Jump to content

Archbishop Abused For His Stand On Marriage


Pahoran

Recommended Posts

The Anglican Archbishop of York has received abusive letters and emails after taking a principled stand on marriage integrity, according to The Daily Telegraph.

Evidently those who think "gay marriage" is a "right" don't think much of the real rights of anyone who disagrees with them.

Regards,

Pahoran

Hateful, bigoted threats are never appropriate, whether based on religion, race, or sexual orientation.

Similarly, it's inappropriate to imply that all, or even a majority, of those of us who support marriage equality for LGBT couples would condone such behaviors, or that we "don't think much of the real rights of anyone who disagrees with [us]."

I note with interest your coinage of what is, to me, the new term of "marriage integrity."

Daniel2

Link to comment
Hateful, bigoted threats are never appropriate, whether based on religion, race, or sexual orientation.

Similarly, it's inappropriate to imply that all, or even a majority, of those of us who support marriage equality for LGBT couples would condone such behaviors, or that we "don't think much of the real rights of anyone who disagrees with [us]."

Perhaps that doesn't apply to all of you, or even a majority of you. But it is true of enough of you to cause a near-riot at the gates of the Los Angeles Temple, among other attempts to punish us for disagreeing with you.

I note with interest your coinage of what is, to me, the new term of "marriage integrity."

Daniel2

I'm glad you like it. I thought we needed something to counterbalance "marriage equality," since pointing out the question-begging nature of that phrase hasn't slowed anyone down.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

Perhaps that doesn't apply to all of you, or even a majority of you. But it is true of enough of you to cause a near-riot at the gates of the Los Angeles Temple, among other attempts to punish us for disagreeing with you.

I am trying to figure out why you posted this article. In lands where the peoples alligiance is to a mortal crown, a good portion of what occurs on this board would be hate speech and religion is not a defense to hate speech.

I agree with the LDS Church on the manner of dialogue on issues like ssm sex marriage, and the LDS Church official position is respect and dignity from both sides. And with that we can rightly add Christs admonition of Do unto others as you would done unto you.

There is much irony, though, in this article be presented on this board.

Link to comment

Perhaps that doesn't apply to all of you, or even a majority of you. But it is true of enough of you to cause a near-riot at the gates of the Los Angeles Temple, among other attempts to punish us for disagreeing with you.

What you characterize as a "near riot" in this case, I would call an exercise by thousands of their "right to peaceably assemble."

I'm glad you like it. I thought we needed something to counterbalance "marriage equality," since pointing out the question-begging nature of that phrase hasn't slowed anyone down.

I be clear: I think it's obvious why you choose to use the term "marriage integrity" to characterize your side of the debate, just as I imagine it's clear to you why I use the term "marriage equality" to characterize my side of the debate. Though I definitely support your ability to use the term "marriage integrity", please don't misunderstand my noting it's use, and my equal support of your free speech, as an expression of "liking" your term--that'd be going beyond the mark. ;) I may disagree or not like what you say, but I'll certainly defend your right to say it.

Daniel2

Link to comment
In the sense that the protest wasn't violent.

The trespass onto and destruction of private (sacred to us) property is not "peaceable". It's a crime and it's violence. templedefaced.jpg?w=477&h=322

Brief violence erupted when marchers surrounded the pickup bearing a pro-Proposition 8 sign. Protesters ripped the sign, and an occupant of the vehicle got out and knocked down a protester. A demonstrator, Maurice Carriere, 27, of Studio City, ended up with a bloody nose in the fracas. He told police he didn't see the punch coming. Officers arrested two people and put them in a patrol car.

latemple_0015.jpg?w=477

I'm sure we'd all agree that this is the face of love and peace:

riot.jpg?w=477&h=186

Lehi

Link to comment

Lehi,

did you see that a pro prop 8 person committed a criminal act of battery.

"The reason for that citation was not the sucker punch, but the fact that violent homosexual mobs destroyed private property (the sign), and threatened the driver of the truck. The fact that someone in that truck got out and struck one of the protesters underscores the point that he was in fear of violence.

Lehi"

CFR that the occupant of the truck was threatened by the crowd.

CFR what the citation was issued for.

Link to comment
While I agree with you that vandalizing property is illegal and violent, citing violence from those *not* demonstrating (per your quote from NBC) is bad form.

The reason for that citation was not the sucker punch, but the fact that violent homosexual mobs destroyed private property (the sign), and threatened the driver of the truck. The fact that someone in that truck got out and struck one of the protesters underscores the point that he was in fear of violence.

