A War Against The Church Based On Marriage, Or Is This Just Sarcasm I Missed?

[mfbukowski]

This stuff about causing war against the church is ludicrous. Latter-day Saints are in many, many, many high places in the US and World. We have too much influence to just be attacked.

Were you outside the LA temple when it was attacked after passage of Prop 8?

I was.

It was not pretty

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-protest7-2008nov07,0,3827549.story

Edited June 26, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mormonnewb]

An imminent war against Mormons seems unlikely to me on two fronts:

1) Our Church is not the only church that is opposed to SSM. While we have been vocal on this issue, we are not really worth the effort when you consider the "threat" to SSM posed by the Southern Baptists, Catholics, etc.

2) I'm confident that our leaders would prophesy such an event well in advance of its occurrence and prepare the saints accordingly. In fact, at a recent General Conference, didn't one of our apostles assure the young people that they'd have the opportunity to be grandmothers and grandfathers (or something like that)?

[ERayR]

An imminent war against Mormons seems unlikely to me on two fronts:

1) Our Church is not the only church that is opposed to SSM. While we have been vocal on this issue, we are not really worth the effort when you consider the "threat" to SSM posed by the Southern Baptists, Catholics, etc.

2) I'm confident that our leaders would prophesy such an event well in advance of its occurrence and prepare the saints accordingly. In fact, at a recent General Conference, didn't one of our apostles assure the young people that they'd have the opportunity to be grandmothers and grandfathers (or something like that)?

Broaden your perception. The war is on against all churches that are opposed to SSM and the LDS Church is a big target. To me conference addresses have been doing this in a very gentle way for a long time.

[mfbukowski]

From the article linked in post 26:

A commercial opposing Proposition 8 also drew criticism. In it, two actors portraying Mormon missionaries forced their way into the well-kept home of a married lesbian couple.

"Hi, we're here from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," one says.

"We're here to take away your rights," says his partner.

The missionaries then rip the wedding rings from the women's fingers and ransack their house until they find the women's marriage license, which they destroy.

"Hey, we have rights," one of the women says.

"Not if we can help it," answers the missionary.

The ad was produced by an independent group not affiliated with the official No-on-8 campaign and was shown on MSNBC and Comedy Central, according to Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign, a progressive political group.

[mfbukowski]

Prop. 8 opponents are increasingly narrowing their focus on Mormons, harnessing technology and open-records laws in their efforts. One Web site run by a Prop. 8 opponent, Mormonsfor8.com, identifies the name and hometown of every Mormon donor. On the Daily Kos, the nation's most popular liberal blog, there is a campaign to use that information to look into the lives of Mormons who financially support Prop. 8.

It has led some Mormons to question why other religious groups in the coalition aren't being targeted.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-protest7-2008nov07,0,3827549.story

[ERayR]

Were you outside the LA temple when it was attacked after passage of Prop 8?

I was.

It was not pretty

http://www.latimes.c...0,3827549.story

From the article linked in post 26:

The distance between words and violent action is very small.

[Bikeemikey]

A real shooting war, obviously not. But I firmly believe that especially in "progressive" states like CA, and possibly at the federal level there will be moves to strip the church of tax-exempt status, and any and all preferences normally granted to non-profit organizations. And it will be because of our "discriminatory policies". I hope I'm wrong, but afraid that the gay movement takes no prisoners and brooks no compromise, if that is the case, things will get uncomfortable for both the church and it's members.

If the cost of practicing my discriminatory religious policies is that my religion is no longer be eligible for non-profit status then I am happy to pay that cost.

[Bikeemikey]

The distance between words and violent action is very small.

True... though the consequences and harm resulting from the two different forms of action is vast.

[ERayR]

If the cost of practicing my discriminatory religious policies is that my religion is no longer be eligible for non-profit status then I am happy to pay that cost.

That includes your tax deduction for tithes and offerings, property taxes for all church own building, etc.

[Bikeemikey]

Were you outside the LA temple when it was attacked after passage of Prop 8?

I was.

It was not pretty

http://www.latimes.c...0,3827549.story

I was in Santa Monica when this was all going down... It is scary to see crowds and bigotry turn to violence.

That said one semi-violent attack in which no one was very violently harmed is a far cry from an armed war against the church.

Did mountain meadows suddenly mean all mormons were at war with other settlers/pioneers? or that all mormons were murderers?

