The Impact The Lgbt Community Had On The Lds Church With Their Opposition To Prop 8

[poptart]

Hi,

 

So, just what did the LGBT community do to the LDS church publicity wise with the fallout from prop 8?  Was always curious if they actually did anything substantial or if it all was just saber rattling in the end. 

[BCSpace]

They tried their best to damage the Church (by calling into question it's tax exempt status etc.) and individual (by creating hit lists and black lists etc.) supporters of Prop 8 and put pressure on the Church to change it's doctrine.

 

The net outcome was that many members of the Church were strengthened in their support of the doctrine and all the Church had to do was present different facets of the same doctrine to create the illusion of change (known in PR as a deflection). And of course some members strongly felt the effects of the parable of the sower and if they did not repent, weeded themselves out.

 

The LGBT opposition to the Church has since won many court victories over the will of the people (in part because the courts have been stacked and in part because judges have been dazzled by unconstitutional notions), but it's not over yet and the Church has on several recent occasions in Conference held fast to the principles it has always taught and maintained it's opposition to the lifestyle and SSM.

[poptart]

They tried their best to damage the Church (by calling into question it's tax exempt status etc.) and individual (by creating hit lists and black lists etc.) supporters of Prop 8 and put pressure on the Church to change it's doctrine.

 

The net outcome was that many members of the Church were strengthened in their support of the doctrine and all the Church had to do was present different facets of the same doctrine to create the illusion of change (known in PR as a deflection). And of course some members strongly felt the effects of the parable of the sower and if they did not repent, weeded themselves out.

 

The LGBT opposition to the Church has since won many court victories over the will of the people (in part because the courts have been stacked and in part because judges have been dazzled by unconstitutional notions), but it's not over yet and the Church has on several recent occasions in Conference held fast to the principles it has always taught and maintained it's opposition to the lifestyle and SSM.

Huh, so the church was strengthend while gay marraige was strengthened.  In other words the world won out but the resolve of the members is stronger then ever?

Also that icon is awesome, the 80's produced so much good stuff.

[Kenngo1969]

Gay marriage may be the crucible of our time.  Equal rights rhetoric sounds good.  No one wants to be seen as denying equal rights. Proponents of gay marriage argue that there is no constitutional warrant for denying gays the right to marry.  Perhaps that is so, but, while the men who framed the Constitution were far from perfect, as we all are, the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds that they were inspired in setting up the government as they did.  I think, however, that, more and more, we will see the force of government used to coerce people to go against their consciences, as is already happening with the "Affordable" "Care" Act's contraception mandate and local so-called "civil rights" ordinances forcing people to do business in ways that violate their personal morals.  If this arc continues far enough, it may be that the only safe place for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to worship will be with their families in the walls of their own home.

 

To those who say that, thanks to the First Amendment, the government will never be allowed to dictate religious practice to a church, they forget George Santayana's dictum that those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.  (See Reynolds v. United States.)  For more of my thoughts on the matter, see here: http://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/lds-polygamy-and-gay-marriage/

[poptart]

Gay marriage may be the crucible of our time.  Equal rights rhetoric sounds good.  No one wants to be seen as denying equal rights. Proponents of gay marriage argue that there is no constitutional warrant for denying gays the right to marry.  Perhaps that is so, but, while the men who framed the Constitution were far from perfect, as we all are, the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds that they were inspired in setting up the government as they did.  I think, however, that, more and more, we will see the force of government used to coerce people to go against their consciences, as is already happening with the "Affordable" "Care" Act's contraception mandate and local so-called "civil rights" ordinances forcing people to do business in ways that violate their personal morals.  If this arc continues far enough, it may be that the only safe place for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to worship will be with their families in the walls of their own home.

 

To those who say that, thanks to the First Amendment, the government will never be allowed to dictate religious practice to a church, they forget George Santayana's dictum that those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.  (See Reynolds v. United States.)  For more of my thoughts on the matter, see here: http://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/lds-polygamy-and-gay-marriage/

 

I'm all for gay marriage, it gives people the same rights as hetro couples, allows survivor benefits as well as the other benefits of marriage.  That being said, I hope the LDS church gets to protect their rights.  I saw an article here that said Bishops may get out of the marriage business altogether and just focus on temple sealings, personally I think that’s brilliant.  Keep in mind I see marriage as little more than a business transaction, just like people way back when did.  Nothing at all against those who see it as a sacrament, sacred institution, etc.  I think religious institutions should have every right to marry people off the way they see fit within their own buildings. 