Lehi

Link to comment

The trespass onto and destruction of private (sacred to us) property is not "peaceable". It's a crime and it's violence.

I'm sure we'd all agree that this is the face of love and peace:

Lehi

Of course its not the face of love and peace. Its the face of anger and hatred.

Did you actually expect to be greeted with roses? In case you didn't realize it, your church and its members offended a lot of people.

But if you think this is egregious conduct, you really need to brush up on your political history.

You are fortunate that your church told you to pick a fight with the gays, and not the teamsters.

The fact that someone in that truck got out and struck one of the protesters underscores the point that he was in fear of violence.

Lehi

While that is a possibility, its most certainly not a self evident fact.

Link to comment
What sign? And who (for or against prop 8), ripped a sign?

There was only one sign mentioned in the article: the pro-prop 8 sign on the pick up truck. Ergo, the anti-prop 8 protesters ripped the privately owned pro prop 8 sign off the pick up truck

this would seem to indicate someone in support of prop 8 committed assault against a anti-prop 8 person

Now the article is using different pronouns, who is a protestor and who is a demonstrator?

That's a bit hard to determine, as you note. However, in this case, it seems reasonable to assume that both are the same—i.e., the homosexual mob were both protesters and demonstrators.

arrest is a very fluid term, if a reasonable person does not believe they are free to leave, then that person can consider them self under arrest. Also, where the people arrested for or against?

This seems to be more formal: the cops not only detained two people (presumably the man from the truck was one of them, but who the other was, we are not told), but put them in a patrol car. Since the other person in the truck is never shown to have left it, it is reasonable to assume that the second arrestee was one of the protesters who joined the fight. But, from this account, we cannot tell. As you noted, it was written by a biased view, one in support of the homosexual crowd.

The point is, the protests around the Temple in Los Angeles was not peaceable. It was violent and destructive.

We don't even need to recount how many LDS chapels were vandalized and otherwise attacked in the aftermath of the voice of the people proclaiming that marriage is a legal relationship between a man and a woman.

Interestingly, no Catholic churches were vandalized like this, nor were any black churches, as I recall. And, if there were, it was not to the extent that we Saints faced.

Lehi

Link to comment

LeSellers,

Thousands and thousands of people assembled in vastly peacable protests throughout both the state of California, as well as around the country. Anger and frustration were expressed towards the LDS Faith for it's attack on the LGBT civil right of marriage.

There are marked differences between "anger" and "violence."

I have heard both sides claim isolated incidents of aggression/tension leading up to, and in the wake of, Prop 8's passage.

IMO, the fact that "brief violence" may have errupted between a handful of protestors and demonstrators (which doesn't seem surprising, given the sheer volume of people on both sides out on the streets that day) does not warrent mischaracterizing the vast majority of protests and protestors (angry/upset/frustrated as many of us may have been) as "violent" or in the realm of "riots."

I note your charge of "tresspassing" and "destruction of property." The photos you post appear to show chalk messages written on the gates outside the temple. Though I certainly condemn defacing the church's property with chalk, I wouldn't classify that as "tresspass" or "destruction of property" (permandent forms of defacing property certainly would be--and I'd be just as quick to condemn them). Do you base your claims of "tresspassing" and "destruction" on something more than the photos you've posted in this thread?

Daniel2

Link to comment

Jearbear:

We all have the right to peacably assemble as per the US Constitution. Anything not peacable is riot and should be treated as such.

:good:

BTW. Did you ever wonder why the Anti-8 rioters didn't riot in front of South Central black churches.

I've always thought the reason Anti-8 Protestors didn't demonstrate in front of South Central black churches is because South Central black churches didn't organize, donate, set up satalite broadcasts and websites, etc. to the degree that the LDS population and churches did.

I'm surprised to see you, SS, characterize the protests and protestors as "riots" and "rioters." I don't believe I've ever heard or read any inpartial news source characterize them in those terms.

Daniel2

Link to comment

LeSellers,

I'm not sure where you got the article you posted from, as you unfortunately didn't include a link. After Googling the verbiage you quote, however, I came across the following link from "wdailypress": http://www.vvdailypr...ngeles-ban.html It appears, from the subsequent links, that various sites reported various versions of the article it appears you quoted from, though I didn't readily see an NBC news source's version. Could you share that link?

The article certainly isn't clear about which sides were the aggressors in the isolated incidents of violence you raise.