[Bikeemikey]

That includes your tax deduction for tithes and offerings, property taxes for all church own building, etc.

Yep. It would be a huge blow. Coming from a country that has not enjoyed deductions for my tithes for most of my life that is not a big deal. As for the second... that would be a huge impact to the church.

It is an impact I would gladly pay for if it provided me freedom from govt meddling in my religion.

I am not sure that non-profits in general will be as prevalent in the future as they are today.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[cdowis]

Very simple.

If you discriminate against SS marriage, you lose the right to perform marriages. Your religious rights are "preserved", but you cannot discriminate with couples who have a marriage license. I can see that happening within a decade in certain states.

So, no marriages performed in the temple, only sealings.

[mfbukowski]

The distance between words and violent action is very small.

Put yourself in the place of actually being there and watch this video:

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?id=6493052

[The Nehor]

According to my Facebook feed this also legalizes incest, pedophilia, and bestiality and is a step towards making gay marriage mandatory.

I am going to marry the little boy next door, my sister, and my dog tomorrow. I am also looking for an older male sugardaddy who wants a boytoy. Any takers?

[Bikeemikey]

That includes your tax deduction for tithes and offerings, property taxes for all church own building, etc.

Here is the lay of the land in NZ:

http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/policysocial-context/22274-new-zealand-nonprofit-loses-status-in-culture-war.html

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/05/21/tax-the-hell-out-of-religion/

http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2008/01/who-runs-new-ze.html

A us site: http://taxthechurches.org/

A legitimate question is,"is the promotion of religion a charitable activity"?

[Bikeemikey]

Very simple.

If you discriminate against SS marriage, you lose the right to perform marriages. Your religious rights are "preserved", but you cannot discriminate with couples who have a marriage license. I can see that happening within a decade in certain states.

So, no marriages performed in the temple, only sealings.

That is already how it is in most of the world that the church operates in. The US is an outlier here, not the other way around.

[mfbukowski]

I was in Santa Monica when this was all going down... It is scary to see crowds and bigotry turn to violence.

That said one semi-violent attack in which no one was very violently harmed is a far cry from an armed war against the church.

Did mountain meadows suddenly mean all mormons were at war with other settlers/pioneers? or that all mormons were murderers?

I am only making the point that it could get ugly.

How ugly is another question. And it is a question of degree as well. Do you think all of this added to "Mormon Popularity" or took away from it?

Does that matter?

If you look at my posts, I have taken no position, just raised questions, and will continue to do so. It just seemed that the thread lacked context- those indeed were very tense days and folks outside of California have no clue what it was like to walk around knocking on doors handing out flyers for Prop 8 and having doors slammed and being yelled at. You were there and saw it yourself.

The war does not have to be "armed"- it could be internet attacks, it could be reprisals against donors to Prop 8 etc. It could be insults against missionaries, or more people simply ignoring them.

It doesn't have to be a "war" for there to be a pronounced backlash. Regardless, politically, this is not a good day for the church.

[ERayR]

Put yourself in the place of actually being there and watch this video:

http://abclocal.go.c...tory?id=6493052

I don't know what you mean. I am pointing out that violence against the Church and its members on a wholesale level is only a thread away.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Very simple.

If you discriminate against SS marriage, you lose the right to perform marriages. Your religious rights are "preserved", but you cannot discriminate with couples who have a marriage license. I can see that happening within a decade in certain states.

So, no marriages performed in the temple, only sealings.

Quite true, it will become an change to the law of the Land and then we will experience the wrath of God. We as Americans are losing our morals and our way.

[thesometimesaint]

There is, down in our neutrinos, a feeling amongst those of us whose Mormon ancestry goes back to prior to 1869, that the Utah War has never ended and never will end. There are no longer any field guns on the bluff overlooking Temple Square, but there are field guns on the fluff overlooking Point of the Mountain. There is, moreover, evidence that the US' anti-Mormon policies of the XIXth Century both motivated the sequester of >60% of all lands inside Utah (as well as essentially all mineral rights under all lands) as US lands, and continues to be such that Utah, and, therefore, Mormons, should always struggle economically . . . all in order to avert a perceived Antebellum threat of a Mormon Theocracy in the West that would be a dagger in the back of the US.

