Interesting Article (At Least I Found It Interesting)

[Daniel2]

Jeff,

Based on many of our interactions here on the board, it's always been clear you've felt severely persecuted by the LGBT community. It both saddens and troubles me that you've perceived so much anger and hatred so as to characterize so many of us mostly in those terms.

Equally regrettable is that it seems that trying to convince you otherwise doesn't really seem to make much of a difference.

Someday, if you're open to discussion, rather than blanket condemnation and mistrust, I'll welcome that dialogue.

Best,

Daniel2

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 13 June 2011 - 12:20 PM, said:

Do I see any reciprocity of respect?

Does it matter if you haven't? I assume you haven't does this mean you other LDS member, who claims to be a follower of Christ, are now exempt from the several statements from the Church and the several instructions from Christ via the scriptures, on how to treat your "neighbor"? A lack of reciprocity of respect is a strawman, unless you can show that said lack of respect exempts anyone from being a neighbor as explained by Christ.

A lack of reciprocity is not a strawman but I appreciate your implied acknowledgement of the hypocrisy involved in those who, like yourself attack the church, demand respect but feel there is no obligation to return it. It isn't about the church so much as a reflection of those like you who have no problem trampling upon what we hold sacred while declaring yourselves untouchable.

I am sure some will see your implication as entirely reasonable. Why hold yourselves to any standard of decency when you don't have to? No we are not exempt as Latter-day Saints from Christ's teachings, but then you seem more than willing to exempt yourselves from any Christ like behavior, which reveals who and what you really follow.

[sjdawg]

you seem more than willing to exempt yourselves from any Christ like behavior, which reveals who and what you really follow.

I always feel the love when Jeff is posting.

[Jeff K.]

A non response and a sneer. Thank you for confirming what I posted.

[sjdawg]

A non response and a sneer. Thank you for confirming what I posted.

Your Welcome. I aim to please

[Nemesis]

Knock off the personal attacks now.

Nemesis

[sjdawg]

Sorry if I crossed the line. Sometimes I get a little carried away and forget about the civility I expect of myself.

[california boy]

A lack of reciprocity is not a strawman but I appreciate your implied acknowledgement of the hypocrisy involved in those who, like yourself attack the church, demand respect but feel there is no obligation to return it. It isn't about the church so much as a reflection of those like you who have no problem trampling upon what we hold sacred while declaring yourselves untouchable.

I am sure some will see your implication as entirely reasonable. Why hold yourselves to any standard of decency when you don't have to? No we are not exempt as Latter-day Saints from Christ's teachings, but then you seem more than willing to exempt yourselves from any Christ like behavior, which reveals who and what you really follow.

It is interesting to me that you have repeatedly brought up graffiti on the temple (which is a bit of a distortion of what actually happened) as if this is the only incident of graffiti or destruction on this issue. There have been countless cases of graffiti against gay people throughout the year including tagging their houses, cars and businesses . Gay youth centers have been bombed. People have been beaten up in the streets just because they are gay. People have been fired from their jobs for being gay. Yet we haven't heard a peep from the leaders of the church directly addressing each and every one of these issues.

Are you suggesting that we should condemn the church for not responding like we want them to? Should we accuse the church and all of its members of some of the things you seem to be willing to condemn the entire gay community over? Would you like me to start posting links to all of these homophobic events that occur weekly and then wait for the church and its leaders to make a statement? just wondering what the ground rules are in your little tirade that we have all heard repeatedly on this board?

[frankenstein]

A lack of reciprocity is not a strawman but I appreciate your implied acknowledgement of the hypocrisy involved in those who, like yourself attack the church, demand respect but feel there is no obligation to return it. It isn't about the church so much as a reflection of those like you who have no problem trampling upon what we hold sacred while declaring yourselves untouchable.

CFR that I, frankenstein, have attacked the LDS Church.

CFR that I, frankenstein, demand respect but feel no obligation to return it.

CFR that I, frankenstein, have no problem trampling upon what the LDS hold sacred while declaring myself untouchable.

