Article: Mormon Church Abandons Its Crusade Against Gay Marriage

[EllenMaksoud]

The key point to keep in mind is that there is nothing wrong with feeling a sexual attraction to someone of the same sex.

Okay, well, and another key point to keep in mind is that we should keep our sexual relations within the bounds the Lord has defined.

Even people who are attracted to people of the opposite sex need to exercise restraint and good judgment.

The key point to keep in mind is that there is nothing wrong with feeling a sexual attraction to someone of the same sex.

Okay, well, and another key point to keep in mind is that we should keep our sexual relations within the bounds the Lord has defined.

Even people who are attracted to people of the opposite sex need to exercise restraint and good judgment.

I don't feel comfortable commenting on sexual attraction, of which I have only a minuscule amount. Emotional attraction is an entirely different phenomena and can be almost overwhelming at times.

I am fairly certain that everyone my age will only exist in people's memories by the time these ructions are settled.

[EllenMaksoud]

Bob Crocket

When the Church was dis-incorporated and its assets put into a trust, women lost the franchise, and Mormons were put to a test oath, Republicans led the charge. Congress and the President sent overseers to Utah who were evangelicals, including some pastors. There were a few who stood up against this in Congress; hated Jews and Catholics, in the main. It took Reed Smoot to swing Utah voters towards the Republican Party.

Bob:

Would you please elaborate on the above statement? I have no knowlege of it.

[Ahab]

I don't feel comfortable commenting on sexual attraction, of which I have only a minuscule amount. Emotional attraction is an entirely different phenomena and can be almost overwhelming at times.

I am fairly certain that everyone my age will only exist in people's memories by the time these ructions are settled.

When I'm talking about sexual attraction I'm talking about being attracted to a person based on their sex, or gender. Sex is either male or female, and some men are very manly, or masculine, while some women are very much like women, or feminine.

Blake Shelton, for example, is a very handsome and manly man who is sexually attractive as a man... and I say this as a man who is very much in love with my wife. The fact that I'm married and sexually attracted to a woman doesn't mean I can't also be sexually attracted to a man, though. I just feel that if all people were totally honest with themselves, without fear of being called a "gay" person, we would admit to being sexually attracted to both men and women. And even old ladies too, especially when they are very much like a woman should be.

[EllenMaksoud]

When I'm talking about sexual attraction I'm talking about being attracted to a person based on their sex, or gender. Sex is either male or female, and some men are very manly, or masculine, while some women are very much like women, or feminine.

Blake Shelton, for example, is a very handsome and manly man who is sexually attractive as a man... and I say this as a man who is very much in love with my wife. The fact that I'm married and sexually attracted to a woman doesn't mean I can't also be sexually attracted to a man, though. I just feel that if all people were totally honest with themselves, without fear of being called a "gay" person, we would admit to being sexually attracted to both men and women. And even old ladies too, especially when they are very much like a woman should be.

My sexual attraction is very low, and if the Mormons had Nuns, I would surely be one. However, once in a great while, the right combination of intellectual admiration, gentleness and um what ever else it takes comes together and if the poor sod only knew how I felt, he could simply take my hand and we'd saunder off to Valhalla.

[Ahab]

My sexual attraction is very low, and if the Mormons had Nuns, I would surely be one. However, once in a great while, the right combination of intellectual admiration, gentleness and um what ever else it takes comes together and if the poor sod only knew how I felt, he could simply take my hand and we'd saunder off to Valhalla.

The stuff dreams are made of.

[ERayR]

I don't think so. Reynolds was the Court's first decision regarding the Free Exercise clause, and it did its best to distinguish between mere belief and criminal behavior. One cannot smoke peyote in the context of a religious ceremony.

In one of my published pieces, I point out that one of the Justices on the Reynold court was Justice William Story. He was President of the U.S. Bible and Tract Society (or something like that) and was one of the national proponents of a constitutional amendment to make the United States a Christian nation. At one point during the national push to get that amendment signed, the amendment was amended to outlaw the Catholic faith. This amendment, as amended, was a plank in the Republican platform for a time.