Also, I have my own take on the gay rights movement, I think it’s based more on economics than anything.  Thanks to the economy the middle class is pretty much gone, most families are poor and pretty much everyone is worse off than they were a decade or so ago.  However, gays, especially couples seem to be doing quite well mostly because they usually don't want kids.  (the ones I know anyway)  Since kids usually don't come into the picture they have more time to focus on school, their professional life, and all the things that come with a successful life and because of that, many gay couples have the money to afford themselves more political influence.  I won't lie, I'm all for it as it very much benefits me.  I'm technically bi, but since I grew up dirt poor I was exposed to a lot of very nasty people so having some protections is quite fabulous.  That being said, I'll repeat myself, I hope the LDS church gets to keep their rights as far as marriage goes.  What scares me is I'm noticing a trend, anyone who goes against the gov't narrative and ends up on their bad side either is beaten into submission via legal action or stomped out of existence.  Everyone forgets about the people who fled here during the wars of religion way back when, how many people were killed over religious freedom and how if this keeps up we may see something like that all over again.  You just never know.

[carbon dioxide]

Huh, so the church was strengthend while gay marraige was strengthened.  In other words the world won out but the resolve of the members is stronger then ever?

Also that icon is awesome, the 80's produced so much good stuff.

Gay marriage did advance but also the members of the Church got a chance to do their duty before God first in upholding what they believe is right.  Members are supposed to stand for Christ and his standards at all times and in all places so they can stand blameless before God.  The way the trend is going, the nation will go towards gay marriage acceptance but it is temporary.  We can be assured when Christ comes, all will be set right.  Christ and the laws of God always win in the end. 

[poptart]

Gay marriage did advance but also the members of the Church got a chance to do their duty before God first in upholding what they believe is right.  Members are supposed to stand for Christ and his standards at all times and in all places so they can stand blameless before God.  The way the trend is going, the nation will go towards gay marriage acceptance but it is temporary.  We can be assured when Christ comes, all will be set right.  Christ and the laws of God always win in the end. 

But in the meanwhile I can marry a really cute guy, have tax breaks, survivor benefits and all the rights of marraige.  Win win situation. 

Also, as you said your church did what they thought was right.  Atleast you didn't cave into pressure, thats admirable, almost everyone else would have.

[Rivers]

It seems that the church's tone concrerning this topic has softned a bit since prop 8.

[Robert F. Smith]

They tried their best to damage the Church (by calling into question it's tax exempt status etc.) and individual (by creating hit lists and black lists etc.) supporters of Prop 8 and put pressure on the Church to change it's doctrine.

 

The net outcome was that many members of the Church were strengthened in their support of the doctrine and all the Church had to do was present different facets of the same doctrine to create the illusion of change (known in PR as a deflection). And of course some members strongly felt the effects of the parable of the sower and if they did not repent, weeded themselves out.

 

The LGBT opposition to the Church has since won many court victories over the will of the people (in part because the courts have been stacked and in part because judges have been dazzled by unconstitutional notions), but it's not over yet and the Church has on several recent occasions in Conference held fast to the principles it has always taught and maintained it's opposition to the lifestyle and SSM.

Interesting talking points, BC, but about as far from the truth as the propaganda put out by members of the LGBT community.  Both you and the members of the LGBT community ignore the nature of Constitutional law and act as though every issue is only a matter of political partisanship on the part of judges and those who appoint them.  It's all PR.  No substance.  No principle.

 

However, based on actual positions taken recently by the LDS Church, there is no question but that Rivers is correct.  This has been true generally over the years on a number of issues.  What is clear from history is that LDS Church leaders are malleable and willing to make adjustments in a number of areas, even though that does not mean that the Brethren are ever likely to shift from certain hard core positions.  Those embarrassed by that historical fact about the LDS Church will always declare that no changes of any kind are ever made, nor can be.  They are unable finally to discern the difference between policy and doctrine.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

........................................................  