CFR that I, frankenstein, have trampled upon what the LDS hold sacred.

quite frankly, I can't be bothered with those who claim "tolerance" or like synonyms, and its a tired issue for me (tried several times on wikipedia) to point the hypocrisy of self-proclaimed "tolerance". A professor I had, who claimed to be tolerant pronounced to the class one day "There are just some people and groups, who should not have freedom of speech." The most terrible thing about this professor was the she taught "ethics" and was on the states ethics board for the professional license which the board over saw.

My comment about "does it matter" goes the several LDS people who I read on boards who claim some sort of "right" or "exemption" because of the way they are treated. Now, section 98 might be a place to start in claiming "exemption" but I am not sure how much of a individual right a person has under section 98 when the offender has not singled out the individual but has gone after the group.

[Jeff K.]

It is interesting to me that you have repeatedly brought up graffiti on the temple (which is a bit of a distortion of what actually happened) as if this is the only incident of graffiti or destruction on this issue. There have been countless cases of graffiti against gay people throughout the year including tagging their houses, cars and businesses . Gay youth centers have been bombed. People have been beaten up in the streets just because they are gay. People have been fired from their jobs for being gay. Yet we haven't heard a peep from the leaders of the church directly addressing each and every one of these issues.

Are you suggesting that we should condemn the church for not responding like we want them to? Should we accuse the church and all of its members of some of the things you seem to be willing to condemn the entire gay community over? Would you like me to start posting links to all of these homophobic events that occur weekly and then wait for the church and its leaders to make a statement? just wondering what the ground rules are in your little tirade that we have all heard repeatedly on this board?

Amazing California Boy, while people who happen to attack the church you seek justification. On the ohter hand I know of no Latter-day Saints who have bombed clinics, tagged gay businesses or homes, or gay youth centers. If you know of any LDS who have done that I will be the first to condemn them for it. I will not look for a way to justify it, state they have legitimate reasons, or even suggest that I sympathize with them, or even minimize such attacks. But if it attacks the church, its amazing how defensive of those attacks you have become. It reflects a somewhat warped view of what is or is not permissible when attacking Mormons.

The church responds accordingly and has always condemned any attacks upon people based on their orientation. It is a shame the gay community cannot do the same, nor condemn attacks upon temples, or members whose jobs have been lost. Seems somewhat hypocritical if you ask me.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 13 June 2011 - 01:16 PM, said:

A lack of reciprocity is not a strawman but I appreciate your implied acknowledgement of the hypocrisy involved in those who, like yourself attack the church, demand respect but feel there is no obligation to return it. It isn't about the church so much as a reflection of those like you who have no problem trampling upon what we hold sacred while declaring yourselves untouchable.

CFR that I, frankenstein, have attacked the LDS Church.

CFR that I, frankenstein, demand respect but feel no obligation to return it.

CFR that I, frankenstein, have no problem trampling upon what the LDS hold sacred while declaring myself untouchable.

CFR that I, frankenstein, have trampled upon what the LDS hold sacred.

quite frankly, I can't be bothered with those who claim "tolerance" or like synonyms, and its a tired issue for me (tried several times on wikipedia) to point the hypocrisy of self-proclaimed "tolerance". A professor I had, who claimed to be tolerant pronounced to the class one day "There are just some people and groups, who should not have freedom of speech." The most terrible thing about this professor was the she taught "ethics" and was on the states ethics board for the professional license which the board over saw.

My comment about "does it matter" goes the several LDS people who I read on boards who claim some sort of "right" or "exemption" because of the way they are treated. Now, section 98 might be a place to start in claiming "exemption" but I am not sure how much of a individual right a person has under section 98 when the offender has not singled out the individual but has gone after the group.

