Archbishop Abused For His Stand On Marriage

[Daniel2]

Jeff (and Pahoran, below),

Given that the LDS church regularly fires (or "decides not to renew the contract") of pro-gay employees (i.e. several professors at BYU over the last few years), as well as most Latter-day Saint's beliefs that it's prefectly acceptable to be able to fire employees on the basis of their sexual orientation (which is still legal, in Utah), I find your outrage over the handful of incidents of those that resigned from their jobs in the wake of Prop 8 to be inconsistent. If you disagree with the BYU professor's releases, or with the stance that it's acceptable for LDS employers to fire openly gay employees, feel free to say so.

Daniel2

[Pahoran]

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.

There is no more obvious indicator of partisan bias in all this discussion than when immoralists euphemistically and smugly say that those who were forced out of their jobs by "gay" agitation "voluntarily chose to resign."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel2]

oops... double post again

[Pahoran]

Jeff,

Given that the LDS church regularly fires (or "decides not to renew the contract") of pro-gay employees (i.e. several professors at BYU over the last few years), as well as most Latter-day Saint's beliefs that it's prefectly acceptable to be able to fire employees on the basis of their sexual orientation, I find your outrage over the scattered incidents of those that resigned from their jobs in the wake of Prop 8 to be inconsistent.

Daniel2

Yes, the Church has something called "moral standards." A difficult concept to grasp, I'm sure, but there it is. Its standards are known to its employees before they commence employment, which they also know to be conditional upon their continuing to uphold those standards.

By contrast, the imposition of what we might call "immoral standards" upon employees, after their employment has commenced, and without any expectation that such standards would be imposed, does not seem to be a parallel case.

Regards,

Pahoran

[KevinG]

CFR that black churches were not organized as well as the LDS church.

CFR that members of black churches or the LDS church were monolithic in their opposition to gay marriage. (this one is easy they were not).

CFR that Mormons gave more support (per capita and per congregation in california) than other deonominations regarding marraige legislation.

CFR that protests were focused more on LDS congregations than other religions.

CFR that protesters motivations were simply because of the LDS church activity and not because of their personal realtionship or history with the LDS church.

CFR that only .01% of protesters were violent or condoned acts of violence.

CFR that any employee of an LDS owned institution was fired for "being gay" while agreeing to live according to the conditions of employment (which includes being an active Temple recommend holder for most positions).

CFR that any employee of non-LDS institutions was fired for "being a Mormon" while keeping their politics out of the workplace in in their personal life.

...there are a lot of unfounded assumptions floating around. Near as I can tell the LDS church took a moral stand consistent with their doctrines and gave in kind donations of media resources to the political cause. In retaliation some gays made the LDS church a political and physical target. If anyone has real breakdowns on the financial and membership size of the movements for or against please share.

[Daniel2]

Yes, the Church has something called "moral standards." A difficult concept to grasp, I'm sure, but there it is. Its standards are known to its employees before they commence employment, which they also know to be conditional upon their continuing to uphold those standards.

By contrast, the imposition of what we might call "immoral standards" upon employees, after their employment has commenced, and without any expectation that such standards would be imposed, does not seem to be a parallel case.

Of course, the coin has two sides: I believe equal civil rights are based on "moral standards," as well.

Your invocation of a timeline for values simply isn't reflective of reality. LDS employers (as well as the LDS church) are not required to disclose their anti-gay views prior to hiring--anyone may fire an LGBT employee at any time, irregardless of whether or not their anti-gay standards were shared with perspective employees before or after their date of hire.

Daniel2

[frankenstein]

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.

The LDS did provide in-kind value, which did have a monetary value. As for the jews, catholic, blacks, etc, etc, etc......No other Church issued what amounts to an edict from the mortal head of any particular Church. The LDS got the back lash because the LDS Church brought prop 8 to the forefront, the LDS Church had a multi-state campaign going. Members from my ward in Austin Texas gave tens of thousands of dollars to the prop 8 campaign.

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?

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

Regards,

Pahoran

I thought I was quite clear. In most if not all western countries, where the peoples allegiance is to a mortal crown, much of what is posted on this board MDDB would most likely be considered hate speech in those countries. I said nothing of the Archbishop or his stance. I am pointing out that in countries that have "hate speech" laws, the bar is not set very high for what amounts to hate speech.

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".

wow, exaggerate much there?

All other things are subordinate to "the cause".

Yes, lets examine all other things subordinate to the cause. Did you read the LDS Church press release to yesterdays ruling against prop 8?

The Official press release suggests that individuals who feel they have been wronged, should not seek redress at law and that court should not examine if a wrong occured, because according to the Church the will of the people trumps the rule of law and the Constitution..

