal observations. Unfortunately, I just don;t know you that well.

[selek]

selek, I wish I could say that you were smart enough to realize how pathetic it is to CFR personal observations. Unfortunately, I just don;t know you that well.

Drop the personal attacks.

Answer the Call For References.

Provide the evidence for your claim that "MOST Mormons who supported Prop 8 did so unthinkingly."

"I was there" doesn't cut it- because "I was there" does not grant you insight into the minds of MOST Mormons.

[the narrator]

Drop the personal attacks.

Answer the Call For References.

I already did.

And it wasn't a personal attack. Just an observation.

[the narrator]

Drop the personal attacks.

Answer the Call For References.

For some reason, I can imagine you saying the exact same thing when someone accuses you of farting.

[selek]

I already did.

You did not. You tried to duck it.

And it wasn't a personal attack. Just an observation.

No it wasn't a personal attack- it was a blanket condemnation- a bigoted stereotype used to demean and dismiss people who don't agree with you.

For all the gnashing of teeth, you still haven't provided any objective, factual evidence to support your claim to know how much thought "most" Mormons put into the issue.

"Personal observation" does not justify racist or ethnic stereotypes. It does not justify blanket condemnations of an entire faith (or even a small geographical subset of that faith).

Your claim that "Most Mormons supported Prop 8 without thinking" is no more legitimate than the claim that "Most Blacks like watermelon" or that "Most homosexuals are pedophiles."

Either provide the evidence or retract the claim.

[frankenstein]

Hardly ridiculous. There are already laws in many European countries that forbid the same kinds of thing Elder Bednar warned of.

We have a past and (probably) future US Justice claiming that international law should be given high priority in deciding what USmerican law should be, even to the point of (reading between their lines) ignoring the Constitution.

So, you will need to show us that it is ridiculous to imagine that LDS (and other Christian and even Muslim) teachings on homosexuality would be forbidden.

It is interesting to note that the publicly stated intent of the proponents of many laws and amendments to the Constitution have been ignored by subsequent courts and legislatures who have brought the very things feared by opponents into being.

Lehi

when America adopts such absurd laws as Europe then America will have been long gone.

Any legal case in the US that was brought against a religion because of the religions stance on homosexuality, is because of reasons other than how that religion views homosexuality.

to avoid legal ramifications for ones beliefs DO NOT ACCEPT government handouts. all the cases I read about proclaimed from the rooftops by the anti-gay life crowd are cases where the religion was receiving some gov. benefit, which benefit came with the strings of non-discrimination. so in the end it is the fault of the religion for not protecting itself before hand.

now there is United States Supreme Court case law, which case was based almost entirely on British common law, which upheld the revocation of tax exempt status of a religious school because the school had a policy against interracial dating and interracial marriage, which policy was based entirely on the Bible.

though i do see that there is a difference between a institution of higher learning and a organized religion; so i tend to think religions are safe, and when religions are not safe, well American and the constitution said goodbye long before that day.

[the narrator]

You did not. You tried to duck it.

No it wasn't a personal attack- it was a blanket condemnation- a bigoted stereotype used to demean and dismiss people who don't agree with you.

For all the gnashing of teeth, you still haven't provided any objective, factual evidence to support your claim to know how much thought "most" Mormons put into the issue.

"Personal observation" does not justify racist or ethnic stereotypes. It does not justify blanket condemnations of an entire faith (or even a small geographical subset of that faith).

Your claim that "Most Mormons supported Prop 8 without thinking" is no more legitimate than the claim that "Most Blacks like watermelon" or that "Most homosexuals are pedophiles."

Either provide the evidence or retract the claim.

Selek, I'm not making an argument. Your CFR is meaningless. I was just giving my observation. If you have a differing observation, then fine. My claim was not bigoted. It was an observation of my own community--I'M A MORMON.

I'm not retracting my observation.

Fast and testimony meeting in selek's ward:

Person on the pulpit: "I know the Church is true.

selek: "CFR!"

At a Thai restaurant:

"This isn't as spicy as last time"

"CFR!"

At the beach:

"It was a lot sunnier last time I was here."

"CFR!"

Asking a girl on a 2nd date:

"I'm just not that interested in you selek."

"CFR!"

After a concert:

"There had to have been at least 3000 people in the audience.