If you endorse the lack of reciprocity and respect you pretty much endorse attacking the church. A shame you can't see that. I suggest you read section 98 with a clearer understanding as to what it means versus what you think it means. I realize you might not be bothered by saints who have lost their jobs because they gave to a cause they deemed important. Or that people are hounded and spat upon during prop 8, as I was and those around me. All of this of course means nothing to you. After all, we deserved it didn't we? It is so easy to condemn a group unless you realize that group is made up of individuals who don't hate, but disagree. While the response to them has been blatant viceral hate. Perhaps you endorse such things, perhaps you think section 98 gives license to such things. Perhaps the Nauvoo legion was really nothing more than a response to the desperate need for parades and picnics. Or perhaps you don't really understand section 98 at all. Defending one's self and bringing to light the actions against the church fit in quite well. Again, I suggest you reread the section more carefully. You seem to be missing much of it. I for one have yet to see anyone in the gay community condemning anything that was done. Nor has anyone who has carried out these heinous acts asked for forgiveness.

Feel free to continue justifying the attacks, but please, don't use scriptures you don't understand.

[TAO]

California boy, the problem you have is that you classify the church as part of 'everyone else'. You should base the church on the church's actions, that way others can base you on yours.

If you wish to comment on the church... separate it from those it disassociates with, and dissociate yourself with those of your community who do not do those things which you support.

You will be responsible for the things you support, just as the church will be responsible for what it supports.

That is they key really, in this issue - people comparing the extremist sides of both movements, and using them as justification. It is a great worry indeed =/.

It is one reason I don't like classifying the gay community with groups like 'Bash Back'. But it kinda stinks when they don't show us the same courtesy.

Humble Wishes, =0

TAO

EDIT (to everyone, not just to california boy): This whole thread reminds me of what a class-mate said in class one day. That he 'had a hard time tolerating intolerance'. This really is what it's about, I think... if begs the question... if you can't tolerate intolerance, why are you tolerating yourself? For are not you being intolerant? I mean... shouldn't we take what Voltaire said to heart... I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. The way things are going these days, I'm not sure it's gonna be around that much longer =/.

[cdowis]

Its offensive that anti-gay rights activists calls themselves defenders of traditional families,

OK, that is a true statement. And you can call yourself an advocate of non-traditional families. Why are you offended? It is merely a fact.

You are very sensitive, and must be offended every day by someone or something. Grow up!

when not one traditional family is in any way placed in peril if their gay neighbors are allowed to marry.

And how do you know that? How do you know the consequences of changing the rules of marriage, not only on this generation but also the next? I happen to believe that marriage, and society will suffer severe consequences, which cannot be undone.

Have you noticed that no society has same sex marriages for ten thousand years of history. Why is that? I am offended by your attempt to destroy society with your social experiments.

[Stargazer]

While you may disagree with the stand the response article makes concerning Elder Porter's article, it seems like an honest analysis of his view point. Is there anything about his response that you think distorts what Elder Porter is writing about? Is there anything about his response to the churches anti gay marriage position that is a distortion of the churches official stance? Doesn't the church call for political action against gay famlies from being married? Don't you think that there are some members of the church that are struggling with the civli rights of this whole issue? Are those members "wicked" as well if they also feel this consistant political attack against gay marriage is wrong? Do you believe that anyone who honestly disagrees with the churches position on gay marriage to be "wicked". And maybe you could point to the unfair malice towards the church you found contained in this article.

Like Danzo said, "Nothing unusual in the talk" and nothing unusual about the response of those that disagree with the churches position.

I don't necessarily believe that those who disagree with the church's position on gay marriage to be "wicked". I believe that those who cannot find fault with the words, but must rely upon "code words" alone to find fault, well I think they are behaving wickedly. I read the article Porter wrote. I compared it with the Kos article. The Kos article is reaching a spectacular distance in order to get so overwrought about it all. The only reason the Kos author is raising Cain about it at all is because Porter is an official of the hated Mormon church. Otherwise, the article would have pretty much flown under the radar along with all the other essays and articles that have said something about the subject. In fact, Porter's article didn't really take any special potshots at gay marriage. The greatest part of it dealt with defense of marraige against all the onslughts directed at it from all corners, gay marriage itself being only a small though significant part.

