Lds Persecution Question.

[Calm]

FWIW, my experience with EVs has been the opposite of Storm Rider's.

[california boy]

This was not persecution but prosecution. Polygamy was illegal. Mormons were breaking the law.

People who break the law, believing they are acting in furtherance of higher calling or principle, always seem to claim persecution when they are brought to justice.

More accurately, after hostilities broke out, the Governor threatened the Mormons with "extermination" or removal. The Mormons choose to leave, bringing an end to the hostilities. Mormons were not actually exterminated, as you seem to imply.

This order bears a striking parallel to the Danite Manifesto, by which Mormon dissenters were threatened with death if they choose not to leave the county.

I also suspect Boggs chose the word "extermination" in response to Rigdon's threat of a war a extermination.

I completely disagree with you. It was persecution. Passing the laws against polygamy was also persecution. People should be allowed to marry who they want. It is not the governments or other peoples business. To pass such laws and then to forceably destroy other Americans lives is wrong. Taking away assets of the church because of their religious beliefs was wrong. It is not what we beleve in in this country.

I agree with many here that the thing that makes the persecution so haniosu is the fact that it was done through the government in a country that made a solom pledge to its citizens to protect their religious freedom. When the government sanctions unjustice, then citizens justify their own prejudices and actions. Those false justifications are still going on today. I look forward to the day when all people in this country can live without hatred for what others preceive is not like them.

[california boy]

Yeah, okay. I guess if you can't admit you are wrong, you should play that card.

Your first false statement:

Yes you did.

You said: At no other time in the history of the USA has a state actually chosen to exterminate a people except for this single event.

Note you did not say "...chosen to THREATEN TO exterminate."

Your second false statement:

Nothing I said stated or implied that the LDS were to "blame." That is just your imagination getting the better of you.

Danites were Mormons. The extermination order was directed at Mormons. See the connection.

We live in a different time.

I didn't say the governor was being spiteful, or that his feelings were hurt. I simply suggested its not a coincidence that employed the same term Rigdon employed. As for RIgdon being merely "a man." Did he not have an official position with the LDS Church?

Are you somehow trying to justify the extermination order imposed by government officials because they actually did not execute anyone? Do you not think that when the government makes such a law, it justifies those who are not elected officials to carry out such an order? Personally I think it was one of the most gross embarrassments the government has ever done against any people in its history. Do we believe in religious liberty in this country or not. Evidently you think liberty can be selective. Something I find quite appalling to someone who thinks gays are treated unequally by that same government.

This same kind of government sponsored discrimination against the gay community is at the heart of why gays are routinely beat up, bullied and murdered in this country today. It is why I beleive, the violence against blacks just because they were black has almost gone away completely in this country once the government quite discriminating against that group of people.

[LeSellers]

As far as I know, there is no official count of deaths (or injuries) due to the intense persecutions of the XIX~XX. Even if there were, we'd be left to wonder if "collateral damage" was included.

For instance, Joseph Smith, Sen., died as an indirect result of those persecutions. So did Joseph's son the same night he, Joseph, Jr., was tarred and feathered, and Don Carlos when his older brothers were martyred. We they counted in any official tally? How many died on the Atlantic voyage from England and Europe who would not have had to make the journey if their countrymen had not attacked them (or threatened to) in "the old country"?

Whatever the recorded numbers, they are low. Whatever the real sum, the fact is that thousands of men, women and children were forced to leave their homes to avoid further suffering in at least three places. More suffering, based solely on religious grounds, occurred in Deseret/Utah at the hands of government officials rammed down the throats of the Saints. These men, with their trollops at their sides, harangued the Saints from their tax-funded preached on the evils of Plural Marriage, while they stole tax monies and blamed the Saints for their failures.

They lied to Buchanan about the Saints, accusing them of treason, and brought down an army bent on their destruction. This forced the Saints to abandon, once again, homes and lands they had worked on and improved for a decade. They were forced to abandon permanent settlements in Carson City and Las Vegas as well as dozens of others in the now state of Nevada and California. The "Great Move South" was not cheap.

Senator Reed Smoot (no fan of him, as a politician, am I) was not seated for years because, while not a "cohab" himself, he belonged to a Church that had once, a decade earlier, practice Plural Marriage. The ancient Prophet, Joseph F. Smith, was forced to reveal the sacred Temple ceremonies and divulge the most intimate of details about his life with his wives; at his own expense, of course—government does not pay for its mistakes and abuses.