When the Church was disincorporated and its assets put into a trust, women lost the franchise, and Mormons were put to a test oath, Republicans led the charge. Congress and the President sent overseers to Utah who were evangelicals, including some pastors. There were a few who stood up against this in Congress; hated Jews and Catholics, in the main. It took Reed Smoot to swing Utah voters towards the Republican Party.

And partisan politics is important to the issue, How?

[EllenMaksoud]

I don't think so. Reynolds was the Court's first decision regarding the Free Exercise clause, and it did its best to distinguish between mere belief and criminal behavior. One cannot smoke peyote in the context of a religious ceremony.

In one of my published pieces, I point out that one of the Justices on the Reynold court was Justice William Story. He was President of the U.S. Bible and Tract Society (or something like that) and was one of the national proponents of a constitutional amendment to make the United States a Christian nation. At one point during the national push to get that amendment signed, the amendment was amended to outlaw the Catholic faith. This amendment, as amended, was a plank in the Republican platform for a time.

When the Church was disincorporated and its assets put into a trust, women lost the franchise, and Mormons were put to a test oath, Republicans led the charge. Congress and the President sent overseers to Utah who were evangelicals, including some pastors. There were a few who stood up against this in Congress; hated Jews and Catholics, in the main. It took Reed Smoot to swing Utah voters towards the Republican Party.

Can you tell me more about the dis-incorporation of the church?

[Calm]

Can you tell me more about the dis-incorporation of the church?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds–Tucker_Act

The act disincorporated both the LDS Church and the Perpetual Emigration Fund on the grounds that they fostered polygamy. The act prohibited the practice of polygamy and punished it with a fine of from $500 to $800 and imprisonment of up to five years. It dissolved the corporation of the church and directed the confiscation by the federal government of all church properties valued over a limit of $50,000. The act was enforced by the U.S. Marshal and a host of deputies. Mormonism and polygamy

Members of Joseph F. Smith's family, including his sons and daughters, as well as their spouses and children, circa 1900. [show]Background [show]Prominent practitioners [show]Related legislation [show]Related case law [show]Related articles [show]See also

• v
  
• t
  
• e
  

The act:

• Disincorporated the LDS Church and the Perpetual Emigrating Fund Company, with assets to be used for public schools in the Territory.[1]
  
• Required an anti-polygamy oath for prospective voters, jurors and public officials.
  
• Annulled territorial laws allowing illegitimate children to inherit.
  
• Required civil marriage licenses (to aid in the prosecution of polygamy).
  
• Abrogated the common law spousal privilege for polygamists, thus requiring wives to testify against their husbands.[2]
  
• Disfranchised women (who had been enfranchised by the Territorial legislature in 1870).
  
• Replaced local judges (including the previously powerful Probate Court judges) with federally appointed judges.
  
• Abolished the office of Territorial superintendent of district schools, granting the supreme court of the Territory of Utah the right to appoint a commissioner of schools. Also called for the prohibition of the use of sectarian books and for the collection of statistics of the number of so-called gentiles and Mormons attending and teaching in the schools.[3]
  

In 1890 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the seizure of Church property under the Edmunds–Tucker Act in Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States.

This act was repealed in 1978.[4][

[EllenMaksoud]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds–Tucker_Act

Oh, that. I knew about the actions but did not know what it was called. I had wondered how Evangelicals got into Utah? So, it was the systematic deprival of 1st Amendment rights.

One thing that seems strange to me is that I know Muslims practice it in the USA, and the way they do it is to simply quietly go about their business without any documentation. Yet, I have heard nothing of the govt prosecuting them.

[Calm]

One thing that seems strange to me is that I know Muslims practice it in the USA, and the way they do it is to simply quietly go about their business without any documentation. Yet, I have heard nothing of the govt prosecuting them.

The government doesn't get involved nowadays unless there is another issue such as welfare fraud or child endangerment or rape or something else along those lines. I haven't heard of any case where they were tried solely for polygamy...though it may be out there.

