Washington Post on LDS & Prop. 8

[Solon]

Another look at the issue from today's W.P.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

[RobinFinderson]

Interesting read. Thanks for the link.

With so much political scrutiny over Prop 8 one would think that any church that was proud of its contribution to a victory would welcome the opportunity to further elucidate to the public the merits of its position. After all, the battle over gay marriage will continue, state after state. But instead of taking ownership of its effort and the outcome, the Church focuses on the unfairness of being singled out by the protesters. Why should a church be concerned about being singled out for supporting God's will? Falling out of grace with the wicked should not be concern, right? And if the church is receiving an unfair share of the credit for Prop 8's passage, for a church that pumps millions of dollars into spreading the gospel, shouldn't this media attention be viewed as a unique opportunity to share God's message with the world?

To me, the church's handling this problem as if it were a PR nightmare just doesn't mesh very well with the image of prophets speaking God's vision for humanity from the mountaintop.

[Solon]

To me, the church's handling this problem as if it were a PR nightmare just doesn't mesh very well with the image of prophets speaking God's vision for humanity from the mountaintop.

It's surprising to me that the church's definitive statements on this issue are coming via the newsroom, with unsigned press releases (other than the initial June 2008 letter from the first presidency). That's a little different from the Samuel-the-Lamanite-painting spoofs I saw on the internet.

Aside from Bednar's little video, I haven't seen/heard many pronouncements on this issue from the actual mouths/pens of the highest leaders. IMO, Monson has been noticeably silent on this issue in public. The language of the statements strikes me as more legalistic than prophetic. But, then again, I imagine the LDS leaders are trying to tread lightly in order to deflect accusations of political activism. Or maybe the top dogs have bigger fish to fry.

[RobinFinderson]

Thanks again for the link to the Bednar video. Even as I fail to find his arguments remotely compelling, it is refreshing to hear them from a church authority rather than an 'unsigned press release.'

So Bednar, at one point, argues that wider social acceptance of gay marriage will increase intolerance toward Mormons who (currently) believe in one man + one woman. Wow. What a curious understanding of the concept of tolerance.

[Jeff Lebowski]

So Bednar, at one point, argues that wider social acceptance of gay marriage will increase intolerance toward Mormons who (currently) believe in one man + one woman. Wow. What a curious understanding of the concept of tolerance.

Agreed. I can't believe he made that argument.

[il Padrino Ute]

Thanks again for the link to the Bednar video. Even as I fail to find his arguments remotely compelling, it is refreshing to hear them from a church authority rather than an 'unsigned press release.'

So Bednar, at one point, argues that wider social acceptance of gay marriage will increase intolerance toward Mormons who (currently) believe in one man + one woman. Wow. What a curious understanding of the concept of tolerance.

It's really not that curious at all, especially if you consider the tolerance displayed by the fringe gay community for the Mormon church after the passing of Prop 8.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It's really not that curious at all, especially if you consider the tolerance displayed by the fringe gay community for the Mormon church after the passing of Prop 8.

That's circular logic.

Bednar argued that we cannot tolerate gay marriage because it may eventually lead to intolerance for traditional marriage. That just makes no sense. Does he think that society will push for a ban on traditional marriage?

"I can't tolerate your viewpoint, because if I do, you won't tolerate mine." Huh?

[il Padrino Ute]

That's circular logic.

Bednar argued that we cannot tolerate gay marriage because it may eventually lead to intolerance for traditional marriage. That just makes no sense. Does he think that society will push for a ban on traditional marriage?

"I can't tolerate your viewpoint, because if I do, you won't tolerate mine." Huh?

It is circular logic, I agree. But I have to admit that I pulled an SU and didn't click on the link to Bednar's comments. I just speculated based on what I thought was being said.

[RobinFinderson]

It's really not that curious at all, especially if you consider the tolerance displayed by the fringe gay community for the Mormon church after the passing of Prop 8.

Tolerance, generally speaking, is about creating a public sphere where the widest possible range of people can pursue their non-mutually-exclusive self-defined interests. This is wildly different than the tolerance that Bednar is talking about. It is also very different than the 'intolerance' shown by the protesters.

[Solon]

Tolerance, generally speaking, is about creating a public sphere where the widest possible range of people can pursue their non-mutually-exclusive self-defined interests. This is wildly different than the tolerance that Bednar is talking about. It is also very different than the 'intolerance' shown by the protesters.

I think Bednar here is reiterating The Divine Institution of Marriage document's discussion of "tolerance."

Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression.
In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think Bednar here is reiterating The Divine Institution of Marriage document's discussion of "tolerance."

"Tolerance" is a loaded term. It carries so much baggage these days that it is tough to have an intelligent discussion about it sometimes.

[RobinFinderson]

In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship.

I think the church is whacking at a total straw man here. Who thinks tolerance is about condoning, love or friendship? To 'tolerate' is a minimal gesture. It isn't an embrace. Two people don't have to like each other to be tolerant of each other. They simply have to not stand in the others way.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think the church is whacking at a total straw man here. Who thinks tolerance is about condoning, love or friendship? To 'tolerate' is a minimal gesture. It isn't an embrace. Two people don't have to like each other to be tolerant of each other. They simply have to not stand in the others way.

Exactly.