As late as 1912, there were attacks on "Mormonism" in scholarly papers and the popular press that rival anything published about the Saints two millennia ago. On that front, the persecution still rails.

It's not all about death and bloodshed. It is about Satan and his attempts to thwart the work of God.

Lehi

[Jaybear]

Are you somehow trying to justify the extermination order imposed by government officials because they actually did not execute anyone?

If I was "somehow trying to justify" the extermination order, you wouldn't have to ask that question.

Do you disagree that there is a material difference between threatening to kill someone if they don't leave, and actually killing them.

I completely disagree with you. It was persecution. Passing the laws against polygamy was also persecution.

There were laws agaisnt polygamy before Smith introduced the practice to the saints.

When they stopped the illegal practice, they were left alone.

[Sleeper Cell]

I completely disagree with you. It was persecution. Passing the laws against polygamy was also persecution. People should be allowed to marry who they want. It is not the governments or other peoples business.

Not necessarily. If people want to marry on their own, it is not the government’s business. On the other hand, once they choose to apply to the government for a marriage license (or otherwise seek the government’s sanction for their marriage), it becomes the government’s business. If you don’t want the government involved, don’t ask the government to get involved.

Had the laws against polygamy simply forbade the territory from issuing marriage licenses for polygamous marriages, that would have been one thing. However, they also criminalized privately sanctioned marriages -- even those entered into before the anti-polygamy laws were passed.

[LeSellers]

When they stopped the illegal practice [of Plural Marriage], they were left alone.

That's false. The persecution went on for a great while, and continues, albeit somewhat diminished, today, even though no valid Saint has practiced Plural Marriage since the very early XX.

It is also interesting that no other group or individuals who practice polygyny has been attacked as the Saints were. Even Tom Green would have been ignored except he made it a major point and went country-wide with it on television. Oh, and since he was once affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it also made good fodder for the gossip mills.

There is a fairly large Christian group (see Truth Bearer, among others), who believe that polygyny is the biblically mandated form of marriage. No law enforcement officers have raided their web site and destroyed their families, although they do try to keep a relatively low profile.

Even in the XIX, when Joseph and Brigham were practicing Plural Marriage, they were far from alone, and if there were any major efforts to stop any others, I have not heard of them.

Lehi

Edited October 13, 2011 by LeSellers

[seriously honestly]

I agree. It is a never-ending, arrogant position that does not seem to stop. Somehow they feel entitled to dictate to us what we believe, what we emphasize in our teachings, while maintiaining a closed position of never hearing they are wrong. Strange set of circumstances LDS are forced to deal with. I suspect it may just be a common problem of the minority-majority positions, but it seems more than that; something visceral.

As a group I dislike EVs; they are the type of people that would be ready to hang Jesus on the cross again without any understanding of their actions. I am reminded of Ionescos' Rhinoceros. I think they run totally on emotion without rational thought and move in large groups mindlessly.

Based on your dislike for EVs, you probably wouldn't vote for, hire, lend a helping hand to, or allow your children to socialize with one, would you?.

And why the dislike anyway? Is the EV themself, their "EVness", or their beliefs?

[thesometimesaint]

Seriously Honestly:

I voted for Jimmy Carter. Seriously and Honestly I have more important things to worry about than someone's religion. Seriously and Honestly as long as you allow me to believe any silly thing I want. I'm more than willing to let you believe any silly thing you want.

[Calm]

And why the dislike anyway? Is the EV themself, their "EVness", or their beliefs?

I think Storm Rider was pretty clear it is based on his observations of how they treat others....

Just as my generally positive view is based on my experience with EVs.

[Storm Rider]

Yeah, okay. I guess if you can't admit you are wrong, you should play that card.

You said: At no other time in the history of the USA has a state actually chosen to exterminate a people except for this single event.

Note you did not say "...chosen to THREATEN TO exterminate."

Okay, let's play stupid ball one more time. Read it slow so that you understand. If I say, "you either leave or I will kill you" what is being stated? Here is a hint (remember to read it slowly so that you comprehend. If you do not leave I will KILL you. That KILL word (another word for E-X-T-E-R-M-I-N-A-T-E) is the give away. I don't have to kill you to prove I will, but if you don't leave I will kill you. Are you catching the logic yet? Don't read faster; go slower and it will be better for everyone. Let's move on to the next short inning.