The church and the vast majority of its believing members believe that the term "gay marriage" is a complete oxymoron. That's a fact. May the fact not be expressed? Must we be silent while the advocates for it are permitted free reign to speak? The fact is the Kos article's author and others of his POV do not want expression of the opposite point of view -- even if the expression of opposition comes in the form of a very mild form, as in Porter's article. There is no slavering aggression, no call for physical action against proponents of gay marriage. But I notice that violence and the threat of violence has been a hallmark of the proponents.

whereas the traditional marriage advocates aren't address those who

CB, marriage has been between man and woman for millenia. No civilization, no matter how "enlightened" or how "depraved" has ever regarded same sex relationships as a marriage; nor is there evidence of any non-civliizations with such a recognized relationship. You may wish to say that it is about time for this to be recognized, but this is beside the point. Those who write against gay marriage are not trying to deny "equal rights" in any form whatsoever.

[frankenstein]

If you endorse the lack of reciprocity and respect you pretty much endorse attacking the church. A shame you can't see that.

The real shame is that you accuse me of things, and you refuse to back up those claims.

Notice that in first post of your false claims against me, you accuse me specifically of attacking the Church. I asked for a CFR on such an accusation and all you provide is a conditional statement. Unless you can show that I attack the LDS Church I would appreciate that you change your posts.

I realize you might not be bothered by saints who have lost their jobs because they gave to a cause they deemed important. Or that people are hounded and spat upon during prop 8, as I was and those around me. All of this of course means nothing to you. After all, we deserved it didn't we?

art thou greater than He?

here is what I can't be bothered about:

I can't be bothered with those who claim "tolerance" or like synonyms, [as] its a tired issue for me ... to point the hypocrisy of self-proclaimed "tolerance".

[Jeff K.]

The full context.

Quote

Jeff K., on 13 June 2011 - 12:20 PM, said:

Do I see any reciprocity of respect?

frankenstein, on 13 June 2011 - 12:30 PM, said:

Does it matter if you haven't? I assume you haven't does this mean you other LDS member, who claims to be a follower of Christ, are now exempt from the several statements from the Church and the several instructions from Christ via the scriptures, on how to treat your "neighbor"? A lack of reciprocity of respect is a strawman, unless you can show that said lack of respect exempts anyone from being a neighbor as explained by Christ.

A lack of reciprocity is not a strawman but I appreciate your implied acknowledgement of the hypocrisy involved in those who, like yourself attack the church, demand respect but feel there is no obligation to return it. It isn't about the church so much as a reflection of those like you who have no problem trampling upon what we hold sacred while declaring yourselves untouchable.

I am sure some will see your implication as entirely reasonable. Why hold yourselves to any standard of decency when you don't have to? No we are not exempt as Latter-day Saints from Christ's teachings, but then you seem more than willing to exempt yourselves from any Christ like behavior, which reveals who and what you really follow.

Some are fine with the attacks upon members who made the choice to follow the prophets advice. They probably think the results were somehow deserved. I merely ask those who claim to want respect, that they should also do the same. And fo rthose who seem think we dare not utter the demand that we be respected, that some sort of reciprical civility be established. Well, I presume they are fine with saints being driven from their jobs rather than have that civility in place. Otherwise why argue against it? Unless of course one doesn't care, or one cannot be bothered by it. After all, if it isn't a person's own job, why worry about some other poor schmuck of a saint that decided to listen to the prophet and ask for respect for his opinion? Why indeed. Some of us don't consider ourselves our brothers keeper. Some of us are fine with the persecution.

Me, I am not one of those.

[california boy]

Amazing California Boy, while people who happen to attack the church you seek justification. On the ohter hand I know of no Latter-day Saints who have bombed clinics, tagged gay businesses or homes, or gay youth centers. If you know of any LDS who have done that I will be the first to condemn them for it. I will not look for a way to justify it, state they have legitimate reasons, or even suggest that I sympathize with them, or even minimize such attacks. But if it attacks the church, its amazing how defensive of those attacks you have become. It reflects a somewhat warped view of what is or is not permissible when attacking Mormons.