"CFR!"

I'm bored.

If it makes you happy selek, I retract everything that I have ever said. Ever.

[Damien the Leper]

Agreed. Our last Presidential election was swayed by emotionalism, a cult of personality, and a desire to be in on "an historic moment"- and a LOT of people now regret that lapse in reason.

From Packer:

To the All-Church Coordinating Council

It is so easy to be turned about without realizing that it has happened to us. There are three areas where members of the Church, influenced by social and political unrest, are being caught up and led away. I chose these three because they have made major invasions into the membership of the Church. In each, the temptation is for us to turn about and face the wrong way, and it is hard to resist, for doing it seems so reasonable and right.

The dangers I speak of come from the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement (both of which are relatively new), and the ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals. Our local leaders must deal with all three of them with ever-increasing frequency. In each case, the members who are hurting have the conviction that the Church somehow is doing something wrong to members or that the Church is not doing enough for them. To illustrate, I will quote briefly from letters on each of those subjects. They are chosen from among many letters which have arrived in the last few weeks. These have arrived in just the last few days.

IMO, Packer's reasoning is irrelevent and is an attempt to uphold an archaic ideology that has run its course. I italicized Packer's choice of words "so-called" because it appears that in a way he is asserting his authority as a means to down play the credentials of the scholars and intellectuals. That is my opinion of course.

Where true (or even near) equivalency exists, I have no problem accepting relativism. Where that "relativism" is a rhetorical trick or demagogic sleight of hand, however....

Please explain. I'm not entirely sure what you mean.

Done and done. (Although the cutesy bit about "reputation restored" was a dandy rhetorical flourish. No loaded language or intent there. Nope- none at all.)

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2010/06/mormon_church_pays_fine_in_prop_8_case.html

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/background-information-on-the-fppc-s-enforcement-process

I actually wasn't attempting to use loaded language. What I said was my intent and thank you for the resources. Also, thank you for helping me understand that it has been laid to rest.

Call For references. Please demonstrate that this is anything more than your unvarnished opinion.

I'm curious to see any evidence that the 'vicious cycle of repetative mistakes' even exists.

LDS women and priesthood. Blacks and the priesthood.

From Michael Quinn (Re-emerging Mormon Feminism):

Two weeks after he organized the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, Illinois, Joseph Smith announced his intention to confer priesthood on women. He told them on 30 March 1842 that

[selek]

Selek, I'm not making an argument.

No- you're not making an argument. You made a bigoted accusation based upon hateful stereotypes.

And now you're running for cover trying to avoid admitting that.

Your CFR is meaningless. I was just giving my observation.

Your claim that "most Mormons supported Prop 8 without thinking" is NOT an observation. It is a bigoted stereotype, as has already been demonstrated.

Either provide evidence for it, or retract it.

My claim was not bigoted. It was an observation of my own community--I'M A MORMON.

Observations are based upon facts and upon evidence. You have provided neither to support your claim.

Being Mormon does not give you the ability to read minds. You have no way of knowing how much "most" Mormons thought about or struggled with supporting Prop 8.

You simply threw out a hateful stereotype in an attempt to delegitimize and dehumanize your political opposition.

I'm not retracting my observation.

Meaning you are standing by a hateful and bigoted stereotype for which you have no objective proof. Got it.

If it makes you happy selek, I retract everything that I have ever said. Ever.

What will make me happy is some bit of factual and objective proof for your claim.

Provide it, or retract your hateful charge.

[Ceeboo]

If you people can't get along, I will shut this thread down!!

DON'T try me!

Peace,

Ceeboo

[selek]

From Packer:

To the All-Church Coordinating Council

So, as expected, Packer was not referring to individual homosexuals or individual feminists as a threat to the Church. He was referring to the radical political movements which claimed to represent those individuals. As anticipated, his comments were taken out of context and distorted to achieve a political (and polemical) end.

Again, as expected, the charge is proven false.

IMO, Packer's reasoning is irrelevent and is an attempt to uphold an archaic ideology that has run its course. I italicized Packer's choice of words "so-called" because it appears that in a way he is asserting his authority as a means to down play the credentials of the scholars and intellectuals. That is my opinion of course.

And I thank you for your opinion, though I heartily disagree.