Danites were Mormons. The extermination order was directed at Mormons. See the connection. We live in a different time.

A Mormon is not THE Mormons just as a Catholic is not the Catholic Church. Do you get the connection? A church is not responsible for the actions of a small minority of members. Remember go slow. That is stupid ball inning number two if you are counting.

I didn't say the governor was being spiteful, or that his feelings were hurt. I simply suggested its not a coincidence that employed the same term Rigdon employed. As for RIgdon being merely "a man." Did he not have an official position with the LDS Church?

We are just moving right along. I hope you are holding on for this very fast ride through logic. I know it is difficult, but it will not last much longer. You implied that a governor of a US state used a term because a citizen used the same one. So we have a governor that is an spiteful twit or a governor that can be intimidated by the words of a citizen. Are you even remotely aware of how badly newspaper articlese were written at that time? Obviously not. Boggs could not be intimidated by anyone and he was the governor for a reason. He used the word because he meant to use the word. I hope I am not going to fast for you.

Sometimes talking with some participants is like working a candy machine. Put in the coin, press the button, and out pops the same candy bar everytime. Anti-Mormons are the same. They hear a statment, it presses a button and out pops the same drivel that has been around for decades. Nothing new, just the same old mental slop. Parrots repeat words, but they don't really understand what they are saying. One needs a coin, but they are both just put the same thing: mindless silliness.

That is about all I can take of silliness, cheers.

[Jaybear]

Okay, let's play stupid ball one more time. Read it slow so that you understand. If I say, "you either leave or I will kill you" what is being stated? Here is a hint (remember to read it slowly so that you comprehend. If you do not leave I will KILL you. That KILL word (another word for E-X-T-E-R-M-I-N-A-T-E) is the give away. I don't have to kill you to prove I will, but if you don't leave I will kill you. Are you catching the logic yet? Don't read faster; go slower and it will be better for everyone. Let's move on to the next short inning.

That is a "threat".

You said: At no other time in the history of the USA has a state actually chosen to exterminate a people except for this single event.

I pointed out that the word "threat" or "threaten" is missing from your factual allegation. Without that simple but important word, one could infer from your statement, that on order from the Governor, the State proceeded to round up and shot Mormons.

Personally, I choose to be more precise in my use of language. You seem to favor hyperbole, and personal attacks. To each their own.

In the future, if you choose to engage me in a discussion, I would appreciate it if you would stick to substance and avoid petty name calling.

[ERayR]

That is a "threat".

You said: At no other time in the history of the USA has a state actually chosen to exterminate a people except for this single event.

I pointed out that the word "threat" or "threaten" is missing from your factual allegation. Without that simple but important word, one could infer from your statement, that on order from the Governor, the State proceeded to round up and shot Mormons.

Personally, I choose to be more precise in my use of language. You seem to favor hyperbole, and personal attacks. To each their own.

In the future, if you choose to engage me in a discussion, I would appreciate it if you would stick to substance and avoid petty name calling.

Jaybear:

Brace up old buddy it was an order, an either/or, either the Mormons leave MO. or be exterminated. It wasn't a threat it was an order. Sounds to me like they had pretty much decided to exterminate them. But then in cases like this I tend to take people at their word. Perhaps you might equivocate if it were you giving the order.

[KevinG]

Jaybear:

Brace up old buddy it was an order, an either/or, either the Mormons leave MO. or be exterminated. It wasn't a threat it was an order. Sounds to me like they had pretty much decided to exterminate them. But then in cases like this I tend to take people at their word. Perhaps you might equivocate if it were you giving the order.

It was an extermination order. Even the state of MO. recognized this and issued an apology to the LDS Church generations later.

Lets just say I don't feel persecuted as a Saint in the 21st century. Misunderstood, slandered at times yes. Not persecuted.

We've come a long way in the publics perception of us and our beliefs.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That is a "threat".

You said: At no other time in the history of the USA has a state actually chosen to exterminate a people except for this single event.

I pointed out that the word "threat" or "threaten" is missing from your factual allegation. Without that simple but important word, one could infer from your statement, that on order from the Governor, the State proceeded to round up and shot Mormons.

Personally, I choose to be more precise in my use of language. You seem to favor hyperbole, and personal attacks. To each their own.

In the future, if you choose to engage me in a discussion, I would appreciate it if you would stick to substance and avoid petty name calling.