[Stone holm]

I don't think so. Reynolds was the Court's first decision regarding the Free Exercise clause, and it did its best to distinguish between mere belief and criminal behavior. One cannot smoke peyote in the context of a religious ceremony.

In one of my published pieces, I point out that one of the Justices on the Reynold court was Justice William Story. He was President of the U.S. Bible and Tract Society (or something like that) and was one of the national proponents of a constitutional amendment to make the United States a Christian nation. At one point during the national push to get that amendment signed, the amendment was amended to outlaw the Catholic faith. This amendment, as amended, was a plank in the Republican platform for a time.

When the Church was disincorporated and its assets put into a trust, women lost the franchise, and Mormons were put to a test oath, Republicans led the charge. Congress and the President sent overseers to Utah who were evangelicals, including some pastors. There were a few who stood up against this in Congress; hated Jews and Catholics, in the main. It took Reed Smoot to swing Utah voters towards the Republican Party.

Yes and no. The Court did make a big difference between acts and beliefs, but it also got there by using a cultural argument similar to that employed in the Prop 8 case.

[jwhitlock]

The problem with our having given a specific nudge from the general church pulpit for those anti-gay activists organising the Prop 8 assault was that we went beyond merely stating our doctrinal opposition to gay marriage and entered into the political fray to impose our definition on others who do not share our beliefs.

Not a particularly accurate description of what happened. Then again, neither was the article in the OP particularly accurate.

[Daniel2]

Another just-published another article on Mormons and the advancement of marriage equality--this time crediting Latter-day Saints' shift away from the politics of same-sex marriage for the recent advances in same-sex marriage (a claim I imagine most LDS would likely be unconfortable with):

How the Mormons Ensured Victory for Gay Marriage

All they had to do, really, was get out of the way.

By Stephanie Mencimer on Fri. May 10, 2013 3:00 AM PDT

After a very long and demoralizing losing streak, supporters of marriage equality have recently experienced a string of victories so sudden and dramatic that it has their heads spinning. Just yesterday, the Minnesota House passed a bill that would make it the 12th state to legalize same-sex marriage. The vote came while the ink was still drying on Delaware's landmark new marriage equality law, which followed on the heels—five days!—of a similar milestone in Rhode Island. Up until last November, supporters had tasted defeat on 33 state-level measures.

But after Election Day, change was in the wind. Voters in Maine, Minnesota, Washington, and Maryland came down firmly on the side of same-sex marriage. You could credit folks like Ellen DeGeneres and NFL punter Chris Kluwe and basketball star Jason Collins—and even a few die-hard Republicans such as **** Cheney, who has come out in favor of marriage equality—for helping bring about the rapid cultural shift. And no doubt that's a big part of it. But there's one force, perhaps greater than any other, that shouldn't be underestimated: the Mormon church's political surrender on gay marriage.

It's remarkable what has happened in the marriage fight since the Mormons decided to abandon it. Consider that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the single biggest funder and organizer of the 2008 campaign to pass California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in one of America's most liberal states. The church is estimated to have directed at least $20 million to that effort, along with significant organizing clout. Documents unearthed by activist Fred Karger showed that the Mormons had 77 people working full time at the church's Salt Lake City headquarters to get Prop. 8 passed.

The church, in fact, had been a crucial (if not always visible) player since the 1990s, when it helped fend off efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in Hawaii and California. As far back as 1996, high-ranking LDS officials were coordinating behind the scenes and raising hundreds of thousands of dollars to orchestrate what became the first state-level vote to ban gay marriage in Hawaii. Top church officials were also heavily involved in the creation of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the primary player over the last decade in the fight to outlaw gay unions.

But after the Mormon involvement in Prop. 8 was fully exposed, the backlash was severe—and apparently unexpected. The church became a target for public protests, and lost a considerable number of members who were unhappy with its involvement in a political issue that had caused individual LDS families a lot of grief. In the campaign's aftermath, a top church leader even apologized to gay church members for the pain they'd suffered.