 

To those who say that, thanks to the First Amendment, the government will never be allowed to dictate religious practice to a church, they forget George Santayana's dictum that those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.  (See Reynolds v. United States.)  For more of my thoughts on the matter, see here: http://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/lds-polygamy-and-gay-marriage/

One of the advantages coming from bad precedents, such as Reynolds, or the Dred Scott decision, is that they point up the need to actually observe fundamental civil rights.  The idea of universal suffrage has taken over a century to be realized incrementally, but we are still far from a fully egalitarian society.  Part of it has to do with the lack of formal education on the Constitution in our elementary and secondary schools, which leads to an ignorant lack of respect by the hoi polloi.  The other has to do with contempt for honor and integrity.  Those who have it are often mistreated and scapegoated, and Jesus was the ultimate victim of that tendency.  Thankfully, He overcame the world of lies and dishonor, and one day we will all see in retrospect the hard truth He stood for.

 

As to your perspective on the issue in your blog, your understanding of the current and likely future composition of the U.S. Supreme Court is not only completely outside the bounds of reality, but there is no reason to imagine the horrendous legal problems of churches which oppose SSM.  One of the purposes of a good legal education is the ability to counsel a client with accurate predictions of the consequences of this or that action.  You might want to consult with a senior attorney or law professor on such questions before creating some more pulp fiction.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Kenngo1969]

... As to your perspective on the issue in your blog, your understanding of the current and likely future composition of the U.S. Supreme Court is not only completely outside the bounds of reality, but there is no reason to imagine the horrendous legal problems of churches which oppose SSM.  One of the purposes of a good legal education is the ability to counsel a client with accurate predictions of the consequences of this or that action.  You might want to consult with a senior attorney or law professor on such questions before creating some more pulp fiction.

Thanks! 

 

 With due respect, please wake me up when you're through condescending to me.  (But don't worry: I'm expecting to have, and will certainly benefit from, a nice long nap!)

 

P.S.: You can quibble with my analogies and with my predictions, you can dismiss what I write as "pulp fiction," but it seems to me that more than a few of the Brethren (one or two of whom might [perish the thought! ] actually be smarter than you are) are concerned with the implications of gay marriage for religious freedom.

 

Just sayin'! 

Edited November 17, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[BCSpace]

Huh, so the church was strengthend while gay marraige was strengthened.  In other words the world won out but the resolve of the members is stronger then ever?

 

Well yes, it does seem to mirror the principle of opposition in all things as per 2 Nephi 2:11. As evil ascends, righteousness will ascend to meet it and vice versa.  One or the other will hold sway for a time while the other adjusts to it.

 

Also that icon is awesome, the 80's produced so much good stuff.

 

Yes, that is me when I wake up in the morning. JK. One of my favorite bands.

Edited November 17, 2014 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

Both you and the members of the LGBT community ignore the nature of Constitutional law and act as though every issue is only a matter of political partisanship on the part of judges and those who appoint them.

 

The BoM itself refers to the effect of the types of judges appointed; that it is indeed of a political nature. I respect the Constitution greatly and deem it to be an inspired document.  Nevertheless, right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of weather or not it has the auspices of some constitutional process. Hence I remain unmoved in my positions and the only thing that might affect my positions is a wholesale change in LDS doctrine.

 

 

Those embarrassed by that historical fact about the LDS Church will always declare that no changes of any kind are ever made, nor can be.  They are unable finally to discern the difference between policy and doctrine.

 

 

I have never said that no changes were ever made or that no changes can be made.  I have merely stated that in certain specific instances, no changes have been made. I might add the qualifier  "of any significance", but I don't think that matters one whit.

Edited November 17, 2014 by BCSpace

[Mystery Meat]

Thanks! 

 

 With due respect, please wake me up when you're through condescending to me.  (But don't worry: I'm expecting to have, and will certainly benefit from, a nice long nap!)

