Are Mormon historians rewriting history, what is the truth?

[provoman]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

That depends on the the sin involved.  Some sins require church discipline and many of them are not apostasy.  If the Church wants to frame SSM as apostasy it is within its right to frame it as such.  For me personally I like to keep my terms neat and clean.  To me SSM is no more apostasy as a person deciding to become a porn star is apostasy.   I really don't see a difference between a gay couple married together and a gay couple living together not married.  One is not worse than the other since I don't give the marriage any validity.  By treating the married couple differently, one is giving some weight to the marriage. I think its better just to completely ignore the marriage.  It is as though it did not happen.  Sort of like baptism without priesthood authority.  Its no more valid than baptizing a bag of sand.  

Apostasy is the rejection of the Church itself or its authority.  Rejecting the Book of Mormon, the restoration, Jesus Christ, ect is apostasy.  Not paying tithing, breaking the sabbath, premarital sex, homosexual practices whether "married" according to the laws of the land or not is not apostasy but they are all sins of different degrees. All apostasy is sin but not all sin is apostasy.  The Church is free to do whatever it wants.  I have no say in the matter but if someone was to ask me to defend the Church on its labeling SSM as apostasy I can't do it either.  I don't see it in the apostasy spectrum but violation of the law of chastity spectrum.  Its far easier to argue against SSM on those grounds than broaden apostasy into other areas.  Either way they result in the same conclusion which is excommunication if one does not repent.

Shouldn't we use the definition of things that the Church uses? On LDS.org - Apostasy - When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy. I know the Church Handbook outlines about 4 - 7 different situations of apostasy.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

For a church that doesn't recognize the vows that Sam sex couples make, they seem to take those vows pretty seriously. 

More irony to be sure

Call it what you want, but Posted 21 hours ago

To rephrase, as you are wont to require: The Church does recognize the seriousness, even if not the ecclesiastical or religious validity, of ssm vows. My observation is that it perverts the original institution that God established and that which the Church recognizes as an extension of the family and family order in heaven. That makes it pretty serious, which is why it is addressed as apostasy in the Handbook.

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

Shouldn't we use the definition of things that the Church uses? On LDS.org - Apostasy - When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy. I know the Church Handbook outlines about 4 - 7 different situations of apostasy.

I guess but then why limit it to SSM.  Refusal to pay tithing or honoring the sabbath would be a turning away from the principles of the gospel.  So if I am required to attach the label of apostasy to SSM, I think out of consistency I should apply it to other situations as well.

[provoman]

45 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I guess but then why limit it to SSM.  Refusal to pay tithing or honoring the sabbath would be a turning away from the principles of the gospel.  So if I am required to attach the label of apostasy to SSM, I think out of consistency I should apply it to other situations as well.

The Church has been specific about members who enter a ssm. 

I do think it is my place to place the label of apostasy on conduct that the Church has not identified as such; I am not a Judge in Israel, which is why I do not think it is my place to label another's conduct.

I do understand the point about consistancy, which is what the discussion has revovled around. 

Edited December 27, 2016 by provoman

[CV75]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I guess but then why limit it to SSM.  Refusal to pay tithing or honoring the sabbath would be a turning away from the principles of the gospel.  So if I am required to attach the label of apostasy to SSM, I think out of consistency I should apply it to other situations as well.

The Church has defined apostasy for doctrinal purposes and has also identified specific behaviors in policy for administrative purposes consistent with that definition.

Doctrinal definition: “When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy.” https://www.lds.org/topics/apostasy?lang=eng

Administrative / policy definition: “As used here [bold mine], apostasy refers to members who…” Ssm is not the only item listed, and it has a common theme with one or two other items that entail making covenants in direct contradiction to LDS covenants and in one case irrespective of any serious moral infraction. At least 3 of 5 items listed need not entail serious moral offenses. Disobedience to tithing and sabbath are not on the lists of things to hold disciplinary councils for (i.e. serious transgressions or apostasy), evidently because they are not moral offenses and have no tangible victims and/or partners in their commission, things all the other items have in common.