The church responds accordingly and has always condemned any attacks upon people based on their orientation. It is a shame the gay community cannot do the same, nor condemn attacks upon temples, or members whose jobs have been lost. Seems somewhat hypocritical if you ask me.

THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. Not everyone who is gay is spray painting the church and attacking it yet you want to paint a broad brush to the whole group. The church is part of the group attacking gay marriage, yet you want them thought of as seperate from the rest of the mob. Do you get it???

There were certainly many who condemned attacks upon the things you have stated. To say that NOBODY said anything is like saying why isn't the church leaders commenting on EVERY attack against those that are gay. Some members speak out, most don't. Should we lump everyone who is attacking gay marriage in the same group?

[california boy]

California boy, the problem you have is that you classify the church as part of 'everyone else'. You should base the church on the church's actions, that way others can base you on yours.

If you wish to comment on the church... separate it from those it disassociates with, and dissociate yourself with those of your community who do not do those things which you support.

You will be responsible for the things you support, just as the church will be responsible for what it supports.

That is they key really, in this issue - people comparing the extremist sides of both movements, and using them as justification. It is a great worry indeed =/.

It is one reason I don't like classifying the gay community with groups like 'Bash Back'. But it kinda stinks when they don't show us the same courtesy.

Humble Wishes, =0

TAO

EDIT (to everyone, not just to california boy): This whole thread reminds me of what a class-mate said in class one day. That he 'had a hard time tolerating intolerance'. This really is what it's about, I think... if begs the question... if you can't tolerate intolerance, why are you tolerating yourself? For are not you being intolerant? I mean... shouldn't we take what Voltaire said to heart... I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. The way things are going these days, I'm not sure it's gonna be around that much longer =/.

I am not willing to lump everyone against gay marriage in the same pot and is all I am asking is that Jeff quit lumping everyone in the gay community in the same pot. I certainly have never done anything to despair the church. I don't even disagree with the churches position on how they feel about gay marriage. They have a right to believe anything that they want. And they have a right to teach their members to believe that it is wrong. I have even said countless times on this board that they have a right to get involved in politics on any issue they wish. It doesn't mean that I am going to not express my views on this subject. And it doesn't mean that I am going to let inflammatory statements to go on without commenting on them. I have learned long ago that JeffK is willing to paint a broad brush to condemn the gay community. I have also learned long ago that he is willing to ignore other's comments that he disagrees with in order to maintain his position. There is no dialogue here. Most of the time I read his rants and move on. When he makes a valid point, I consider it. This rant is a common one he makes. i have ignored it most of the time when he has expressed his views. The church does not want to be lumped together with all of the other people who commit violence against the gay community because they are not a part of that violence. If JeffK would just say there are SOME in the gay community are willing to resort to violence. or ONE person spray painted the church temple fence, then I would have no issue with what he states. But that is NOT what his posts claim.

I am just saying, probably on deaf ears, that those in the gay community don't like being lumped together either. Is that so unfair?

[SeattleGhostWriter]

THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. Not everyone who is gay is spray painting the church and attacking it yet you want to paint a broad brush to the whole group. The church is part of the group attacking gay marriage, yet you want them thought of as seperate from the rest of the mob. Do you get it???

There were certainly many who condemned attacks upon the things you have stated. To say that NOBODY said anything is like saying why isn't the church leaders commenting on EVERY attack against those that are gay. Some members speak out, most don't. Should we lump everyone who is attacking gay marriage in the same group?

On the one hand I agree with you. Only a minor group of individuals overstepped the bounds of peaceful and civil protest. Yet, this same aspect is not given. It really is pathetic and senseless that the HRC goes out of their way to deviously make a fallacious claim, tout it as factual, and spread it out like a gasoline fire among many people who swallow the lie hook, line, and sinker. This article does the very same thing.