Essentially, the Official press release states, "All other rights, contracts, obligations, etc, that and American Citizen has are subordinate the cause".

People aren't fired, they are "let go", or "resign".

You have yet to show one person who was fired. The theartre manager voluntarily left his position, then he backtracked on prop 8 and is now against prop 8. you have never shown that he was under threat of termination. The guy for the olympics, you have never shown that he was under threat of termination, infact, the statements from the US team indicate that he could have remained and done a fine job, yet, he too voluntarily left his position.

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.

I am sure that mormon kid who tore the religious emblem off non-member was thinking "I am just helping you disrobe." I guess you do not remember President Hinckley talking about that event from the pulpit during General Conference, tis a shame we LDS are so quick to forget our disrepect for other peoples and their religious beliefs

Jeff,

Given that the LDS church regularly fires (or "decides not to renew the contract") of pro-gay employees (i.e. several professors at BYU over the last few years), as well as most Latter-day Saint's beliefs that it's prefectly acceptable to be able to fire employees on the basis of their sexual orientation, I find your outrage over the scattered incidents of those that resigned from their jobs in the wake of Prop 8 to be inconsistent.

Daniel2

But Dan, you do not realize that a religious group has every right to discriminate on a whim and regular people do not. Can't you see the difference?

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

The black churches were heavily backing pro-8 over the pulpit.

Perhaps some were. Though I doubt it was "heavy". The torch carriers have always been Mormons, EV's and the Catholic Church.

That makes us an easier target. Plus we have a long history of not fighting back. The bros in the hood. Not so much.

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.

It did more than encourage its members to "be involved" in the democratic process. That is well beyond a gross understatement.

That makes us an easier target.

The money and manpower put into prop 8 makes you an obvious target.

There is no need to take the analysis any further.

Plus we have a long history of not fighting back.

No, that is the Amish. Mormons are known for the battle of Crooked river, Salt sermon, Danites, destroyed presses, Mountain Meadow massacre, John Singer, Newton Estes, etc., etc.

The bros in the hood. Not so much.

Really? You think "bros in the hood" would not respond well to a peaceful protest?

[Jeff K.]

Jeff (and Pahoran, below),

Given that the LDS church regularly fires (or "decides not to renew the contract") of pro-gay employees (i.e. several professors at BYU over the last few years), as well as most Latter-day Saint's beliefs that it's prefectly acceptable to be able to fire employees on the basis of their sexual orientation (which is still legal, in Utah), I find your outrage over the handful of incidents of those that resigned from their jobs in the wake of Prop 8 to be inconsistent. If you disagree with the BYU professor's releases, or with the stance that it's acceptable for LDS employers to fire openly gay employees, feel free to say so.

Daniel2

Pro gay employees? Do you mean employees that choose to promote fornication and sex before marriage? Those employees? Don't you think a church organization has a right to adhere to certain standards of conduct? Do they go out to independent businesses and protest until the gay individuals are forced to "resign" are you capable of seeing the difference?

[KevinG]

Of course, the coin has two sides: I believe equal civil rights are based on "moral standards," as well.

Your invocation of a timeline for values simply isn't reflective of reality. LDS employers (as well as the LDS church) are not required to disclose their anti-gay views prior to hiring--anyone may fire an LGBT employee at any time, irregardless of whether or not their anti-gay standards were shared with perspective employees before or after their date of hire.

Daniel2

LDS institution employees and students in most cases must be Temple recommend holders or agree to church standards prior to their hiring. Again CFR that someone was fired for merely "being gay".

My CFR list above asks both sides to clarify and provide examples.

[Ares]

Mormons are known for the battle of Crooked river, Salt sermon, Danites, destroyed presses, Mountain Meadow massacre, John Singer, Newton Estes, etc., etc.

You just "Godwin"ed yourself.

[Daniel2]

CFR that black churches were not organized as well as the LDS church.

One cannot prove/demonstrate a negative. Your CFR would make sense if someone claimed "Black churches WERE organized as well as the LDS church," because one can then provide evidence to support/prove/demonstrate a positive. If someone would like to provide evidence that "black churches were as organized as the LDS church," I'd be happy to read them.

CFR that Mormons gave more support (per capita and per congregation in california) than other deonominations regarding marraige legislation.

A simple google search of "how much money did Mormons donate to Prop 8" reveals sources reporting that Latter-day Saints (approximately 2% of California's population) donated some $20+ Million (more than 40%) of the funds raised in support of Prop 8. Some sources:

http://www.theatlant...ition-8/209748/

http://latimesblogs....fficials-w.html

http://latimesblogs....the-mormon.html

http://www.prop8-lds.com/

I'd also invite you to watch "8: The Mormon Proposition" for further sources (there's more, but I hope it's clear those sources are out there, if you'd like to look for more).