 

Jeez, no joke. Some people can't help but be grade jerks. Usually people who THINK they are really smart. Make no mistake, he was being a grade A jerk.

[BCSpace]

It seems that the church's tone concrerning this topic has softned a bit since prop 8.

 

 

The Saturday morning session of the recent Conference and Conferences overall since Prop 8 seems to show a hardened stance against SSM by the Church.

[Robert F. Smith]

Thanks! 

 

 With due respect, please wake me up when you're through condescending to me.  (But don't worry: I'm expecting to have, and will certainly benefit from, a nice long nap!)

 

P.S.: You can quibble with my analogies and with my predictions, you can dismiss what I write as "pulp fiction," but it seems to me that more than a few of the Brethren (one or two of whom might [perish the thought! ] actually be smarter than you are) are concerned with the implications of gay marriage for religious freedom.

 

Just sayin'! 

Actually I agree wholeheartedly with the Brethren on such matters, but notice that the political partisans on the Left and Right sidelines do not.  Years ago, before he became a State Supreme Court justice and then an LDS General Authority, University of Chicago Law Professor Dallin Oaks was asked to write an illuminating piece on the School Prayer decisions for the Improvement Era, 66/12 (Dec 1963).  His calm and intelligent views expressed therein did not comport with the Left and Right wing ideologies expressed then or later.  Narrow minded people seldom understand that their ideological opinions are often not only wrong, but can be very destructive.

 

Too bad that you consider hard facts as condescension, Kenngo. Otherwise you might learn something.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[poptart]

Well yes, it does seem to mirror the principle of opposition in all things as per 2 Nephi 2:11. As evil ascends, righteousness will ascend to meet it and vice versa.  One or the other will hold sway for a time while the other adjusts to it.

 

 

Yes, that is me when I wake up in the morning. JK. One of my favorite bands.

Huh, ok then.  Well, from the looks of it the federal courts are shooting the anti gay stuff down left and right.  Like I've said before all for the LDS church being able to run their religion the way they see fit, but, when you go against the masses long enough, they get nasty.  Thats the scary thing about the USA, yeah I do think the rich have a lot of say in things, but when it gets really bad it does come down to mob rule.  You did hint at the bad press the LDS church had to deal with.  Sure, it strengthened them, but wow did it turn a lot of people against them.  As someone who's pretty much gay don't take it as me being condescending here, I really am curious how this stuff played out. 

 

Also the 80's were awesome. 

[Kenngo1969]

Actually I agree wholeheartedly with the Brethren on such matters, but notice that the political partisans on the Left and Right sidelines do not.  Years ago, before he became a State Supreme Court justice and then an LDS General Authority, University of Chicago Law Professor Dallin Oaks was asked to write an illuminating piece on the School Prayer decisions for the Improvement Era, 66/12 (Dec 1963).  His calm and intelligent views expressed therein did not comport with the Left and Right wing ideologies expressed then or later.  Narrow minded people seldom understand that their ideological opinions are often not only wrong, but can be very destructive.

 

Too bad that you consider hard facts as condescension, Kenngo. Otherwise you might learn something.

Oh, cut the crap.  You're human, too, Brother Smith, and as subject to emotion as any of the rest of us are, however much you might want to pretend that you're above the fray, dealing only in "hard facts" while the rest of us succumb to emotion.

 

P.S.: And you might be surprised at how much I've learned, and how much I know.  The difference between us is that I use neither of those things as an excuse to look down my nose at my fellowman and fellowwoman. 

Edited November 17, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[strappinglad]

For the uninformed, there is at least one more letter to add to the sexual orientation alphabet soup, Q. If facebook ID has it's way all 26 letters will be used...twice.

As for the OP, the turmoil over Prop8, at the least, allowed people to examine their opinions and beliefs more closely.

[poptart]

For the uninformed, there is at least one more letter to add to the sexual orientation alphabet soup, Q. If facebook ID has it's way all 26 letters will be used...twice.

As for the OP, the turmoil over Prop8, at the least, allowed people to examine their opinions and beliefs more closely.

I know won't it be fabulous?  Like every color in the rainbow! 

Also this was also something I was curious about.  Let's face it, a few decades ago this would have been a non issue, prop 8 really brought up some controversial issues.