The only issue has ever been "what will be the trigger event that will cause a rehashing of XIXth Century Official AntiMormonism." I believe that homosexual marriage is that issue. To enforce in the name of an allegedly oppressed minority a suppression of the dastardly practice of man/woman-only marriages at the point of the gun on pain of disincorporation and attainder or worse is where this is all leading. I am not alone in my fears. But if called upon, I will put both body and soul at risk in defense of the Temples and our G-d (not government) granted rights of free exercise.

You may argue against this fear, but tell me, honestly: when has SCOTUS ever upheld free exercise against a claimed liberty right? The correct answer is: "Never."

Off the top of my head. When the NAZIS marched in Skokie; Ill.

[Stone holm]

So for those with deep mormon roots dating back into the mid 1800's there is a war that never stopped and you think gay marriage will do away with an informal armistise between the US govt and Utah Mormons.

It is important to again point out this is not a theological conflict between the church and US govt but a political dispute between the descendants of disenfranchised early pioneers who happened to be Mormon and the US govt. I certainly agree that the actions of the US govt towards early mormon settlers were a grave breach of liberty. This is however, a political dispute between Utah and the govt of the USA, not the Church.

Well some cultural issues that were associated with the Civil War just won't go away and sometimes spread. We used to think that we had this under control because we really had four political parties in the United States, but because of the Reagan era realignments we now only have two political parties. If I am reading the book, "David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism" correctly it appears that the political division in the Church got overwhelmed by the fact that the moderate side of the division kept their opinions for the most part private and merely tried to rein in the non-moderate sides excesses. So the written record became the legacy that we are now dealing with. If the social conservatives would actually take a deep breath and look at the DOMA decision they would note that the decision is as much, if not more, about States rights as it is about SSM because it was authored by Kennedy. Social liberals should actually be concerned because it is quite possible that this opinion could be taken up and run with by the States rights crowd which is predominantly socially conservative. To the extent we have a "war" going on, it is just an extension of the cultural war that has afflicted the nation since colonial times and will probably continue until the end of time. To that extent it is just a microcosm of the war in heaven where there was an attempt to restrict or eliminate the free agency of man, we will always be confronting attempts to restrict the free agency of man which normally comes in the form of trying to uphold restrictive traditions as a means of restricting personal liberty.

[USU78]

I am only making the point that it could get ugly.

How ugly is another question. And it is a question of degree as well. Do you think all of this added to "Mormon Popularity" or took away from it?

Does that matter?

If you look at my posts, I have taken no position, just raised questions, and will continue to do so. It just seemed that the thread lacked context- those indeed were very tense days and folks outside of California have no clue what it was like to walk around knocking on doors handing out flyers for Prop 8 and having doors slammed and being yelled at. You were there and saw it yourself.

The war does not have to be "armed"- it could be internet attacks, it could be reprisals against donors to Prop 8 etc. It could be insults against missionaries, or more people simply ignoring them.

It doesn't have to be a "war" for there to be a pronounced backlash. Regardless, politically, this is not a good day for the church.

War is politics by other means, according to von Clausewitz.

The Mann, Morrill and Edmonds-Tucker Acts were war by other means. War against Mormons and the Mormon Church.

[The Nehor]

Quite true, it will become an change to the law of the Land and then we will experience the wrath of God. We as Americans are losing our morals and our way.

To be fair we are finding some and losing others. I am always leery of praising the good old days of traditional values including racism and underpaying women.

[USU78]

Off the top of my head. When the NAZIS marched in Skokie; Ill.

US NeoNazis ain't a Church, and the aggrieved, as I recall, the Jews of Skokie, never claimed a religious exercise right to compel the march not to happen. I think you missed my point: It is in the conflicts between "free exercise" of religion and the liberty rights of individuals that come into conflict with those free exercise rights that the right to exercise one's religion is always and inevitably curtailed . . . because of SCOTUS' abominable XIXth Century anti-Mormon ruling upholding Edmonds-Tucker.

[tyler90az]

Were you outside the LA temple when it was attacked after passage of Prop 8?

I was.

It was not pretty

http://www.latimes.c...0,3827549.story

I did not read anything about the Temple being attacked. What I did read, however, is similar stuff said to members that members say on a regular basis about gays. It is despicable what is said on this forum, which mostly educated people frequent. I can only imagined what is said by the less educated.