Edited December 28, 2016 by CV75

[carbon dioxide]

48 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The Church has defined apostasy for doctrinal purposes and has also identified specific behaviors in policy for administrative purposes consistent with that definition.

Doctrinal definition: “When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy.” https://www.lds.org/topics/apostasy?lang=eng

Administrative / policy definition: “As used here [bold mine], apostasy refers to members who…” Ssm is not the only item listed, and it has a common theme with one or two other items that entail making covenants in direct contradiction to LDS covenants and in one case irrespective of any serious moral infraction. At least 3 of 5 items listed need not entail serious moral offenses. Disobedience to tithing and sabbath are not on the lists of things to hold disciplinary councils for (i.e. serious transgressions or apostasy), evidently because they are not moral offenses and have no tangible victims and/or partners in their commission, things all the other items have in common.

I guess I view it under the doctrinal view and not the administrative view.  We can be in a state of apostasy on any point of the gospel that we turn away from or reject regardless of how serious it is but being in a state of apostasy does not mean one is apostate.  The administrative or policy one I have a little more difficult time with but no matter.   If somebody asks me why its apostasy I will just tell them to see the handbook.  It is not one that I will really have to deal with in my life.  No way the Lord will ever make me a bishop or anything above that.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I guess I view it under the doctrinal view and not the administrative view.  We can be in a state of apostasy on any point of the gospel that we turn away from or reject regardless of how serious it is but being in a state of apostasy does not mean one is apostate.  The administrative or policy one I have a little more difficult time with but no matter.   If somebody asks me why its apostasy I will just tell them to see the handbook.  It is not one that I will really have to deal with in my life.  No way the Lord will ever make me a bishop or anything above that.

Yes, there are two mutually inclusive views and sometime people need to use both and sometimes not.

[california boy]

On 12/27/2016 at 11:47 AM, why me said:

California Boy: Why did the gay community ignore the Orlando tragedy and its links to Islamism? My point is simple. The lds church is cotton candy when compared to the homophobia found in Islamism and other aspects of the faith. And yet, the gay community seems to enjoy attacking the weakest link, ie, the lds church.

Sometimes I am just astounded at the complete ignorance members of the church have on this issue.

Yes, what the Muslin shooter did in Orlando was horrific.  But he was a lone gunman, acting out on his own distorted religious beliefs.  To condemn all Muslins for what this shooter did is like condemning all Christians for the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Let me put in perspective what the Mormon CHURCH did towards the gay community.

On June 11. 1963, Governor Wallace stood in front of Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama to try and deny 2 black students their equal rights.  By doing so, he became the face of those that did all they could to deny blacks their civil rights.  To this day, his name is meant with distain and disgust both within the black community and the majority of Americans.  What he did to try and prevent blacks from being treated equally to every other American is hardly viewed as a "cotton candy" act.

In the fall of 2008, it was the Mormon Church, directed by it's leaders as the ones that stood in the forefront of denying gay couples the civil rights that was guaranteed them by the Constitution of California.  Simply put, the Mormon Church is the George Wallace of gay rights fight to be treated equally under the law.  While the Mormon Church tried to deny gay couples their civil rights, eventually the Supreme Court and every other Federal Appellate court in this country stepped in and affirmed those rights.  The Mormon Church will ALWAYS be the George Wallace to those that supported and continue to support the civil rights of gays.  If you think this is just my opinion, try reading the comments on just about any article concerning gay rights.  The Mormon church is always linked in a very negative way when talking about those issues.  Does the church deserve that kind of treatment?  Well, does George Wallace deserve the kind of scorning he continually receives in his role in trying to deny blacks their civil rights?  What the church did to try and prevent gay couples from being treated equally to every other American is hardly viewed as a "cotton candy" act.  How the church continues to treat gay couples only reinforces what others already think of the Mormon Church.  When even many members of the Mormon Church itself feel like gays are being treated unfairly by the church then, you know you have a problem.  And I am not talking about a "cotton candy" kind of problem.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/24/2016 at 8:02 AM, cdowis said:

Sin is generally an individual thing, but apostasy is rightfully treated as an infectious disease.  It could eventually destroy the church if not contained.