Interestingly, you ommitted the portion of the article that says "one person threw eggs at the [anti-Prop 8] marchers." I'd presume you'd agree, however, that the "egg-thrower" doesn't represent the majority of people who supported Prop 8's passage, or would suggest that "Prop 8 Supporters" are "violent" or "rioters."

Some people will behave inappropriately on both sides of most (I'd wager) issues. Personally, while I believe it's definitely appropriate to give attention and enforce accountability for the inappropriate actions of specific individuals, I believe it's wise to avoid generalizations based on extremely isolated incidents.

Daniel2

Link to comment

Jearbear:

BTW. Did you ever wonder why the Anti-8 rioters didn't riot in front of South Central black churches.

I don't know that anti-6 protestors did not protest in front of South Central churches.

But I would not have expected them to do so, as those churches and its members did not take such an active role in passing Prop 8.

This has been explained many many times. Why do you and others here keep bringing up the black churches? Do you believe that gay were anti-mormons who were just looking for excuse to protest the LDS Church?

Link to comment

Jaybear:

The black churches were heavily backing pro-8 over the pulpit. Structurally they are different than us. They are each an individual church making its own rules and beliefs while we have many church buildings under the authority of one church. Thus we can pool our resources where they can not. The Church itself gave no money to the campaign, bt did encourage its members to be involved in the democractic process. That makes us an easier target. Plus we have a long history of not fighting back. The bros in the hood. Not so much.

Link to comment
I am trying to figure out why you posted this article. In lands where the peoples alligiance is to a mortal crown, a good portion of what occurs on this board would be hate speech and religion is not a defense to hate speech.

Once again, Frankie, I have no idea what, if anything, you are trying to say.

Are you saying that the archbishop's principled view, that marriage is between a man and a woman, is "hate speech?"

If so, how?

If not, then what on earth are you blathering about?

I agree with the LDS Church on the manner of dialogue on issues like ssm sex marriage, and the LDS Church official position is respect and dignity from both sides. And with that we can rightly add Christs admonition of Do unto others as you would done unto you.

There is much irony, though, in this article be presented on this board.

What irony? Sorry, but I don't see it.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

Daniel2:

What would you call a violent demonstration?

There would have to be a death, and then it would be minimized as a "tragic accident" in which everyone will feel sad. But of course the crowd did no wrong. Lynching after all are merely an exercise in local democracy, from the standpoint of those who only care about the "cause". All other things are subordinate to "the cause". People aren't fired, they are "let go", or "resign". Tearing a cross off an elderly woman is merely helping her disrobe... the euphemisms will of course fly freely because some will justify any heinous act of intimidation.

It is reflective of the morality of those who support the position. Even if someone dies, an excuse will be given, rather blaming the perpetrators. Since the perpetrators will be called victims.

Link to comment

Daniel2:

What would you call a violent demonstration?

I'd characterize a demonstration as "violent' if it results in violence by at least a sizeable number of those involved (as opposed to the demonstrations being discussed here, where reported violence is apparently less than .01% of the protestors); where the participant's illegal actions of vandalism or destruction results in the need for police to use forceable means to subdue/apprehend the violent actions of those involved. The Rodney King Riots of 1992 come to mind... or many riots that occur overseas resulting in looting/fire/physical beatings.

