"8: The Mormon Proposition"

[the narrator]

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.

That's just absurd. How do I provide for a reference for a personal observation?

And what crude word did I use?

Also, just to be sure. I never called anyone a bigot.

[Damien the Leper]

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.

I wasn't making reference to any individual either. Packer made generalized statements concerning 3 different groups of people. Please provide how Packer's words are taken out of context. His attitude toward homosexuality has been made clear (i.e., To The One) and the intellectual witch-hunt taking place in the early nineties and the excommunications of Mormon feminists such as Janice Merrill Allred, Margaret Merrill Toscano, Lavina Anderson, Maxine Hanks, Valeen Avery, and Lynn Kanavel Whitesides. The track record of intellectual excommunications has a long list.

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.

I will agree with you here. Radical change cannot come in an instant. This is why many prefer progression.

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.

Show otherwise. I have often heard the diatribe of Mormon women who say that they don't want the priesthood because they are too busy being mothers. IMO, this is somewhat of an ignorant cop-out. I'm not saying that motherhood isn't important either.

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 kindly ask for some sort of reference to this not that I question your integrity in the statement but so that I can be aware of something that I may need to retract.

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

I 100% AGREE. I don't care to see the movie. I also think it was shameful for the homosexuals to protest outside of LDS temples.

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.

Thank you for at least discussing the subject with me.

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.

Thanks, Selek.

[Ceeboo]

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.

No need for the post Chaos (I got it), I have already given a warning and WILL shut this bugger down if needed!

Peace,

Ceeboo

[the narrator]

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.

I just re-read what you wrote.

It's completely reasonable and logical to make inferences on a larger population (Mormon in California) based on observations of a smaller population (the California La Verne Stake, and my wards within the stake). This is pretty standard stuff.

[USU78]

No need for the post Chaos (I got it), I have already given a warning and WILL shut this bugger down if needed!

[selek]

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

in other words, CFR!

Happily-

The easy thing to do would have been to give up my agency,...

You are calling the Church "unethical" and "tyrannical".

...and join with the many many many other Mormons who were unquestionigly supporting aunquestionigly supporting a movement...

You are calling many, many, many other Mormons "unthinking".

I had a few Mormon friends who thought a lot about Prop. 8, stressed over it, and chose to support it. They were, however, a minority compared to the vast number of members here who supported it without questioning or thinking about it one bit. Instead they simply did so because they were told to. They just accepted Elder Bednar's fallacious claims about us no longer being able to teach our doctrine, without taking a few seconds to realize how untrue his claim was

More of the same. You accusing a "vast number of members" of being "unthinking sheep" who blindly follow orders. You are calling Elder Bednar a "liar".

for you to call it contempt is just silliness and the ranting of a self-righteous pharisee.

You called me a "self-righteous pharisee". (Pharisee, as a proper title, should be capitalied, by the way).

And thanks for backing up my claim Selek, because of Mormons like you, those months preceding the elections were absolute hell for me.

There's that "Mormons like you" dig.

Don't expect me to respond to your hate-filled replies.

You just called me "hateful". Interestingly enough, you accuse me of hate, yet it's you yourself who are throwing out bigoted and hateful stereotypes. Ironic, isn't it?

Why so filled with hatred USU?

You just called USU is "hateful".

I simply pointed out that most Mormons in California unquestioningly supported Prop 8. I said nothing to ridicule others. I did not disparage anyone.

On the contrary, you just disparaged and ridiculed "most Mormons" as "unquestioning" and "unthinking".

I'm guessing that you are just reading my comments through your heavily tinted lenses of your persecution complex (and need to have an Other for your own self-worth), and have thus seen something that simply wasn't there.

You just questioned USU's mental and emotional health and accused him of being "paranoid" (specifically, of an unreasonable persecution complex).

I'm not sure how your logic works, but that is not what I was saying.

This can be construed as challenging Juliann's mental processes.

Perhaps you need to chill out a bit and get some sleep.

You just questioned Juliann's emotional state and insulted her argument as a result of lack of sleep.

I'm assuming that you are smart enough to realize how pathetic and ridiculous of a demand that it,

An insult to Juliann's intelligence- one that you later repeated against me.

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.

Another charge of "pharisee". An imputation that USU is not a good Mormon, or is a bad example of what a Mormon should be.

You've been name-calling all through this thread, but you STILL haven't provided any evidence to back up your bigoted claim.

Do so now.