This is not to say that the Mormons have had a change of heart about gay marriage. The church is still adamantly opposed to it. On April 6, during the LDS's annual conference, Boyd Packer, who is next in line to assume the church's top leadership post, warned, "We need to be careful of the tolerance trend trap, so that we do not get swallowed up in it. The permissiveness afforded by the weakening of the laws of the land to tolerate and legalize immorality does not reduce the serious spiritual consequence that is the result from a violation of God's law of Chastity."

That said, the church seems to have returned to focusing on homosexuality as a personal issue rather than a political one. After years of working behind the scenes, hiring lobbyists, and mobilizing its members to fight state referendums sympathetic to same-sex marriage, it appears to have simply dropped the rope. "In the other four states last year that had marriage, you didn't see the Mormon church anywhere," says Kevin Nix, spokesman for the LGBT advocacy group, Human Rights Campaign.

Janet Wallis is the mother of lesbian married daughters who has been working with a group called Minnesotans United for All Families, at first to defeat an anti-gay-marriage amendment last November, and more recently to support the legislation the Minnesota House just passed. One of her daughters used to live in Utah and worked on the 2002 Olympic Committee with Mitt Romney, so she's well acquainted with the church's role in LGBT politics. During the marriage fights in Minnesota, she kept wondering where the Mormons were. Catholics have been "so VERY, VERY visible" during these battles, she told me via email, but "there have been no articles, no news stories, not a peep publicly re: being Mormon and how to vote."

Last year in Maryland, the church even went so far as to squelch an effort by some Mormons to organize against a pro-marriage initiative on the state ballot. The loss of the church as an ally has been a huge blow to foes of gay marriage, especially given its ability to deploy a host of motivated volunteers. (The efficiency of the LDS church during natural disasters has been compared to that of the German Wehrmacht.)

If nothing else, the movement against gay marriage has lost a significant source of cash. In March, the Huffington Post reported that a scant 16 Utah residents (a rough proxy for Mormons) had donated a collective total of $1,264 to four state ballot committees fighting same-sex marriage bills. Back in 2008, more than 800 Utah residents gave $2.7 million to support Prop 8.

Karger, the California activist who helped call attention to the church's Prop. 8 role, believes that without the Mormons' money and organizing clout, the fight has been left to a handful of extremely conservative Catholic groups such as the Knights of Columbus and NOM, none of which has much in the way of grassroots organizing skills. Indeed, a whopping 90 percent of NOM's funding comes from only about 10 individuals. According to the most recent IRS filings available, it raised nearly $3 million less in 2011 than it did in 2010, a reduction of about one-third. In 2012, according to Human Rights Campaign, gay marriage proponents in four states considering marriage bills outraised NOM by $20 million.

While NOM used the specter of legalization in Rhode Island to raise money, it had a poor showing in the state. The rabidly anti-gay group Mass Resistance complained bitterly, calling NOM "clueless and ineffective," and noting, "NOM did no serious organizing or strategic planning. Meetings with activists would be set up, then go unattended." That's the sort of thing that would never happen if the LDS church had been on board.

"NOM has always been a shell group, the purpose of which was to funnel money from a shadowy handful of funders directed by the Mormon and Catholic hierarchy," says Evan Wolfson, the founder and president of Freedom to Marry. "Now that the Mormon hierarchy seems to have pulled back, it exposes the weakness and lack of any real grassroots depth in the opposition."

The pullback of the LDS church may also have the unexpected effect of allowing more Republican elected officials to back marriage equality without fear of suffering at the polls. (Mormons are among the country’s most reliable Republican voters.) Republicans in Rhode Island and Delaware were a key factor in marriage advocates' success, says HRC's Nix.

Wolfson is cautiously optimistic. He thinks it's too soon to know whether the LDS church has unilaterally withdrawn from the marriage fight or whether this is just a temporary cease-fire: "In 2012, part of their tactical reason for pulling back was to avoid any muddying the waters for Romney. That was a higher priority for them than even attacking gay people."

But it would be fair to say that the gay-marriage supporters are thrilled with the rapid about-face. "It's a new day in the fight for marriage equality, with one victory after another," Karger says. "I'm convinced that all these wins would not be possible if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had not finally abandoned its 15-year battle to demonize all LGBT Americans."