I wonder if we were to substitute Mormon for gay or being gay in these scenarios. Would Jaybear have a different opinion on the matters? I bet he would.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Storm Rider]

@ All, thanks for your responses. My initial search for information on the topic, yielded little, thus the impetus for me to open a thread on it.

Especially appreciative of the links. Based on what I have read so far, I am in agreement with some the posters like Storm Rider, in that this Extermination order It would appear to be something that would be unforgettable.

However, in terms of physical suffering, loss of life and that sort of thing it sounds like the exodus of LDS to the West was the highest. Though I suppose such an event is directly tied to the Extermination order. If anyone is aware of more specific documentation on the Westward traverse of LDS, please post a link.

While I do think opting not to vote for someone on religious grounds is prejudicial, I don't see such a thing as persecution. I don't think the polls actually indicate the vast majority of Americans hold such a prejudice. I was thinking it was around the 25% mark.

I think if you limit the term to physcial violence, then would be correct. Dictionary.com reads: "1. to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently. 2. to annoy or trouble persistently." This definition is much broader than the one you are using. It would seem being consistently called a cult, unworthy of government offices, etc. would classify as annoying. What do you think?

I think if you feel that because a non-LDS person feels uncomfortable voting for an LDS is an act of persecution, then IMO you do have a bit of a complex.

Uncomfortable voting? The polls have been moving in favor of accepting the LDS Church and LDS, but we still get the majority of people unwilling to vote for a Mormon. My recommendation is to be a Mormon for a while. Have the majority of Christians tell you that you cannot possibly be a follower of Jesus Christ; see enlightened "pastors" (men of God) repeatedly call you a member of a cult; have your neighbors and county residents tell their children not to play with your children because they are LDS; I can go on. You think you might have a bit of a complex? Brother, you do begin to comprehend what some LDS go through just to be a LDS in this free country.

As far as hiring practices, I don't imagine LDS are underemployed in comparison to other religions. So you may be making a faulty parallel. I think the same could be said for charitable action.

The decision to not socialize children, would be prejudicial for sure. But I don't think if such were the case, the parental intent would be to persecute LDS either. Also, if these circumstances exist.. it is possible that their inverse exists where heavy concentrations of LDS are prevalent in comparison to other religious views.

They do exist and continue to exist. I think you really lack an understanding of what it is like being a LDS in the south and other parts of the world. The Church is not Utah and Idaho. It sounds like what you are saying is that two wrongs make it acceptable? I am sorry, but I reject that logic every time it is presented. It doesn't and it never will make bad choices acceptable.

Based on this statment and this one.....It is apparent you have a low opinion of EV's. Makes one wonder if you would vote for one, hire one, let your kids play with them, lend them a helping hand... that sort of thing;)

I have been very clear that it is difficult for me to be objective with EVs as a group. I don't trust them because of my long history with them. I have learned by experience that as a group they are unworthy of trust or confidence. I prefer to evaluate individuals as they develop and as they present themselves. If an individual is honorable, honest, kind, and displays integrity then it does not matter what church or religion they belong. I would befriend someone of this caliber and I would vote for them. I never counseled my children about the religion of other kids. They got to experience their classmates first hand and could make their own judgments. However, their friends did seem to be Jews and Catholics rather than EVs or other Protestants. Never even thought about that; strange.

Surprisingly W was an EV, but he never displayed the type of duplicity of Perry. He was willing to simply judge a man by his character; shame it did not make him a better president, but that is another story.

Best to walk a mile in another man's moccasins before you criticize him.

[Storm Rider]

I wonder if we were to substitute Mormon for gay or being gay in these scenarios. Would Jaybear have a different opinion on the matters? I bet he would.

In a snap; a New York minute; faster than Cracker Jacks, greased lightening, white on rice; you get the picture. That one track thing is so predictable.

[LeSellers]

It's been a rough month. We have been brutalized and beaten up and chewed up in the press to where I need this today. We are being brutalized by our opponents, and our own party. So much of that is, I think, they look at him because of his faith. He is the only true conservative - well, there are some true conservatives. And they're there for good reasons. And they may feel like God called them too. But I truly feel like we are here for that purpose.

In the context of the political debate going on in the USmerican Republican Party, and in light of the assaults Mitt Romney (and, to a lesser extent, John Huntsman) has been subjected to, one wonders what the word "persecution" means nowadays.

(One also wonders if "hypocrite" means anything of late. But that's a different story.)