The essential theme of the argument in the article dwells on the fact that the LGBT community wants the General Authorities to refrain from performing their calling as prophets, apostles, and stand as a voice of warning in a darkening world. In preparing the first part of my response to the article, I came across a quote by Dallin H. Oaks that solidifies the real position of those who attack the General Authorities (whether this attack is as sublime and non-threatening to the most violent and tyrannical attack), many do not want the Church to make statements against their behavior and day-to-day living:

After citing some notable case studies and situations where the American Civil Liberties Union attacked the religious positions on public debate and policy, Elder Oaks state this interesting truth:

Apparently, churchmen can preach morality and religion as long as they do not suggest that their particular brand of religion has any connection with morality or that the resulting morality has any connection with political policies. Stated otherwise, religious preaching is okay so long as it has no practical impact on the listener’s day-to-day behavior, especially any behavior that has anything to do with political activity or public policy.

Since the reviewer, and many others of his perceptual worldview, claim that General Authorities have no reason in providing commentary on political policies and public discourse and debates, they are essentially saying that the Church has no authority to warn them, chastise them, or rebuke them for their day-to-day behavior. This, of course, is wrong and it is a simple attempt for them to silence the Church because of what they view as offensive, condemning, and violation of their rights. In essence, they hold to a worldview and perception that there are no moral absolutes and that moral relativism is the more acceptable social agenda for society today. Regardless of his opinion, the Church not only has the right to speak out against those public policies that are a danger to society and the traditional family, the leaders are obligated and called to warn the members of society, as well as members of the Church, against the dangers of moral relativism.

[Log]

I can't help but be reminded of these words in similar exchanges in the scriptures:

ecause I have told you the truth ye are angry with me. And again, because I have spoken the word of God ye have judged me that I am mad. Yea, and I perceive that it cuts you to your hearts because I tell you the truth concerning your iniquities. Yea, and my words fill you with wonder and amazement, and with anger.

[T]he guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center. f ye were righteous and were willing to hearken to the truth, and give heed unto it, that ye might walk uprightly before God, then ye would not murmur because of the truth, and say: Thou speakest hard things against us.

[california boy]

On the one hand I agree with you. Only a minor group of individuals overstepped the bounds of peaceful and civil protest. Yet, this same aspect is not given. It really is pathetic and senseless that the HRC goes out of their way to deviously make a fallacious claim, tout it as factual, and spread it out like a gasoline fire among many people who swallow the lie hook, line, and sinker. This article does the very same thing.

The essential theme of the argument in the article dwells on the fact that the LGBT community wants the General Authorities to refrain from performing their calling as prophets, apostles, and stand as a voice of warning in a darkening world. In preparing the first part of my response to the article, I came across a quote by Dallin H. Oaks that solidifies the real position of those who attack the General Authorities (whether this attack is as sublime and non-threatening to the most violent and tyrannical attack), many do not want the Church to make statements against their behavior and day-to-day living:

There is plenty of fallacious claim, tout as factual, and spread out like a gasoline fire among many people who swallow the lie hook, line, and sinker on both sides of this issue. I remember during the prop 8 campaign an invsestigative reporter was asked about some of the statements made against gay marriage. He stated. "There is a kernal of truth, but the prop 8 campaign have managed to pop an entire bowl of popcorn with that one kernel. I think this is true on both sides of this issue.

As i have posted before, I completely agree with yours and Elder Oaks poisition. The church has a right and duty to express their beliefs publically. They have a right to teach their members clearly what those beliefs are. This article is just pointing out that this posiition has not changed in the church. The general authorities are still teaching this belief. What I don't quite understand is why any member would not want someone to write an article pointing this out? Is it some kind of news that there are those individuals in the LGBT community that wants the General Authorities to refrain from teaching this belief. Is anyone surprised that one person who disagrees with this belief is condemning the churches position on gay marriage and will continue to condemn that position every time it is expressed? I think it is a resonable assumption to believe every time the church makes a statement condemning gay marriage, there will be those that respond to that statement. It is not going away until gay marriage is legal in this country no matter how long that takes.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 13 June 2011 - 05:58 PM, said:

Amazing California Boy, while people who happen to attack the church you seek justification. On the ohter hand I know of no Latter-day Saints who have bombed clinics, tagged gay businesses or homes, or gay youth centers. If you know of any LDS who have done that I will be the first to condemn them for it. I will not look for a way to justify it, state they have legitimate reasons, or even suggest that I sympathize with them, or even minimize such attacks. But if it attacks the church, its amazing how defensive of those attacks you have become. It reflects a somewhat warped view of what is or is not permissible when attacking Mormons.