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/mormons-lds-church-gay-marriage-fight

Edited May 11, 2013 by Daniel2

[Stone holm]

Another just-published another article on Mormons and the advancement of marriage equality--this time crediting Latter-day Saints' shift away from the politics of same-sex marriage for the recent advances in same-sex marriage (a claim I imagine most LDS would likely be unconfortable with):

I don't feel uncomfortable with this in fact I remember a radio interview with some GAs who basically indicated you would not see any further high profile activism in the future as they had established their point. Whether it was due to the backlash from Prop 8 is unclear to me, but I do think that it might have been a wake up moment. Although I was living in a conservative State at the time, I was a little shocked at the number of defections from the Church over this issue compared to the fight against the ERA. I don't remember any actives getting upset with Church leadership over the ERA fight, but we even lost former Bishops out here over this fight.

[Calm]

Although I was living in a conservative State at the time, I was a little shocked at the number of defections from the Church over this issue compared to the fight against the ERA. I don't remember any actives getting upset with Church leadership over the ERA fight, but we even lost former Bishops out here over this fight.

There was plenty in California....at least where I was. Edited May 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[jwhitlock]

"I'm convinced that all these wins would not be possible if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had not finally abandoned its 15-year battle to demonize all LGBT Americans."

Yet again another inaccuracy, and ironic to boot. I don't know of any group that demonizes their targets better than LGBT activists.

[Bob Crockett]

And partisan politics is important to the issue, How?

Lots. States righters (former slave holder Dems) tended to defend the Church. The Republicans in the 19th Century were the successors to the Federalists, the grasping of judicial power that Jefferson abhorred. They used the judiciary to crush the church.

Things have since completely flipped. Teddy Roosevelt was the last gasp of the Progressives.

[MormonMason]

Edmunds-Tucker was bipartisan and signed into Law by a Democratic POTUS, if I recall correctly.

[BCSpace]

Got to love the masterful propaganda technique of guilt by association through use of the word "crusade."

Indeed. The Church merely picked it's battle. And what better a battle than California? A win there sets the stage everywhere for positive change on the issue. Now even I predicted before the vote that the 9th Circuit, a consistent violator of the US Constitution, would overturn a win but we now have people on record (by voting) that they oppose gay marriage. We know that if the outcome is changed by the few in power, the blood of this sin is on their hands. It is a testimony against them. Sometimes that's all we can do as people have their agency and we must live in the world and not be of it.

[gree0232]

The Church will never apologize for doing the right thing, for standing up and declaring the truth: marriage is a divine relationship ordained between man and woman. The Church has never counseled members to reject anyone who struggles with temptation towards one thing or another, neither has it advocated the idea that youth ought to be disowned, shunned, and otherwise ostracized.

The Church is not responsible for the un-Christlike behavior of some members who were incapable of genuine unconditional love towards those attracted to their own gender.

It is unacceptable that anyone is treated that way, but to say that Elder Jensen's personal feelings about the pain others went through amounts to fault on the Church's part for ever being involved at all is a highly egregious error, where such is either implied or stated.

As one who experiences feelings of same-sex attraction, this issue hits close to home. However, what hits closer to home is that I have a testimony of living Prophets, specifically of Thomas Spencer Monson, his councilors, and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

The will of the Lord regarding same-sex marriage was revealed in 1994 at the General Relief Society Meeting in the latter part of that year, which we know as The Family: A Proclamation to the World. As far as that goes, the line is drawn, and we are free to decide on which side (and with what Master) we stand.

There's an extremely appropriate and inspired question given in the Temple Recommend interview, which I would like to post as sort of food for thought.

I've given thought to that question many times, and it really seems like it ought to be more black and white than it may be, in our day. This isn't directed towards anyone in specific, but is rather given in the most general sense. Also, this is not a judgment of anyone who finds themselves supporting gay marriage yet finds some way to answer in the above question in the negative.