CFR that only .01% of protesters were violent or condoned acts of violence.

It appears you didn't read the article I posted, that was being discussed--it reports that over two days of protests in crowds of several thousands of people, only 8 arrests were reported (and even fewer specific examples of "violence" were mentioned, in the article itself).

CFR that any employee of an LDS owned institution was fired for "being gay" while agreeing to live according to the conditions of employment (which includes being an active Temple recommend holder for most positions).

http://www.cityweekl...ay-friends.html

http://lorah-delaney...-states-a153800

http://mormon-chroni...ssor-fired.html

http://en.wikipedia....Jeffrey_Nielsen

Daniel2

[KevinG]

If one cannot prove a negative one should not propose an argument based on said negative. I didn't argue Black churches were not organized - I asked for that to be shown.

I asked for comparisons between LDS and non-LDS sources for prop 8 support. You provided the LDS numbers (about $20 million from private citizens) how does this compare to other denominations - in particular other large Christian denominations?

Re: violence - thank you for that citation. Does the small number of violent outbusts excuse the movement from violence?

Re: the articles linked. Case one is an assertion by the addmittely gay man that he was not issued a recommend becuase he was merely associating with his gay friends. Since the Church will never reveal details about a personal priesthood interview there is no evidence his reccomend was denied for simply "being gay" with no other associated behavior issues. Perhaps revealing too much about myself I once had a bishop tell me to stop hanging out with a girl who was encouraging me to break covenants. Does this make the church anti-dating?

Second article- nothing about the LDS church and its practices.

Third article - "Kendall was terminated for two basic reasons," Jenkins said Friday. "He refused to come to work, and he refused to communicate with his supervisor."

Fourth article - Jeffrey Neilson was a visiting professor whos contract expired and was not renewed. He was an open critic of the LDS church doctrines about marriage and homosexuality.

0 for 4 on someone being fired for "being gay".

I am not unsympathetic to the rights of homosexuals to freely associate including marriage. I was somewhat puzzled as to why we as a church took and active role (albeit asa an institution a relatively small one) in a political issue. I was not an active participant in Prop 8 efforts.

However both sides of this argument are flinging such grand amounts of hyperbole and unsubstanciated accusations it renders and communication meaninless. That is why I asked for CFRs

I know it was a large list but in the future I would appreciate anyone answering a CFR on this please provide quotes along with the articles. That was a lot of reading just to find the little substive answers there were.

[frankenstein]

For those who live in California, and who are LDS, how involved were you with promoting prop 8 before the First Presidency issued its formal call to action. I was in Texas at the time, and I can say, I never heard of prop 8 until the church got involved.

I just searched this board using this boards search functions.

I used the following term "proposition 8", "prop 8", "ssm", "gay marriage"

The date range I used was January 1 2008 - June 30 2008.

I got zero results. If my search criteria are valid, then it would appear that no one on this board was discussing prop 8 prior to the First President issuing the call to action. If my search criteria are valid, then the lack of discussion about prop 8 during the time frame before the call to actions, supports the notion that some have made (not here so much) that little was known about prop 8 before the LDS Church got involved.

If the above are true, then it would stand to reason that the LDS Church - yes the LDS Church as a legal person contributed to prop 8 with in-kind donation, and the members of the LDS Church were a or the main force behind promoting prop 8. Being the main or driving force does not justify powder letters and graffiti, but being the driving force certainly addresses why the LDS gets the brunt of the negative feedback.

I am more than glad to revise my statement herein if anyone can show that this board or another pro-LDS (have to use "pro lds" because "lds themed" does not weed out the negative sites) was discussing prop 8 prior to the First Presidency call to action, which was issued june 29 2008

[Jeff K.]

Blaming the prophet for wanting to protect marriage is rather ridiculous. It is a moral not "just" a political issue.

Since Prop 8 might have been viewed as a political issue for the most part, that doesn't mean it wasn't supported and this board isn't the arbiter of all things done.

For my part, I presumed that there would be no success in passing prop 8 that the state had been able to undermine the will of the people. I decided that if asked I would try, no matter how hopeless the task appeared to be. To my surprise it wasn't as hopeless as many (including myself thought). The backlash though, to me and my children and wife. That expressed to me all I needed to know regarding those groups.

Your assumption begins from a false point.

[Daniel2]

If one cannot prove a negative one should not propose an argument based on said negative. I didn't argue Black churches were not organized - I asked for that to be shown.