This is just reality, and the church leaders have a responsibility to protect the church.

It's called "boundary maintenance," but some people disagree on where the boundaries should be set.  And the boundaries do shift from time to time, as you pointed out with your comment on polygamy.

[why me]

28 minutes ago, california boy said:

Sometimes I am just astounded at the complete ignorance members of the church have on this issue.

Yes, what the Muslin shooter did in Orlando was horrific.  But he was a lone gunman, acting out on his own distorted religious beliefs.  To condemn all Muslins for what this shooter did is like condemning all Christians for the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Let me put in perspective what the Mormon CHURCH did towards the gay community.

 

You missed my point.

Islam is no friend to the gay community. To go through what gays have suffered in countries where Islam is the dominant religion would take a book. My point was really very simple: it is easy to attack the lds church and it is safe to do so. As it is with all christian churches who may be conservative in outlook. No so, with Islam. The gay community has shied away from attacking Islamism and other extreme forms of Islam (Salafism, wahhabism) for a reason: it is dangerous to do do. You need to research Islamism, salafism and wahhabism and what they teach about gays. These branches of Islam are taking root across Europe:

But mormons and catholics......attack, attack and attack and social pressure.

Here is an interesting book that is a must read for those who wish to understand what is happening to islam across europe:

http://www.saqibooks.co.uk/book/battle-british-islam/

Description:

Across Britain, Muslims are caught up in a battle over the very nature of their faith. And extremists appear to be gaining the upper hand. Sara Khan has spent the past decade campaigning for tolerance and equal rights within Muslim communities, and is now engaged in a new struggle for justice and understanding – the urgent need to counter Islamist-inspired extremism.

In this timely and courageous book, Khan shows how previously antagonistic groups of fundamentalist Muslims have joined forces, creating pressures that British society has never before encountered. What is more, identity politics and the attitudes of both the far Right and ultra-Left have combined to give the Islamists ever-increasing power to spread their message.

Unafraid to tackle some of the pressing issues of our time, Sara Khan addresses the question of how to break the cycle of extremism without alienating British Muslims. She calls for all Britons to reject divisive ideologies and introduces us to those individuals who are striving to build a safer future.

http://sarakhan.co.uk/battleforbritishislam/

 

 

Edited December 29, 2016 by why me

[Robert F. Smith]

41 minutes ago, california boy said:

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

On June 11. 1963, Governor Wallace stood in front of Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama to try and deny 2 black students their equal rights.  By doing so, he became the face of those that did all they could to deny blacks their civil rights.  To this day, his name is meant with distain and disgust both within the black community and the majority of Americans.  What he did to try and prevent blacks from being treated equally to every other American is hardly viewed as a "cotton candy" act.

In the fall of 2008, it was the Mormon Church, directed by it's leaders as the ones that stood in the forefront of denying gay couples the civil rights that was guaranteed them by the Constitution of California.  Simply put, the Mormon Church is the George Wallace of gay rights fight to be treated equally under the law.  While the Mormon Church tried to deny gay couples their civil rights, eventually the Supreme Court and every other Federal Appellate court in this country stepped in and affirmed those rights.  The Mormon Church will ALWAYS be the George Wallace to those that supported and continue to support the civil rights of gays.  If you think this is just my opinion, try reading the comments on just about any article concerning gay rights.  The Mormon church is always linked in a very negative way when talking about those issues.  Does the church deserve that kind of treatment?  Well, does George Wallace deserve the kind of scorning he continually receives in his role in trying to deny blacks their civil rights?  What the church did to try and prevent gay couples from being treated equally to every other American is hardly viewed as a "cotton candy" act.  How the church continues to treat gay couples only reinforces what others already think of the Mormon Church.  When even many members of the Mormon Church itself feel like gays are being treated unfairly by the church then, you know you have a problem.  And I am not talking about a "cotton candy" kind of problem.