I'm sure we're all familiar with the parable (and prophecy) regarding the wheat and the tares, and it is my personal belief that the issues of our day, particularly gay marriage, are things which will sift the Latter-day Saints.

Line upon line is how we grow and progress, right? I submit that the opposite is just as true, that line upon line is how we are led away from the straight and narrow path to eternal life. We will never find ourselves suddenly on the opposite side of the Lord, and by extension, His living Prophet. Rather, we will find ourselves opposite our Savior one step at a time, little by little, until eventually our faith and testimony crumble and we despise the truth we once loved.

Ever wonder how the adversary leads people away, "carefully", even the very elect? Just look at the issues we are facing in our day, how they're framed ("equality" for example), and what they motivate people to do. Really, the adversary just needs to obscure our sight, to get us away from black and white and into the gray. Then you will begin to see, in some form, how the enemy of our soul, and his angels, go about the work of spiritual death among God's children.

That is an excellent post.

[Stone holm]

Indeed. The Church merely picked it's battle. And what better a battle than California? A win there sets the stage everywhere for positive change on the issue. Now even I predicted before the vote that the 9th Circuit, a consistent violator of the US Constitution, would overturn a win but we now have people on record (by voting) that they oppose gay marriage. We know that if the outcome is changed by the few in power, the blood of this sin is on their hands. It is a testimony against them. Sometimes that's all we can do as people have their agency and we must live in the world and not be of it.

California was the most high profile battle, but it was not the only battlefield the Church fought on. The Church and its partner the Roman Catholic Church were the leading anti-gay advocates in the New England battles. Although to its credit, when the Westboro Baptist Church announced it was going to also join the fray in the devil's kingdom of Vermont, the Church did politely ask it to stay out. Salt Lake was sending out letters during all those early fights and designating representatives to speak before the Congressional Panels. There does, however, seem to have been a change in tone and less political activism as Pres Monson's tenure has gained it's distinctive voice. If in fact the letters urging activism have ceased, then I can believe that it would have changed the make up of the culture war somewhat as it would just leave the Catholics to couple with the increasingly ostracised conservative Protestant fundamentalists to carry the brunt of the fight.

[ERayR]

Teddy Roosevelt was the last gasp of the Progressives.

You don't really believe that do you?

[jwhitlock]

The Church and its partner the Roman Catholic Church were the leading anti-gay advocates in the New England battles..

Another inaccuracy. There's a difference between being anti-gay, and being opposed to SSM.

[Stone holm]

Another inaccuracy. There's a difference between being anti-gay, and being opposed to SSM.

Well given at the time the real battle was whether to adopt Civil Unions or not (as Gov. Dean had already indicated he didn't want them to put a SSM bill on his desk to sign) and given the Church's advocate gave a spiel about the Church's 12 step program to cure gays, yeah at that time I would say the message and tone was accurately described as anti-gay. The Church since Pres Monson has found his own voice as dialled down the rhetoric considerably, and you don't find Elder Oakes making smart cracks about the weird people over in Vermont from the pulpit anymore to his credit.

[jwhitlock]

Well given at the time the real battle was whether to adopt Civil Unions or not (as Gov. Dean had already indicated he didn't want them to put a SSM bill on his desk to sign) and given the Church's advocate gave a spiel about the Church's 12 step program to cure gays, yeah at that time I would say the message and tone was accurately described as anti-gay. The Church since Pres Monson has found his own voice as dialled down the rhetoric considerably, and you don't find Elder Oakes making smart cracks about the weird people over in Vermont from the pulpit anymore to his credit.

You're free to rationalize any portrayal of the church in any way you want in order to further your own agenda. However, that still doesn't make it accurate. LGBT advocates routinely make a practice of demonizing those who disagree with them in this manner - as the article referenced in the OP plainly shows - and you're basically regurgitating the same phrases they use.

Westboro is anti-gay. The church opposes SSM and views sex outside of marriage as sinful, but otherwise is clearly not "anti-gay". To lump the two groups together with the same catch-phrase is simply inaccurate and does not reflect any particular desire to really understand the church's position.