Though I disagree that I "propose an arguement based on an improvable negative," the substance of my intent is not changed at all by clarifying my previous statement with the following bolded alteration: " I've always thought the reason Anti-8 Protestors didn't demonstrate in front of South Central black churches is because, so far as I'm aware, 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 asked for comparisons between LDS and non-LDS sources for prop 8 support. You provided the LDS numbers (about $20 million from private citizens) how does this compare to other denominations - in particular other large Christian denominations?

I stated my belief that "south central black churches didn't donate...to the degree that the LDS population and churches did." The degrees I provided in my response to your CFR are that 2% of the LDS population provided 40+% of the Prop 8 funds. Again, I'm happy to add "so far as I'm aware" without it altering my point.

Re: violence - thank you for that citation. Does the small number of violent outbusts excuse the movement from violence?

Yes. A "movement" should not be held accountable for isolated incidents by individuals. Similarly, for example, I wouldn't characterize or condemn the "Pro-Life" movement as "violent" (or even "responsible, as a whole) for the actions of a select few radicals who have killed doctors and bombed abortion clinics. Nor would or do I condemn the organization of the United States Marines for the stupid act of a few select individuals of urinating on the bodies of slain enemies. Nor would I condem the civil rights' movement's promotion of and struggle for racial equality for militant and violent tactics against police by The Black Panthers. Nor would or do I hold accountable or condemn the LDS movement for isolated instances of irresponsible, irrational, or violent behaviors, such as missionaries mocking sacred sites of other Faiths (I'm thinking if an incident involving Buddhist statue, a few years back), or Mormons who lethally responded to a group of non-LDS settlers peacefully passing through their territory by killing them.

Do you disagree...?

Re: the articles linked. Case one is an assertion by the addmittely gay man that he was not issued a recommend becuase he was merely associating with his gay friends. Since the Church will never reveal details about a personal priesthood interview there is no evidence his reccomend was denied for simply "being gay" with no other associated behavior issues. Perhaps revealing too much about myself I once had a bishop tell me to stop hanging out with a girl who was encouraging me to break covenants. Does this make the church anti-dating?

Second article- nothing about the LDS church and its practices.

Third article - "Kendall was terminated for two basic reasons," Jenkins said Friday. "He refused to come to work, and he refused to communicate with his supervisor."

Fourth article - Jeffrey Neilson was a visiting professor whos contract expired and was not renewed. He was an open critic of the LDS church doctrines about marriage and homosexuality.

0 for 4 on someone being fired for "being gay".

I disagree with your characterization of some of the sources I've listed (for example, the second source I listed, which you dismissed because it didn't say anything about the LDS church, was illustrative of the fact that, in Utah, it's still legal to fire someone for being gay, which was part of my point... Your excusal of the "admittedly gay" man, based on failing to be granted a recommend, is also something I cannot condone, and would very much be a concrete example of someone being fired for "being gay," regardless of how you spin it or blame it on the lack of a temple recommend, rather than his sexual orientation). I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, and I'm content in providign the information I have.

I am not unsympathetic to the rights of homosexuals to freely associate including marriage. I was somewhat puzzled as to why we as a church took and active role (albeit asa an institution a relatively small one) in a political issue. I was not an active participant in Prop 8 efforts.

I appreciate your sympathetic as well as what I would characterize as a "reasoned" approach to the issue. I believe I also share the values of striving for sympathy and reason towards both sides.

However both sides of this argument are flinging such grand amounts of hyperbole and unsubstanciated accusations it renders and communication meaninless. That is why I asked for CFRs

I don't find myself flinging hyperbole, and make efforts to avoid such. Of course, if you see me in that light, such is your right.

I know it was a large list but in the future I would appreciate anyone answering a CFR on this please provide quotes along with the articles. That was a lot of reading just to find the little substive answers there were.

Given the length of your list, and the limits of my energy and time, I apologize I didn't provide quotes.

Daniel2

[KevinG]

If a chuch employee loses their Temple recommend for a heterosexual act outside of marriage does this mean they were fired because of "being heterosexual"?

[Calm]

I was somewhat puzzled as to why we as a church took and active role (albeit asa an institution a relatively small one) in a political issue. I was not an active participant in Prop 8 efforts.

A lawyer acquaintance was discussing this elsewhere and the gist of what I got from her very intelligent discussion was the Church sees a need to contribute to the dialogue involving such legislation if it comes to pass in order to hopefully curb the more excessive problems that might occur depending on the language and scope of any legislation defining SSM, much in the way they acted with concerns about the too broad language of the ERA. They get involved or encourage members to get involved in the ways appropriate to the situation; in a voting scenario such as California where it was on the ballot and there was a significant enough base of members to organize (rather then encouraging them to join other organizations in less densely LDS areas), the Church promoted members getting involved in the voting arena; when it involves the legislature, the Church encourages its members to write their representatives; when it involves the judicial branch, the Church often files amicus briefs (I believe that is the correct term), etc.