Answer the CFR.

[the narrator]

Happily-

You are calling the Church "unethical" and "tyrannical".

You are calling many, many, many other Mormons "unthinking".

More of the same. You accusing a "vast number of members" of being "unthinking sheep" who blindly follow orders. You are calling Elder Bednar a "liar".

You called me a "self-righteous pharisee". (Pharisee, as a proper title, should be capitalied, by the way).

There's that "Mormons like you" dig.

You just called me "hateful". Interestingly enough, you accuse me of hate, yet it's you yourself who are throwing out bigoted and hateful stereotypes. Ironic, isn't it?

You just called USU is "hateful".

On the contrary, you just disparaged and ridiculed "most Mormons" as "unquestioning" and "unthinking".

You just questioned USU's mental and emotional health and accused him of being "paranoid" (specifically, of an unreasonable persecution complex).

This can be construed as challenging Juliann's mental processes.

You just questioned Juliann's emotional state and insulted her argument as a result of lack of sleep.

An insult to Juliann's intelligence- one that you later repeated against me.

Another charge of "pharisee". An imputation that USU is not a good Mormon, or is a bad example of what a Mormon should be.

You've been name-calling all through this thread, but you STILL haven't provided any evidence to back up your bigoted claim.

Do so now.

Answer the CFR.

Haha. That's so funny. Because I don't actually do any name-calling, you have to provide them yourself in your unfortunate attempt to force my words through your angry lens.

As I said before, there are no references other than my own observation. So there are none to provide.

I guess that makes you the winner!

[Chaos]

Narrator has been removed. You may now return to your regularly scheduled fighting.

[selek]

Never mind.

[USU78]

It's completely reasonable and logical to make inferences on a larger population (Mormon in California) based on observations of a smaller population (the California La Verne Stake, and my wards within the stake). This is pretty standard stuff.

When Nietszche calls the Biedermeier middle class a bunch of sheep for following along with the German states' leaders, he does so by extrapolating from his family experiences to a general rule. And he was dead wrong. He was no better a mindreader than our own lecturer here.

His lecturing the German middle class about how they ought to free themselves from Church and State's bonds was nothing more than political rhetoric, but they were too polite to say much about it and, indeed, adopted much of Nietzsche into folk philosophy for a couple of generations. Of course, each saw the herd animal morality in others of his class and family, but none in himself.

narrator's lecturing his fellow Mormons about their alleged herd animal morality is no more meaningful than Nietzsche's, and, just like narrator, Nietzsche was just as lockstep, when it came right down to it, as the people he so despised and from whom he sprang. His lectures here are nothing more than political rhetoric, banned on these here boards and for good reason, which don't convince anybody but those with whom he is in lockstep.

In our instant conversation, it has been well established that the folks at 50 East North Temple made the judgment that involvement with CA politics, a relatively rare occurrence indeed, was in the Church's best interests. Hence the call for material and other support for the already existing Pro-8 political machine, which was foundering, lacking leadership, and poorly funded. Archbishop Wiegend called 50 East North Temple, and the call was answered.

At no time, however, was anybody compelled to participate, donate, or get involved in any way. At no time was anyone compelled or pressured to change his mind on the subject. There were no church courts for the unwilling. There were no late-night meetings or even phone calls. There were no releases from callings. There were no protests, boycotts of businesses, no publications of names in the paper, and certainly no physical threats, assaults, or intimidation.

The Church and her members simply don't swing that way.

None of the trappings of creating a lock-step movement are or were present. There's nothing of Nietzsche's herd animals here. No sheepishness as our lecturer asserts without evidence. Nothing at all.

Nothing but free people freely associated freely speaking freely donating freely asserting convictions they freely arrived at with those who had not yet decided.

[selek]

Packer made generalized statements concerning 3 different groups of people. Please provide how Packer's words are taken out of context.

Your own words make it clear how his statements were taken out of context.

Just above you stated that he "made generalized statements concerning 3 different groups of people."

Packer was talking about groups. About political movements. Your original charge (and you're not the first to have made it) was that individual homosexuals were the threat.

As demonstrated, he was talking about political movements, not individuals.

His attitude toward homosexuality has been made clear (i.e., To The One) and the intellectual witch-hunt taking place in the early nineties and the excommunications of Mormon feminists such as Janice Merrill Allred, Margaret Merrill Toscano, Lavina Anderson, Maxine Hanks, Valeen Avery, and Lynn Kanavel Whitesides. The track record of intellectual excommunications has a long list.