The comparison is not apt, californiaboy.  The Mormon Church was not in the forefront of Prop 8, but came in with their pitifully small population only when asked to do so by the Roman Catholic Church.  The overwhelming majority of active supporters and voters were non-Mormons.  I understand that you are so angry that you will falsely portray the LDS Church as the George Wallace of gay rights, when that is absolutely opposed to fact.  You need to control your reckless anger -- which will distort your own mind, if you allow it.  If you want to claim that Mormons consider active homosexuality a sin, then all well and good.  But you might want to note in commenting that biblical religion is equally opposed to active homosexuality.  Orthodox Jews formally condemn it for that reason.  Yet, unlike George Corley Wallace, the Mormons fully support equal civil rights for homosexuals in housing, employment, public accommodations -- something Wallace did not support for Black People in the Jim Crow South where lynch law prevailed.  When was the last time that Mormons lynched a homosexual?  Prop 8 was a popular California vote to establish the nature of the law, which was then challenged in court and was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.  That is how a democracy works, californiaboy.  Governor Wallace did not follow the law or democratic procedures.  He was a tyrant and good old boy of the traditional Jim Crow South.  You should know the difference, and, if you weren't so angry, you would readily admit it.

Edited December 29, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Bernard Gui]

On December 27, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Benjamin Seeker said:

I'm not sure it's quite that conniving, but I'm sure you're more or less right. The policy definitely comes out of a fear of changing mainstream values and a belief that the church needs to remain unchanged.

Or it could be standing in firm affirmation of the kind of marriage that has existed and will exist through eternity - that between man and woman. Mainstream values do not equal truth. We are under no obligation to listen to the calls from that building.

Edited December 29, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

2 hours ago, why me said:

You missed my point.

Islam is no friend to the gay community. To go through what gays have suffered in countries where Islam is the dominant religion would take a book. My point was really very simple: it is easy to attack the lds church and it is safe to do so. As it is with all christian churches who may be conservative in outlook. No so, with Islam. The gay community has shied away from attacking Islamism and other extreme forms of Islam (Salafism, wahhabism) for a reason: it is dangerous to do do. You need to research Islamism, salafism and wahhabism and what they teach about gays. These branches of Islam are taking root across Europe:

But mormons and catholics......attack, attack and attack and social pressure.

Here is an interesting book that is a must read for those who wish to understand what is happening to islam across europe:

http://www.saqibooks.co.uk/book/battle-british-islam/

Description:

Across Britain, Muslims are caught up in a battle over the very nature of their faith. And extremists appear to be gaining the upper hand. Sara Khan has spent the past decade campaigning for tolerance and equal rights within Muslim communities, and is now engaged in a new struggle for justice and understanding – the urgent need to counter Islamist-inspired extremism.

In this timely and courageous book, Khan shows how previously antagonistic groups of fundamentalist Muslims have joined forces, creating pressures that British society has never before encountered. What is more, identity politics and the attitudes of both the far Right and ultra-Left have combined to give the Islamists ever-increasing power to spread their message.

Unafraid to tackle some of the pressing issues of our time, Sara Khan addresses the question of how to break the cycle of extremism without alienating British Muslims. She calls for all Britons to reject divisive ideologies and introduces us to those individuals who are striving to build a safer future.

http://sarakhan.co.uk/battleforbritishislam/

 

 

Well this is a Mormon discussion board.  We are here talking about Mormon issues.  I personally find it very weak to try and make the case that just because the church is not as bad as some extremest in other countries, that gives the Mormon church a free pass to do the things that the church has done to take away the civil rights of gays.  

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The comparison is not apt, californiaboy.  The Mormon Church was not in the forefront of Prop 8, but came in with their pitifully small population only when asked to do so by the Roman Catholic Church.  The overwhelming majority of active supporters and voters were non-Mormons.  I understand that you are so angry that you will falsely portray the LDS Church as the George Wallace of gay rights, when that is absolutely opposed to fact.  You need to control your reckless anger -- which will distort your own mind, if you allow it.  If you want to claim that Mormons consider active homosexuality a sin, then all well and good.  But you might want to note in commenting that biblical religion is equally opposed to active homosexuality.  Orthodox Jews formally condemn it for that reason.  Yet, unlike George Corley Wallace, the Mormons fully support equal civil rights for homosexuals in housing, employment, public accommodations -- something Wallace did not support for Black People in the Jim Crow South where lynch law prevailed.  When was the last time that Mormons lynched a homosexual?  Prop 8 was a popular California vote to establish the nature of the law, which was then challenged in court and was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.  That is how a democracy works, californiaboy.  Governor Wallace did not follow the law or democratic procedures.  He was a tyrant and good old boy of the traditional Jim Crow South.  You should know the difference, and, if you weren't so angry, you would readily admit it.