Daniel2

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Similar Content

    • By Five Solas
      [In this new creation all distinctions vanish.] There is no room for and there can be neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, [nor difference between nations whether alien] barbarians or Scythians [who are the most savage of all], nor slave or free man; but Christ is all and in all [everything and everywhere, to all men, without distinction of person].
      --Colossians 3:11, Amplified Bible
      I read the “Amplified” translation of the New Testament back when I was still LDS.  And the rendering of this passage has long stuck with me.  The words in []’s are the “amplifications” intended for greater context and understanding of the thought being communicated.  And they are sometimes quite beautifully composed, In this new creation all distinctions vanish.  I like to think about that. 
      Today is the day we honor Dr. King and his legacy.  It means as a practical matter, I’ll be spending the afternoon riding bikes with my kids, instead of them at school and me at work.  It also means they are sleeping in and I have a few minutes to enter my thoughts into the keyboard (while I fast walk on my treadmill).  But it’s also a moment for reflection.  If I want to see a direct result of King and his legacy, I find it in the attitude of my kids toward various persons of color.  Influenced as they are by so many things that were influenced by him, such as our public schools--and yes, even our churches.  And I will readily admit their attitudes are healthier than mine were at their age.
      I’m interested in folks' thoughts on Dr. King and his legacy here.  Once upon a time predominately LDS Utah held out against his holiday, and if memory serves was the very last state in our Union to recognize it.  Would that be a source of pride, embarrassment, or maybe just a shrug and a 'who cares'?  All thoughts welcome.   
      --Erik
      PS.  If you have Netflix, David Letterman’s recent interview with Barack Obama is well worth an hour (watched it with my wife after the kids were in bed last night).  And very much on the topic. 
    • By Bill “Papa” Lee
      I grew up hearing the beautiful song, "Amazing Grace", almost every Sunday. It would some times be interchanged with the song, "Just As I Am". Both songs we songs of pleading in an attempt pull at the heart strings of all in attendance and entice members, or visitors to answer the "Altar Call", which was done every Sunday, or for others to "recommit" again to Jesus Christ. It was, while I was growing up, and one room Church. In the early days, no indoor plumbing, only "out houses", and no A/C . It was also a segregated Church, Black people were not allowed to attend. The few times, where a Black man or woman, being new to the area would wonder in, two Deacons, would calmly go back to where they sitting, and politely give then the name of nearby Black congregations, always with a handshake calling them, "Brother and Sister". But such activities would anger my Mother (God bless her soul). She was angry that our Church would do this, and insisted we leave. Knowing my Mother as I do, it was all she could do than to go outside in the hopes of finding them to apologize. 
      Between the year my Father died, and when my Mother passed away, this tiny Church (after 125+), became two rooms. At the insistence of my Mother, I spoke at my Father's funeral. So when she passed away, she had already told me (the youngest of four children) to speak when she passed away. It was a very difficult burying my last parent. So, I went about praying and reading, and searching for inspiration. I arrived at Church very early, and noticed they had an indoor font for Baptism, (in this large new room) etched in store were the words of "Amazing Grave", written by John Norton, and knowing the story of how it came to be. At that moment I received the inspiration I was seeking.   
      So so after a few pleasant remarks, I told the Church that everywhere I go, these people and memories I take with me, my experiences and memories of them with me. I turned to the hymnal, find the song and read parts of the song. I then pointed out that John Norton, used to be a "slave trader". I also (since my Mother loves the song and story) spoke of it, and then spoke of his conversion. John Norton, found himself so weighted down with his horrible sins, that he had place else to look, so he "looked up". At look up he did, and received salvation, and that the weight that was crushing him, was being lifted away. I recently found a story about it, and shared (a video) it with every friend and family on FACEBOOK. I received no amens, no replays, not even a rebuke. Usually when I share "Christ like stories", I get many, many, many, Amen's or thank you's. 
      I am posting this here, because many years ago, while teaching Gospel Doctrine, the next week's lesson addressed the the 2nd Offical Declaration. So I asked two different members who lived in Utah, when the "Priesthood Ban" was lifted, so I wanted their imput. This was two guys who never miss Church, but both did no show. So, I asked and older Sister, what did she think? Her opening comments worried me, but thankfully she brought it home. Be it the song, "Amazing Grace", where so many in Church (as I still teach), often try to over explain what "salvation by Grace" means, out of fear that others don't understand the topic. As we are all saved by Grace, and were it not for God's Amazing Grace, nothing any of us would matter. We are "saved by Grace", we are rewarded and exalted, buy our deeds bs actions, but only because we have "Grace".
      Also, living here in the great Southeast, it would seem that few want to the source of the song. Also the life of the man, John Newton, who sold all that he had to build a Church, one in which he preached and wrote Amazing Grace, but also cared for the Church himself. He was also instrumental in help to stop the "slave trade", this was also due to the fact that, William Wilberforce, leader of the House of Commons, and his best friend, James Penn, England's Prime Minister. Both of who worship in John Newton's Church. The song itself was a sermon that Norton wrote. 