We have discussed the California Prop 8 impact on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we talked three years ago about Mitt Romney. In general, I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ has weathered these storms well, but not unscathed. I believe, further, that there will be much much more of the same kind of thing, although probably that a lot of it will be more subtle.

Nonetheless, there is a new WND (formerly World Net Daily) "story" out there: Mormon bishop's daughter spills Romney's 'secrets' ... :"Would you trust the judgment of a man if he truly believes he's gonna be a god?" It ain't all roses and rainbows, folks.

Lehi

[california boy]

If I was "somehow trying to justify" the extermination order, you wouldn't have to ask that question.

Do you disagree that there is a material difference between threatening to kill someone if they don't leave, and actually killing them.

There were laws agaisnt polygamy before Smith introduced the practice to the saints.

When they stopped the illegal practice, they were left alone.

There are also laws against gay marriage. It doesn't mean that they are right. Perhaps you can tell me what the difference between the legal argument for gay marriage and polygamy? And do you think that someone who has a private marriage in a state that does not recognize gay marriage should have their assets taken away from them by the government and sent to prison?

Sorry but you are absolutely on the wrong side of this argument in my opinion

[Mudcat]

Storm Rider,

I did not see a response to my CFR about your statement regarding the vast majority of of the country being unwilling to vote for an LDS. I assume you are dropping this point, for a lack of reference.

I think if you limit the term to physcial violence, then would be correct. Dictionary.com reads: "1. to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently. 2. to annoy or trouble persistently." This definition is much broader than the one you are using. It would seem being consistently called a cult, unworthy of government offices, etc. would classify as annoying. What do you think?

Bold mine, these are new variables you have introduced and were not part of your previous post. The original issue was voting.

I have said that it is prejudicial for someone to not vote for, show charity to , socialize your children with a person because of religious belief. I don't feel prejudice is persecution. I would actually ratchet my statement back a notch because it is entirely possible that a person is simply being reasonably judgmental rather than prejudiced in making such decisions.

I am sure you find these things, bold mine, annoying. Maybe there is something I am misunderstanding or not seeing fully, so let me ask you this. If a person does not agree with a particular religion on their views and feels that a person who holds such beliefs would not be the best candidate for an office, or perhaps they shouldn't expose their children to such beliefs, or perhaps they choose to reserve their charitable resources from such... How exactly is this persecution?

Uncomfortable voting? The polls have been moving in favor of accepting the LDS Church and LDS, but we still get the majority of people unwilling to vote for a Mormon. My recommendation is to be a Mormon for a while. Have the majority of Christians tell you that you cannot possibly be a follower of Jesus Christ; see enlightened "pastors" (men of God) repeatedly call you a member of a cult; have your neighbors and county residents tell their children not to play with your children because they are LDS; I can go on. You think you might have a bit of a complex? Brother, you do begin to comprehend what some LDS go through just to be a LDS in this free country.

Oh sorry about my opening statement, given you statement here (bold mine). I would ask again for a CFR to support your assertion.

As to your recommendation, about being Mormon for a while... If the Holy Spirit, does vindicate the claims of the CoJCoLDS at some point in time, I will follow your advice.

As to the rest. People of faith, any faith, run into challenges when dealing with people who have different beliefs. I could do some story swapping on the point but don't see much use in it.

They do exist and continue to exist. I think you really lack an understanding of what it is like being a LDS in the south and other parts of the world. The Church is not Utah and Idaho. It sounds like what you are saying is that two wrongs make it acceptable? I am sorry, but I reject that logic every time it is presented. It doesn't and it never will make bad choices acceptable.

If such underemployment because a person is LDS actually does exist, then support the assertion with some facts. Even anecdotal evidence is better than an unsupported statement.

As to my lack of understanding about being an LDS in the South. I don't even know what it is like being LDS, minus the geography. However, my wife and her family are LDS of a very small church... it's so small they call it a Branch rather than a Stake. They have lived in the South (North MS) all their lives and so have I. I have known them well for 24 years and she and I have been married for 13 years. I haven't been them, but they are my family and I have seen what has happened to them over time.

The only instance of their religion being used against them in any manner was a story passed to me by my FIL. He is in sales, and a competitor brought up my FILs religion as a detractor in a deal. The purchaser was an EV and purchased from my FIL.. and thought it was poor of the other EV salesman to use it as a tactic. So it backfired.