We all know EXACTLY what the Mormon Church did.  I don't have to say a single thing about what the church did and what the church did not do.  And we all know exactly the reputation the church has earned world wide as a result of their actions in passing Prop 8.  You really think that I am the only one that holds this opinion?  Do you think every member of the Mormon Church agrees with what the church did?  Do you think every member of the church agrees with how the church currently treats gay couples?  What I say is if little importance.  What is important is the actions that the church itself has taken and continues to take.

I have absolutely no problem with the church believing that homosexuality is a sin.  The church, like many others can teach whatever it wants to about homosexuality.  That is not what we are talking about in the slightest.  And I think you know that.

Governor Wallace has since renounced segregation.  Does that make what he did any better?

 

 

[why me]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

 

Well this is a Mormon discussion board.  We are here talking about Mormon issues.  I personally find it very weak to try and make the case that just because the church is not as bad as some extremest in other countries, that gives the Mormon church a free pass to do the things that the church has done to take away the civil rights of gays.  

Of course it is a mormon discussion board. However one can ask a simple question: why does the gay community activists ignore political islam? Why be critical of various christian churches and not other religions outside the christian world. The criticism needs to be all emcompassing, embracing other religions that have a much worse record when it comes to gay rights. The author of the book that I mentioned is critical of identity politics and people on the left in the US and in Europe because they do not criticize extremist elecments within Islam out of respect for their muslim identity and these activists do not want to be called Islamaphobic. I find it hypocritical that gay activists seem to focus on mormonism and cathollicism or any other christian faith that has a conservative moral tradition but ignore other faiths. .

 

Edited December 29, 2016 by why me

[california boy]

1 minute ago, why me said:

Of course it is a mormon discussion board. However one can ask a simple question: why does the gay community activists ignore political islam? Why be critical of various christian churches and not other religions outside the christian world. The criticism needs to be all emcompassing, embracing other religions that have a much worse record when it comes to gay rights. The author of the book that I mentioned is critical of identity politics and people on the left in the US and in Europe because they do not criticize extremist elecments within Islam out of respect for their muslim identity and these activists do not want to be called Islamaphobic. I find it hypocritical that gay activists seem to focus on mormonism and cathollicism.

 

Well if you are really looking for an answer it is because we live in a country where all citizens have certain rights guaranteed them by the Constitution.  When a religion tries to take away those civil rights then those who value those civil rights fight back.  Americans don't look kindly on any group that tries to discriminate against minority groups.  The Mormon church found that out when it was discriminating against Blacks.  Now the target is gays.  Islamic churches have not done anything to work to take away the rights of others in America.  The Mormon church has, more than any other church or organization in America.

Middle Eastern countries have mixed religion with government and given religion control over how it treats their citizens. That is something some Christian churches would also like to do in this country as well. I know of no one who is gay that has any desire to live in Muslin run countries.  I know of no gay person that does not condemn the actions of those governments.  But there is little someone living in America can do to change the government in the Middle East.  We can not do much about what happens in Muslin countries, but we can do something about religion that tries to take away our rights in American.  We do have recourse in America.  And we can voice our concerns when religion tries to put itself above the law here.  I am sure that if a Muslin church in this country tried to do what the Mormon church has done, it would be just as viligently held accountable.  Can you think of anything that a Muslin church has done in America that comes even close to what the Mormon church has done to take away anyones civil rights?  I think that is your answer.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

We all know EXACTLY what the Mormon Church did.  I don't have to say a single thing about what the church did and what the church did not do.  And we all know exactly the reputation the church has earned world wide as a result of their actions in passing Prop 8.  You really think that I am the only one that holds this opinion?  Do you think every member of the Mormon Church agrees with what the church did?  Do you think every member of the church agrees with how the church currently treats gay couples?  What I say is if little importance.  What is important is the actions that the church itself has taken and continues to take.