      Anyway, what will it take for us to be mindful and loving of have a more diverse membership? Also, who here on this board, how did you feel about the day the ban was lifted? If there are any, please share.  
    • By Five Solas
      The LDS Church has made some strong statements against racism generally--but here are a few things that might still be leaving folks with a reasonable doubt.  In no particular order--
      1. Insisting that God “established” the U.S. Constitution (complete with its Three Fifths Clause pertaining to African Americans).  https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865688778/Protection-of-God-given-moral-agency.html
      2. Refusing to condemn the Alt-Right movement, as the Southern Baptist Convention has done (in unflinching, unequivocal terms).  See discussion here. 
      3. Its foremost apologist defending Confederate General Robert E. Lee and pretending the American Civil War was about states rights instead of slavery.  (Perhaps we could all chip in & buy Dr. Peterson a ticket to visit the Smithsonian Museum of African American History and Culture—which I’d highly recommend to anyone in or visiting the D.C. area.) 
      4. And on our own board (and seemingly inspired by President Trump’s deplorable remarks alleging moral equivalency at Charlottesville between avowed Nazis/white supremacists and those who protested them)—we have a writer for the Church-owned Deseret News wringing his hands over the tactics of Antifa, as though that were the real problem.
      On that last topic of moral equivalency—it’s interesting to recall the LDS Church’s position during the Second World War, when all of Europe (save Britain) was overrun by the Fascist governments of Germany & Italy and Hitler’s genocidal ambitions were no longer a secret.  Five months after Pear Harbor—we get this remarkable statement of position.  Against Communism!  And against the war generally—but nonetheless arguing citizens must do their duty to their government (and no exception here for the German ones, they have a duty to serve the Fascist regime).  
      5. One last thought on the topic.  I spent 5 years in Glenwood Utah, graduating from Richfield Junior High, class of 1984.  (Thereafter my parents moved us to unincorporated Salt Lake County.)  Richfield Junior High was the home of the Roadrunners! 
      But the school hadn’t always been Roadrunners.  Consistent with Southern Utah “Dixie” themes—originally it was home of the Rebels.  You want to know why they changed it in the 1970s?  Do you think it's because they didn’t want to be associated with traitors who fought to persist the institution of slavery?  Well, silly you if you thought that!  They changed it because they felt the term “rebel” had an association with 1960s counter-culture.  I’m not making this up.  Hippies are the real problem!
      As they might say, "Far out, man."
      ;0)
      --Erik
      No politics. No Nazis. No attacks on other posters. 
    • By Darren10
      I found this via Daniel Peterson's facebook post which links to his Patheos website. From Slate:
       It could not have happened to a nicer person. 
      Slate article: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/08/18/the_mormon_church_condemned_white_supremacists_and_this_mormon_white_supremacist.html
      Dan's Patheos weblink: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2017/08/mormon-church-condemned-white-supremacists-mormon-white-supremacist-mom-mad.html#uLGjjRFZHyVOdhYB.01
    • By california boy
      I have not started a thread in several years.  So deciding to do this is not without careful thought.  In another thread, I brought this scripture up with several very interesting reactions to it. I felt like I would like to explore this prophecy of Paul, and it should be done in it's own thread.  Two things make these verses very interesting.  First, Paul clearly states that unlike some of his writings, this is not just his opinion.  He starts his point out saying specifically "Now the Spirit speakers".  The second important distinction from other writings of Paul is this part. " In the latter times".  Paul is not talking about his opinion or his time and issues of his day.  He is talking specifically about our time, the latter days under the influence of the Holy Spirit.  
      Growing up, these Bible verses were used to point at "that other church" as proof that they had strayed from the teachings of Christ.  Looking back at it now, I see how wrong that belief was.  Because while my church teachers were pointing to "that other church" the church itself was forbidding to marry.  Perhaps the worse part of the discrimination against blacks was not the denying of the priesthood to them, but the denying families of temple marriage.
      At the very core of the gospel is the Plan of Happiness.  And at the very core of that Plan of Happiness is the family.  You take eternal marriage and the importance of family out of that plan and you have nothing.  In fact the whole reason for the gospel collapses.  Yet, in these latter days, when the church forbids gay couples from marrying, that is exactly what that policy does to gay members.  It takes away from them the Plan of Happiness simply because they are gay.  It excludes them from the very fundamental core of the gospel in exactly the same way as past policies took away the Plan of Happiness simply because they were black.
      I don't believe there is any other single issue that is dividing faithful members of the church more than this issue.  According to the documents posted on Mormon leaks 70% of the young people are leaving the church.  Many of them point specifically to the policy concerning gays as the reason they can no long in good consciousness stay involved in the church.  On this board we have those serving in leadership positions who reject the church policy of forbidding marriage simply because someone is gay.  In just ONE year, the church has seen a drop of 11% opposing gay marriage.  Ultimately, where is this policy headed.  Why is the Spirit whispering to so many members that something is wrong. in baring someone from core fundamental teachings of the gospel.
      Just how easily is it to dismiss this prophecy of Paul "latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;....Forbidding to marry".
       
       
×
×
  • Create New...