All my wife's siblings have good jobs or own businesses here in the South and so does she. She has a ballet/jazz/tap dance instruction studio in a rural Southern town, where less than half a percent of the population is LDS and the rest of the populace is basically EV. Yet 100+ sets of parents trust her to teach their kids and each year she does better than the one before.

Two of her brothers own a successful business and look to expand, the other brother is a CPA and recently was promoted to a partner of the firm.

I have never seen their beliefs stand in their way nor have I seen their beliefs hinder them and I have never seen any real persecution towards them because of their beliefs. So no I don't know what it's like being an LDS in the South all I know is what I have observed of some Southern LDS I am quite fond of.

Best to walk a mile in another man's moccasins before you criticize him.

Prudent advice, though difficult in application when it comes to matters of faith.

Regards,

Mudcat

Edited October 14, 2011 by Mudcat

[KevinG]

Mudcat - for the most part my good Baptist neighbors have been supportive of our practices. I have been denied a couple of good jobs because they weren't comfortable hiring a Mormon (this news got back to me through a recruiter). My children have been accused of terrible things and banned from ecumenical prayer and study groups, not because of what they said (they knew to discuss only common beliefs and not preach) but because of their religion.

Sadly it does happen. Fortunately it is the exception to the rule. I would not chose to leave my home near Atlanta for reasons other than work.

Regarding the OP - bigotry and prejudice yes in small doses. Persecution - no. Not since the 19th century.

Edited October 14, 2011 by DaddyG

[annewandering]

I am sorry that gay marriage was brought into this because they are not the same thing at all. The government is supposed to leave religion alone. How is denying people the right to practice polygamy as part of their religious practice doing that?

I am deeply offended jaybear that you brush off the persecution of polygamous families as if they deserved their treatment. NO one deserves the treatment they received. Not then or now.

My husband's great grandfather lost a baby girl to the trek west. She died and was buried in the frozen ground at Winters Quarters. She was not alone. Over 350 people died there. All because of religious persecution. I do not understand how people could do that to other people. She was a baby and they killed her by forcing her from her home in the winter.

Do people persecute us today? Ask LDS kids. Mine have some stories to tell. Teachers who mocked them in the classroom. Kids who picked it up and continued it and why not? They knew the teachers wouldn't punish them for it.

Have you ever gone to an OB doctor and had them look down their noses at you because you have 'too many' kids? Have you ever been treated badly at work because it didn't matter? They were saved and you are not?

I have to add that it seems to me that most people are nicer. Lately it seems that a lot of prejudice is toward all Christianity. Frankly I am getting sick and tired of politics with all the rabid haters of Christianity let alone LDS people. .

Oh and its 22% wont vote for a Mormon. Oddly higher in Democrats. 18% Republicans 19% Independant and 27% Democrat. I am inclined to think its the anti Christianity people added to anti Mormon who make that difference. lol In other words they think Mormons are Christian and hate them for that. Irony huh.

Edited October 14, 2011 by annewandering

[california boy]

I have to add that it seems to me that most people are nicer. Lately it seems that a lot of prejudice is toward all Christianity. Frankly I am getting sick and tired of politics with all the rabid haters of Christianity let alone LDS people. .

If you are getting sick and tired of politics with all the rabid haters of Christianity let alone LDS people. perhaps it is because Mormons and Christians have decided they should institute their beiiefs over people in this country that don't share those beliefs through the political system.

There was a time when a persons religion was between the individual and God. Then the whole Jerry Fallwell movement to make Christianity a large voting block in an effort to push their own dogma onto the American public through the political process. And of course the Mormon church's decided it had to push its own dogma by supporting prop 8. I am not saying that churches don't have a right to get involved in politics the way they have, I am saying that not everyone agrees with what they are pushing. Those Americans that don't like churches pushing their dogma through the political process are pushing back. As long as the Christian right insists that they want a president who believes in creationism and the flood, then pushback against those beliefs being important in the political arena will continue in my opinion. And as long as the Mormon church wants to push its dogma through the political process, then there is going to be pushback against that political activism. What do you expect?

[KevinG]

What LDS dogma has the church tried to push through the political process?

[california boy]

What LDS dogma has the church tried to push through the political process?

I don't want this thread to turn into a prop 8 thread. But the official statement from the church stated that they were getting involved in prop 8 because it was a moral issue. It was their moral issue.

Frankly, I have never had anyone explain to me how preventing gays from being married would make them more moral.