If as you say "we all know exactly what the Mormon Church did," then why do you keep falsifying the story?  No one promised us a rose garden.  This life is tough and filled with manifold choices.  You need to accept the fact that not everyone sees the world the same way you do.  In the end, your penchant for hate will hurt you very deeply.  It has already so obviously warped your thinking that you continue to spend time in anti-Mormon agitation and propaganda.

8 hours ago, california boy said:

I have absolutely no problem with the church believing that homosexuality is a sin.  The church, like many others can teach whatever it wants to about homosexuality.  That is not what we are talking about in the slightest.  And I think you know that.

We are talking about the false comparisons which you made in a fit of pique.  I think that your statement here that the LDS Church can teach whatever it wants to is not meant to be taken seriously.  You don't really believe it.  You want the Mormons and other groups to stop their boundary maintenance.  You don't want them to do it.

8 hours ago, california boy said:

Governor Wallace has since renounced segregation.  Does that make what he did any better?

Yes, he did renounce some of his racist views before he died in 1998.  Much of the country has certainly moved on, but not all.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Well if you are really looking for an answer it is because we live in a country where all citizens have certain rights guaranteed them by the Constitution.  When a religion tries to take away those civil rights then those who value those civil rights fight back.  Americans don't look kindly on any group that tries to discriminate against minority groups.  The Mormon church found that out when it was discriminating against Blacks.  Now the target is gays.  Islamic churches have not done anything to work to take away the rights of others in America.  The Mormon church has, more than any other church or organization in America.

Middle Eastern countries have mixed religion with government and given religion control over how it treats their citizens. That is something some Christian churches would also like to do in this country as well. I know of no one who is gay that has any desire to live in Muslin run countries.  I know of no gay person that does not condemn the actions of those governments.  But there is little someone living in America can do to change the government in the Middle East.  We can not do much about what happens in Muslin countries, but we can do something about religion that tries to take away our rights in American.  We do have recourse in America.  And we can voice our concerns when religion tries to put itself above the law here.  I am sure that if a Muslin church in this country tried to do what the Mormon church has done, it would be just as viligently held accountable.  Can you think of anything that a Muslin church has done in America that comes even close to what the Mormon church has done to take away anyones civil rights?  I think that is your answer.

 

I guess it backfired, what the church did, because there is SSM now. Pretty sure the church didn't realize the consequence of it's actions. 

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I guess it backfired, what the church did, because there is SSM now. Pretty sure the church didn't realize the consequence of it's actions. 

It's interesting to me how many church members now want to downplay the Church's role in Prop 8 (as Robert F Smith has done here on this thread and we've seen elsewhere many times).  If it was the right thing to do and one believes that it was morally correct why the need to downplay it?  It tells me that somewhere deep down, these individuals have some concerns that it wasn't right for the church and members to do what they did.

Similarly, many members are quick to highlight the Church's change in position on other civil rights with their backing of the SLC ordinance.

[ERayR]

35 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's interesting to me how many church members now want to downplay the Church's role in Prop 8 (as Robert F Smith has done here on this thread and we've seen elsewhere many times).  If it was the right thing to do and one believes that it was morally correct why the need to downplay it?  It tells me that somewhere deep down, these individuals have some concerns that it wasn't right for the church and members to do what they did.

Similarly, many members are quick to highlight the Church's change in position on other civil rights with their backing of the SLC ordinance.

Of course it is/was right for the Church and the members to take a stand on moral issues.  Whether or not their stand was/is the correct stand will always be a matter of POV. You and I may disagree what the correct stance is but we should never castigate someone for taking a stand. 

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, ERayR said:

Of course it is/was right for the Church and the members to take a stand on moral issues.  Whether or not their stand was/is the correct stand will always be a matter of POV. You and I may disagree what the correct stance is but we should never castigate someone for taking a stand. 

Castigate is a harsh word.  But, in civil discourse, it is certainly appropriate to point out when a particular "stand" that someone (or some institution took) was wrong, or immoral, or in violation of that person's/institution's values.