It is interesting to note one particular parallel between those "so-called scholars" and the radical homosexual political movement in California. In both instances, it was not the Church (or the public at large) who were the aggressors. It was a radical minority seeking to upset the status quo that were the agitators and irritants.

And in both instances, the public at large rejected their reasoning.

Please explain. I'm not entirely sure what you mean.

Where genuine equivalences (such as a drake being like unto a duck) exist, I'm more than happy to accept them as relative and/or equivalent.

Where there is no equivalency (such as comparing a rooster to a hamster), I am less sanguine about accepting the relatavism.

I actually wasn't attempting to use loaded language. What I said was my intent and thank you for the resources. Also, thank you for helping me understand that it has been laid to rest.

You're quite welcome. And I accept your clarification at face value.

LDS women and priesthood. Blacks and the priesthood.

I understand that you feel these positions are part of an ongoing cycle of hurtful error- but you have not demonstrated that they ARE in fact, errors.

Quinn's arguments (and use of sources) tend to be problematic, at best. If I recall correctly (and I may not) he has been caught misrepresenting texts in the past.

I apologize. I don't mean to dismiss it. I understand where the pro-8 side is coming from. I understand the interpretation of scripture (Biblical) whether I believe it to be reconciled with historical context or not.

Thank you.

Unfortunately, the makers of "8: The Mormon Proposition" and our own Narrator, are engaging in this behavior deliberately, as noted elsewhere.

Observe above.

I will take the time to become more familiar with your arguments, but from everything I've seen thus far (and for the reasons I've mentioned) I'm not convinced.

I must say this though- unlike the filmmakers (or Narrator) you are at least attempting to make an argument (rather than simply demonizing the opposition).

That speaks well of you and bodes well for your future here.

Furthermore, I wish to make myself clear. The earlier decision on the behalf of the California government to legalize Gay Marriage without consented vote of the majority population in said state was unconstitutional and disenfranchised the votes of Californians.

I agree.

I would like to think, on the other hand, that had Prop 8 been voted down, that Prop 8 supporters would be trying to determine where and why they failed to convince the People of California instead of simply pointing fingers and trying to blame others.

I also wish to clarify that the rioting, arson, and demagoguery I referenced earlier were not endemic to the majority of those opposed to Prop 8, but were rather, confined to a vicious, militant minority.

[selek]

If you people can't get along, I will shut this thread down!!

DON'T try me!

Peace,

Ceeboo

Give it your best shot, CeeBoo.

If Narrator's name-calling can't do it, I doubt you can.

Besides, short of tunneling under your pool, you don't have a wrench to throw into the works!

[the narrator]

Give it your best shot, CeeBoo.

If Narrator's name-calling can't do it, I doubt you can.

Besides, short of tunneling under your pool, you don't have a wrench to throw into the works!

name-calling?

[selek]

name-calling?

Yep. Name-calling.

Everyone of your responses to myself, Juliann, and USU was packed with derision, condescension, and bigotted innuendo.

You insulted Mormons as a whole, questioned our personal faithfulness, insulted our intelligence, and implied that we were either emotionally or mentally unstable, and implied that we were pathetic and stupid.

"Mormons like you" seems to be one of your favored riffs, but that doesn't hide one salient fact.

You still haven't provided any evidence to back up your anti-Mormon bigotry.

Answer the CFR.

[the narrator]

Yep. Name-calling.

Everyone of your responses to myself, Juliann, and USU was packed with derision, condescension, and bigotted innuendo.

"Mormons like you" seems to be one of your favored riffs, but that doesn't hide one salient fact.

You still haven't provided any evidence to back up your anti-Mormon bigotry.

Answer the CFR.

can you please give an actual example of name-calling, rather than the mythical assumptions you read into my comments.

in other words, CFR!

And I already told you that I cannot provide a reference (other than myself) for my personal observations in the California La Verne stake. If you want to reject everything I have said and proclaim yourself winner of the world, go right ahead.

[Chaos]

Are we going to have to close the thread?

Narrator you do have to provide references when called and another crude word will get you banned. When you make broad claims about a group you can be expected to back it up. You can't personally observe a large population. If you continue to repeat inflammatory things you can't back up you will be removed from the thread.

A reminder to all for heated topics: You can not call a poster words like bigot but you can refer to something as bigoted.