[DH]

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

So, you're saying that because some supporters of gay marriage wrote abusive letters, therefore ALL supporters of gay marriage disregard the rights of those with whom they disagree? Major logical failure there!

[KevinG]

I didn't see the word ALL before supporters in that statement. You might want to read it again.

[DH]

I didn't see the word ALL before supporters in that statement. You might want to read it again.

I read it just fine. Pahoran said:

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

Pahoran did not qualify it by saying something like "some of those who think 'gay marriage' is a 'right' don't think much..." so it could easily be read as though "all" is implied.

If somebody said "Mormons are bigots" instead of "some Mormons are bigots," wouldn't you take issue with it?

[Daniel2]

If a chuch employee loses their Temple recommend for a heterosexual act outside of marriage does this mean they were fired because of "being heterosexual"?

I don't follow the relevance of your question. The employee in question was not sexually active. He was denied a recommend and knowingly told by his stake president that he'd have to find a new job because of his refusal to give up having friendships with gay men.

Daniel2

[frankenstein]

Blaming the prophet for wanting to protect marriage is rather ridiculous. It is a moral not "just" a political issue.

Since Prop 8 might have been viewed as a political issue for the most part, that doesn't mean it wasn't supported and this board isn't the arbiter of all things done.

For my part, I presumed that there would be no success in passing prop 8 that the state had been able to undermine the will of the people. I decided that if asked I would try, no matter how hopeless the task appeared to be. To my surprise it wasn't as hopeless as many (including myself thought). The backlash though, to me and my children and wife. That expressed to me all I needed to know regarding those groups.

Your assumption begins from a false point.

Jeff CFR that I have blamed the prophet. I asked how involved people were with prop 8 before the first presidency issued the letter. Your involvement appears to be zero, you seem to admit that you would do something only if asked rather just going out and being involved. Yes, this board is not the arbiter of all, however, this board is a sample. And that there are no discussions about prop 8 prior to the first presidency letter, is telling.

You and many others here complain "why not the blacks, the Jews or Catholics", you just do not want to admit the pretty much the LDS Church and its designees lead the charge once the first presidency letter was issued.

[DH]

I don't follow the relevance of your question. The employee in question was not sexually active. He was denied a recommend and knowingly told by his stake president that he'd have to find a new job because of his refusal to give up having friendships with gay men.

Why on earth would the stake president insist the person give up his gay friends? Also, couldn't the Church employee appeal the SP's decision to a higher authority?

[Jeff K.]

For those who live in California, and who are LDS, how involved were you with promoting prop 8 before the First Presidency issued its formal call to action. I was in Texas at the time, and I can say, I never heard of prop 8 until the church got involved.

I just searched this board using this boards search functions.

I used the following term "proposition 8", "prop 8", "ssm", "gay marriage"

The date range I used was January 1 2008 - June 30 2008.

I got zero results. If my search criteria are valid, then it would appear that no one on this board was discussing prop 8 prior to the First President issuing the call to action. If my search criteria are valid, then the lack of discussion about prop 8 during the time frame before the call to actions, supports the notion that some have made (not here so much) that little was known about prop 8 before the LDS Church got involved.

If the above are true, then it would stand to reason that the LDS Church - yes the LDS Church as a legal person contributed to prop 8 with in-kind donation, and the members of the LDS Church were a or the main force behind promoting prop 8. Being the main or driving force does not justify powder letters and graffiti, but being the driving force certainly addresses why the LDS gets the brunt of the negative feedback.

I am more than glad to revise my statement herein if anyone can show that this board or another pro-LDS (have to use "pro lds" because "lds themed" does not weed out the negative sites) was discussing prop 8 prior to the First Presidency call to action, which was issued june 29 2008

</p>

The implication being that prior to church involvement it was strictly political.

Or are you stating the church has no place in moral debates?

You and many others here complain "why not the blacks, the Jews or Catholics", you just do not want to admit the pretty much the LDS Church and its designees lead the charge once the first presidency letter was issued.

Typical anti Mormon diatribe. Fact is that Jews, Catholics and African Americans carried the vote, not the LDS. You just don't want to admit the double standard, the hypocrisy and cowardice of those groups and their supporters. They are dishonest and without a shred of credibility. Why one should respond to their queries is beyond me.