The problem with this logic is that it was not "intellectuals" who were excommunicated. It scholars who presumed to dictate to the Church and stood in opposition to it.

These people wre not excommunicated because they were intellectuals, but because they were arrogant apostates and ark-steadiers.

For proof, I point you to the long list of Mormon Scholars on the Mormon Scholars Testify site (referenced from these boards' homepage). These people are all intellectuals, yet they have not been excommunicated.

What is the difference between these intellectuals and the September Six? Since they're all intellectuals- the reasons for the excommunications must lie elsewhere.

I will agree with you here. Radical change cannot come in an instant. This is why many prefer progression.

The question then becomes whether it truly is "progress", don't you think?

Show otherwise. I have often heard the diatribe of Mormon women who say that they don't want the priesthood because they are too busy being mothers. IMO, this is somewhat of an ignorant cop-out. I'm not saying that motherhood isn't important either.

Sorry. That's not how it works. You made the charge, you have to make it stick.

You're trying to convince the members of the Church at large that a mistake was made. It's your agenda, you have to make your case.

You're trying to change our minds, remeber? It's up to you to prove that you're right where we're wrong.

And for the record, words like "diatribe" and "ignorant cop-out" are both loaded and emotionally charged. That's an appeal to emotion, not reason.

You might disagree with the reasoning these women employed, but that doesn't make them "ignorant", nor does it mean they are "copping out".

I kindly ask for some sort of reference to this not that I question your integrity in the statement but so that I can be aware of something that I may need to retract.

As I said, I'm working from memory (which may well be incorrect)- which is why I offered the qualifier in the first place. Give me some time to double check my information and I'll get back to you.

If I'm wrong, I'll happily withdraw the charge.

Thank you for at least discussing the subject with me.

Contary to my press, I'm neither dogmatic nor blind on the subject. One of my closest friends (and the godfather to my daughters, of all things) is a practicing homosexual.

He's also one of the most honest, compassionate, and trustworthy individuals I know.

If I could be shown- truly shown- that this change was not only equitable but beneficial to society in the long run, I would support it.

Thus far, I haven't seen that to be the case.

[wenglund]

That's just absurd. How do I provide for a reference for a personal observation?

Speaking of absurd, you claim to have personally observed all of the Mormons in Califoria and how much thought they gave to the prop 8 issue before voting?

I can accept if you said that you were conjecturing wildly about Mormons throughout the state based on your relatively miniscule, and biased, personal observations.

Whatever the case, I just wanted you to know that at least I am willing to acknowledge the uncommon level of bravery you showed during the election. It takes immense courage to join the throngs of popular culture in not only promoting perversion but bad-mouthing your own faith. You are quite a guy!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

The question then becomes whether it truly is "progress", don't you think?

That ought to be the question--at least for those who are loving and favor progress, and evolution, and who seek to improve the human condition.

With productions like the movie in question and other gay-activist propaganda, this question isn't being asked. The question then becomes, why not? Why aren't they addressing that question rather than trying to smear a minor segment of thier opposition?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Sky]

sky would you mind sharing a bit more? particular when you came to realize your attraction to members of the same sex? two people I know, claimed they experienced it very early in life, but did not dated the opposite sex exclusively until their early 20's.

My early teenage years is when I came to this realization. What else, specifically, would you like to know?

Sky you do not need to answer personal questions. Frankenstein stay on topic and don't make this thread personal.

[Sky]

OP: You said you couldn't take the stress of watching it. I understand that it might be stressful, but what if it's right? What if Mormonism isn't true after all and gays deserve just as much respect as anyone else? Let's apply a little fallacious Pascal's Wager. Christians are often willing to jump on the idea: you have nothing to lose and so much to potentially gain, why not just do it? If I'm wrong, I would like to know. Hence, I'm not unwilling to expose myself to contrary ideas and new information. Anything that causes you to shun such things out of fear or discomfort cannot be a pathway to truth and light, IMO. Truth doesn't fear that which is false.

I'm simply choosing to trust my "inner gut feeling/instinct" as to why it would not be a good idea for me to see this movie. I believe part of this is the "still small voice" of the Spirit speaking, and so I just go with it and don't spend a lot of time questioning it.

Of course I think that gays deserve to be treated with as much respect as any other Human Being. And I don't believe anything in "Mormonism" teaches or says otherwise. Elder Holland said that same-gender attraction is not a sin, but it only becomes a sin when we "act out" on it. But still everybody deserves to be treated kindly, even when we "act out."