[BCSpace]

Huh, ok then.  Well, from the looks of it the federal courts are shooting the anti gay stuff down left and right.

 

 

The 6th Circuit recently made a very promising ruling. If it went to the Supreme Court, the balance there is also promising. What then if the drooling Ginsburg finally dies or retires and the President and Congress can't agree on a replacement? What if a justice recuses? A 4-4 tie upholds the decision of the lower court.

 

Like I've said before all for the LDS church being able to run their religion the way they see fit, but, when you go against the masses long enough, they get nasty.

 

 

 

Sure.  That's when you have good PR as the Church has had so far had in preserving the doctrine and making it look to people like RFS that there has been a change.

 

Sure, it strengthened them, but wow did it turn a lot of people against them. 

 

 

 

So what? Popularity is not the ultimate goal of the Church. Our standards have never been popular.

 

 

As someone who's pretty much gay don't take it as me being condescending here, I really am curious how this stuff played out.

 

Me too.  But, I guarantee the LGBT lobby will never win in it's desire to overcome the Church.

[poptart]

The 6th Circuit recently made a very promising ruling. If it went to the Supreme Court, the balance there is also promising. What then if the drooling Ginsburg finally dies or retires and the President and Congress can't agree on a replacement? What if a justice recuses? A 4-4 tie upholds the decision of the lower court.

 

 

 

Sure.  That's when you have good PR as the Church has had so far had in preserving the doctrine and making it look to people like RFS that there has been a change.

 

 

 

So what? Popularity is not the ultimate goal of the Church. Our standards have never been popular.

 

 

Me too.  But, I guarantee the LGBT lobby will never win in it's desire to overcome the Church.

We will see, I think a lot of politicians cater to the LGBT community because not only is it popular, many have more cash due to not having the burden of child rearing.  Granted, we're a small part of the population but wow do people love us.  Sorta lol

 

And yeah, the extreme ones who want to impose stuff on the LDS church and everyone else don't represent everyone, kind of like traditional feminism and the radical stuff we all see nowadays.

[Robert F. Smith]

The Saturday morning session of the recent Conference and Conferences overall since Prop 8 seems to show a hardened stance against SSM by the Church.

Why then, BC, are some LDS Church members upset with recent action by the LDS Church to support a broadly-based Salt Lake City ordinance for non-discrimination in employment, housing, and other rights?  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705343621/Mormon-church-supports-Salt-Lake-Citys-protections-for-gay-rights.html?pg=all .  And why were members of the LGBTQ (happy strappinglad?) community so effusive in their praise?

 

Also, why then, did a Gospel Topics essay address the whole same gender attraction issue so forthrightly and humanely?  https://www.lds.org/topics/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng .  Note the accompanying talks and sites which provide further evidence of a sincere effort on the part of the Brethren to make nice, while not giving an inch on the LDS doctrine on marriage.  Can you imagine why Rivers might conclude that there has indeed been a softening?

[The Nehor]

For the uninformed, there is at least one more letter to add to the sexual orientation alphabet soup, Q. If facebook ID has it's way all 26 letters will be used...twice.As for the OP, the turmoil over Prop8, at the least, allowed people to examine their opinions and beliefs more closely.

Yeah, some people just need to fit into a very small group to be special and give their lives meaning so they are constantly inventing new gender and preference names for every point on the spectrum of sexuality and to validate fetishes and perversions as distinctive.

Kind of sad really.

[Robert F. Smith]

The 6th Circuit recently made a very promising ruling. If it went to the Supreme Court, the balance there is also promising. What then if the drooling Ginsburg finally dies or retires and the President and Congress can't agree on a replacement? What if a justice recuses? A 4-4 tie upholds the decision of the lower court.

Also, Justice Clarence Thomas has recently indicated that there might be a divided court.

 

Sure.  That's when you have good PR as the Church has had so far had in preserving the doctrine and making it look to people like RFS that there has been a change.

......................................................................................................   

You can quote me if you like, but I would appreciate you not falsifying my position for cheap ideological advantage -- as political partisans so frequently do.  See my post #23.