[why me]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Can you think of anything that a Muslin church has done in America that comes even close to what the Mormon church has done to take away anyones civil rights?  I think that is your answer.

 

 

Muslim women are more or less forced to wear the hijab when they go outside or when they are home with a man who is not a husband or a close relative. Mosques also practice segregation between men and women. Women can be discouraged to shake the hand of a man. She must be covered by clothes across her body that hides her figure. In great britain one would be surprised by the amount of women who wear the nijab, a veil over the face. Interestingly, the koran says nothing about such clothing. It mentions that they must hide their beauty but not necessarily with a hijab or nijab. This is more or less a recent trend that began in the 90s as this link shows from the financial times:

.https://www.ft.com/content/efc25b9c-81ba-11e0-8a54-00144feabdc0

Interesting article and discussion on the bottom link:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-07-10-muslim-women-mosques_n.htm

Listen to the video. I can only imagine how a muslim homosexual would be treated in the mosgue if he came out of the closet. Do muslim women have civil rights.

Here is a great book by a muslim feminist about the hijab and other issues related to muslim women:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18490563-headscarves-and-hymens

Unfortunately if I were to speak about these issues to a group of US progressives, I would be called an Islamophobe.

Edited December 29, 2016 by why me

[why me]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I guess it backfired, what the church did, because there is SSM now. Pretty sure the church didn't realize the consequence of it's actions. 

I don't think that it did. We need to remember that the catholic church was also involved. Churches do have a right to stand up for their principles. Did not Joseph Smith run for president detailing his many issues? Should the church have supported same sex marriage after it issued the proclamation on the family? Imagine what the critics would now be saying if it did so.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I guess it backfired, what the church did, because there is SSM now. Pretty sure the church didn't realize the consequence of it's actions. 

If the only reason that SSM is legal now is because the LDS Church became very publicly against it, then it is totally wrong that SSM is now legal and all the arguments for it extraordinarily weak or empty.

Hopefully there are a lot of good reasons, better reasons for the legalization of SSM than LDS opposition...or any opposition for that matter.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If as you say "we all know exactly what the Mormon Church did," then why do you keep falsifying the story?  

I have stated three facts.  

The California Supreme Court affirmed that gay couples had the civil right to marry in the State of California as guaranteed them in the state constitution.  

The Mormon church led a major campaign to take away that civil right.  

Federal courts throughout the country including the U.S Supreme Court have ALSO ruled that gays have equal protection under the Federal Constitution and a civil right to marry.

I will ask for a CFR on ANY statement I have said that is false.  I expect you to honor the CFR or withdraw the accusation that I have said anything false.

Quote

 

We are talking about the false comparisons which you made in a fit of pique.  I think that your statement here that the LDS Church can teach whatever it wants to is not meant to be taken seriously.  You don't really believe it.  You want the Mormons and other groups to stop their boundary maintenance.  You don't want them to do it.

Yes, he did renounce some of his racist views before he died in 1998.  Much of the country has certainly moved on, but not all.

 

I also made this statement which you are referring to.

 

Quote

 

On June 11. 1963, Governor Wallace stood in front of Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama to try and deny 2 black students their equal rights.  By doing so, he became the face of those that did all they could to deny blacks their civil rights.  To this day, his name is meant with distain and disgust both within the black community and the majority of Americans.  What he did to try and prevent blacks from being treated equally to every other American is hardly viewed as a "cotton candy" act.

In the fall of 2008, it was the Mormon Church, directed by it's leaders as the ones that stood in the forefront of denying gay couples the civil rights that was guaranteed them by the Constitution of California.  Simply put, the Mormon Church is the George Wallace of gay rights fight to be treated equally under the law.

 

Now what part of that statement is false.  

Look I get that you may very well want to rewrite history and pretend that the Mormon Church did not lead the campaign to take away the civil rights of gay couples.  But unlike so much of church history in the past, I for one am not willing to let members rewrite history for what ever reason they wish to forget what happened.  

This is a discussion board.  You have made an assertion that I have falsified information about this subject. This  is your chance to show me EXACTLY what I have said that is not true.