And even though I choose not to see this movie, I think that by me starting this thread demonstrates that I'm willing to expose myself to opposing viewpoints and new information. I just choose to do it in what I hope is a "safer avenue" than by me going to see the movie.

[Sky]

My early teenage years is when I came to this realization. What else, specifically, would you like to know?

Sky you do not need to answer personal questions. Frankenstein stay on topic and don't make this thread personal.

Okay, fair enough. Sorry about that. And thanks for the reminder to stay on topic - I think we could all probably use that and not just Frankenstein.

[Calm]

I was just giving my observation.

No you were not, you were giving your assumption about an internal process (thought) of a large number of people (likely over 1/2 million as that was the count in 90) based on your limited observations of external behaviours (which you were rather vague on what they were) from a limited sample size---your stake and likely only a small percentage of them, at most a couple hundred of people perhaps?

An assumption is not an observation. It is sloppy imo to equate the two, especially if one does not identify external behaviours and show a direct linkage to an internal state.

I highly doubt that very many members came up to you and stated "I've never, ever thought about this issue before, never had any personal experience with it either, but who cares since the only thing that matters is when SLC tells me to jump I jump."

I highly doubt that there are very many people living in CA who have not had some experience with the issues surrounding the gay movement before and thus likely to have given it some significant thought. I haven't lived in CA for over 30 years and even I had extensive experiences and discussions about the hows and whys gays were integrating their lifestyles with others, etc. in CA.

PS: I see narrator cannot respond, I was going to delete my comments but decided to leave them as they touch on points of why his comments were problematic that were not as clearly defined as they could be, imo.

[Daniel2]

Sky,

I applaud you for your integrity in choosing what is right over what is easy (always a courageous choice), and will keep you in my prayers in that regard.

As a warning though, you will find others here- predators- who will attempt to undermine your resolve and make you question what you know to be right (mostly to justify their own choices in the matter). The danger you clearly foresee in the film also lurks here on these boards.

Take heart and be strong (and watch where you step- it can get pretty deep) .

As to the OP, the movie is an anti-Mormon hit-piece, a bit of propagandistic foolscap designed to inflame prejudice and to distract from a fundamental truth- namely that the people of California clearly and deliberately rejected both judicial overreach and the rationales and excuse-making of the radical homosexual movement.

The people of California clearly and deliberately deprived a radical political movement of a victory to which they believed they were entitled.

It was a clear slap in the face to the radical movement- a clear and unequivocal rejection of their ideology (and theology) and a shocking blow to their smug complacency.

Rather than engage in the sort of healthy soul-searching demanded by such an loss, the leaders of the movement decided they needed a scapegoat- someone at whom to point the finger of blame.

Their native cunning caused them to pick the Mormons. Because we are a (comparatively) isolated minority with "strange" beliefs, we are both the quintessential "outsiders" and (as generally conservative Christians) a politically correct target.

It's far easier to accuse the Mormons of depriving them of their "rights" through nefarious means than to examine the real reasons for their failure.

It's far easier to make us the devil in the matter than to face the fact that the people of California rejected their agenda through considered thought and honest reason.

This, of course, was (and is) the standard practice among radical movements and failed (disfunctional) political regimes (such as the fascist/Marxist/Communist regimes of last century's eastern Europe).

Any failure of the agenda was the fault of "the Jews", "the bourgoise", "the reactionary forces of capitalism", or any of a hundred other boogeymen.

It's always easier to accuse others of villainy than to honestly admit thier failure to win the hearts and minds of the people at large.

In this instance, and with this crowd, it's far easier to create a hit-piece blaming "those evil, bigoted, nefarious Mormons" for their defeat- and the facts be damned- than to admit they lost because thinking, rational, non-bigoted Californians simply didn't like what they were selling.

It's easier to blame the Mormons for corrupting the process through money (despite the facts that: 1) the Mormon financial contributions were comparatively minor and 2) that the anti-8 crowd outspent the pro-8 crowd by a large margin).

As stated above- people will attempt to tear down what they know (in their hearts) to be right in order to justify their own foibles and weaknesses (just as Cain did when he slew Able) and will seek to demonize and destroy others rather than accept that rationale, fair-minded people might not agree with their agenda.

Welcome to the Boards, by the way.

Selek,

Have you seen the film that's the topic of this thread?