The church responds accordingly and has always condemned any attacks upon people based on their orientation. It is a shame the gay community cannot do the same, nor condemn attacks upon temples, or members whose jobs have been lost. Seems somewhat hypocritical if you ask me.

THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. Not everyone who is gay is spray painting the church and attacking it yet you want to paint a broad brush to the whole group. The church is part of the group attacking gay marriage, yet you want them thought of as seperate from the rest of the mob. Do you get it???

There were certainly many who condemned attacks upon the things you have stated. To say that NOBODY said anything is like saying why isn't the church leaders commenting on EVERY attack against those that are gay. Some members speak out, most don't. Should we lump everyone who is attacking gay marriage in the same group?

Silence is endorsement. The gay community does not condemn the acts of the those few. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. If you don't condemn it, you, by your silence enforse it. No, there weren't many, there were few who condemned the attacks, in fact the one or two were drowned out by people who thought it was justified given the circumstance. The general theme was "The Mormons deserved it". Kind of like Missouri in an earlier time.

[Jeff K.]

Please, let me know which Mormons drove men out of their jobs because a person voted against Prop 8. I would love to see someone step up and let us know. Otherwise it appears to me that you are on the wrong side of that variable.

[Jaybear]

Please, let me know which Mormons drove men out of their jobs because a person voted against Prop 8. I would love to see someone step up and let us know. Otherwise it appears to me that you are on the wrong side of that variable.

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff. You have it wrong once again.

What happens in the voting booth is private. No one lost their job for how they voted.

The question is whether those who openly and publicly advocate for a policy position that is contrary to the interest of their employer should be secure in their position.

If you ask the LDS Church, the answer is no. The LDS Church position on private belief/public advocacy is as follows:

"There is room in the [LDS] Church for honest disagreement regarding church positions," LDS Spokesman Scott Trotter said. "Disagreement on doctrine only becomes an issue when a church member acts in open opposition to the church or its leaders."

This is why Jeffrey Nielson lost his job at BYU, when spoke out in favor of gay rights.

This is why Peter Danzig was suspended from the LDS Orchestra when he spoke out in support of Jeffrey Nielson.

JEFF: Silence is endorsement. The gay community does not condemn the acts of the those few. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. If you don't condemn it, you, by your silence enforse it. No, there weren't many, there were few who condemned the attacks, in fact the one or two were drowned out by people who thought it was justified given the circumstance. The general theme was "The Mormons deserved it". Kind of like Missouri in an earlier time.

Your allegation of graffiti on LDS temples turns out to be one incident of graffiti sprayed on the gates of one LDS Temple.

Yes we should all speak out. If that is the extend of the vandalism of LDS property by gay rights activists, they should be loudly publicly applauded for the exemplary restraint they have displayed in response to the Church's relentless attack on gay rights.

Gay right advocates and their supporters know that vandalism and violence is not the answer. As you seem to agree, you should give them credit for walking the walk.

[california boy]

Silence is endorsement. The gay community does not condemn the acts of the those few. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. If you don't condemn it, you, by your silence enforse it. No, there weren't many, there were few who condemned the attacks, in fact the one or two were drowned out by people who thought it was justified given the circumstance. The general theme was "The Mormons deserved it". Kind of like Missouri in an earlier time.

Silence is endorsement huh. Then you are suggesting that the church endorces the bombing of the LGBT center in Jersulem last year. Or the two brothers killed in NYC last year because someone thought they were gay, or the handicapped man kicked out of a public pool in Kentucky last week because he was gay or Tracy Morgans homophobic remarks made last week.

You still feeling good about your position on silence is endorcement belief? Or maybe you want to reconsider? Naw not going to happen is it. You like your "I am a victim status" too much.