Darin (wondering if I'm one of the would-be "predators"... or, if not, who would be...?)

[Daniel2]

My wife and I, by the way, have an LDS friend who deals with SSA. I am humbled by the struggle that he endures, and I have nothing but respect for those who make the same decision.

Makelan...

I suppose when one casually ommits key peices of info, one can make a story look very reassuring and noble to others who are ignorant of the details.

Darin

[Daniel2]

And I will divulge something deeply personal about myself

[USU78]

I suppose when one casually ommits key peices of info, one can make a story look very reassuring and noble to others who are ignorant of the details.

How very ironic.

[frankenstein]

In our instant conversation, it has been well established that the folks at 50 East North Temple made the judgment that involvement with CA politics, a relatively rare occurrence indeed, was in the Church's best interests. Hence the call for material and other support for the already existing Pro-8 political machine, which was foundering, lacking leadership, and poorly funded. Archbishop Wiegend called 50 East North Temple, and the call was answered.

At no time, however, was anybody compelled to participate, donate, or get involved in any way. At no time was anyone compelled or pressured to change his mind on the subject. There were no church courts for the unwilling. There were no late-night meetings or even phone calls. There were no releases from callings. There were no protests, boycotts of businesses, no publications of names in the paper, and certainly no physical threats, assaults, or intimidation.

The Church and her members simply don't swing that way.

None of the trappings of creating a lock-step movement are or were present. There's nothing of Nietzsche's herd animals here. No sheepishness as our lecturer asserts without evidence. Nothing at all.

Nothing but free people freely associated freely speaking freely donating freely asserting convictions they freely arrived at with those who had not yet decided.

i spoke to LDS people who did not support the party line on this issue, and I know several people who do not support the party line from legal point of view, and they also see this as a legal issue. However, like myself ,the people I know did not voice their skepticism to the hyperbole designed to instill fear (not the wrath of God fear, but rather deliberate mis-interpretation of legal cases) also, consider that just about every adult member of the church knows that their Temple Rec. can be cancelled or confiscated at anytime, and that every Temple Rec. holder, knows that one of the questions has to do with for a lack of better words "going against the church". The only place I know of that actively spoke against the line that was to be towed is my present ward when the High Council Member came to instruct the members on a ballot measure in this state, I was not here for that, but the RS president says it was quite a meeting.

but for the people I know who could see through the smoke of the legal issues, perhaps like myself, they do not need propaganda.

[USU78]

i spoke to LDS people who did not support the party line on this issue, and I know several people who do not support the party line from legal point of view, and they also see this as a legal issue. However, like myself ,the people I know did not voice their skepticism to the hyperbole designed to instill fear (not the wrath of God fear, but rather deliberate mis-interpretation of legal cases)

Nonsense. You don't understand Mormons at all.

also, consider that just about every adult member of the church knows that their Temple Rec. can be cancelled or confiscated at anytime, and that every Temple Rec. holder, knows that one of the questions has to do with for a lack of better words "going against the church". The only place I know of that actively spoke against the line that was to be towed is my present ward when the High Council Member came to instruct the members on a ballot measure in this state, I was not here for that, but the RS president says it was quite a meeting.

I'd like to see a precedent for taking somebody's recommend away for failing to vote a certain way. Surely if it is such a problem for the sceptical Mormon, one could come up with a single example. Since such horror was being imposed throughout CA Mormondom, no doubt francis can find many, many examples.

And, oh yeah, this is a C.F.R.

but for the people I know who could see through the smoke of the legal issues, perhaps like myself, they do not need propaganda.

Or, perhaps, the smoke of "taking away rights" so lately created out of whole cloth?

[Jason]

...also, consider that just about every adult member of the church knows that their Temple Rec. can be cancelled or confiscated at anytime, and that every Temple Rec. holder, knows that one of the questions has to do with for a lack of better words "going against the church".

I also would like to see an example of someone who lost their recommend because they voted the wrong way on Prop 8. CFR.

[Daniel2]

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.

Interesting to see the evolution of this thread since the following post, from page one:

Your portrayal of the discussions here on this issue is very "inaccurate"....

The discussions are almost ALWAYS respectful. Sometimes with a little passion mixed in, but, almost always remain respectful.

Contrary to your portrayal, some of the threads getting shut down is usually due to the discussion being or becoming "Non-Church related". This forum is for discussing LDS issues, not a sounding board for gay issues or other issues such as politics.