The Daily Universe -- Defending Proposition 8

[UtahDan]

UD, let me cut to the chase here: Do you put the church's position on same-sex marriage in the same category as the priesthood ban, i.e., wrong, a mistake? Or do you think only that it is wrong for the church to get involved in the political issue of same-sex marriage?

I think that our involvement was a mistake. I don't see it as being the same as the priesthood ban because I don't think gay marriage will ever be consistent with the doctrine of the church. As you know, I am in Morris Thurston's camp as respects the arguments made in favor it with the exception of "because the Prophet said we should."

Do I pass?

[LA Ute]

I think that our involvement was a mistake. I don't see it as being the same as the priesthood ban because I don't think gay marriage will ever be consistent with the doctrine of the church. As you know, I am in Morris Thurston's camp as respects the arguments made in favor it with the exception of "because the Prophet said we should."

Do I pass?

You may remain seated among the faithful, my son.

(I was just trying to figure out where you stand. It's important for the surveillance report I have to fill out tomorrow.)

[UtahDan]

You may remain seated among the faithful, my son.

(I was just trying to figure out where you stand. It's important for the surveillance report I have to fill out tomorrow.)

I'm a faithful heretic.

[UtahDan]

You may remain seated among the faithful, my son.

(I was just trying to figure out where you stand. It's important for the surveillance report I have to fill out tomorrow.)

But now you have to answer my riddle. If the Prophet had come out in opposition to Prop 8 would you, based on some or all of the reasons articled in the campaign would you have concluded that he was wrong?

[LA Ute]

But now you have to answer my riddle. If the Prophet had come out in opposition to Prop 8 would you, based on some or all of the reasons articled in the campaign would you have concluded that he was wrong?

That's a hypo, not a riddle, and one I have never contemplated. The best answer I can give is that I would take very seriously the prophet's opposition and it would set me back more than a bit (i.e., cause me to reevaluate my position). I suspect (again, this is a hypothetical) that if I deciuded to persist in my support of a political measure the prophet had taken the extraordinary step of opposing publicly, I would simply vote my conscience and keep my views about the issue to myself.

[UtahDan]

That's a hypo, not a riddle, and one I have never contemplated. The best answer I can give is that I would take very seriously the prophet's opposition and it would set me back more than a bit (i.e., cause me to reevaluate my position). I suspect (again, this is a hypothetical) that if I deciuded to persist in my support of a political measure the prophet had taken the extraordinary step of opposing publicly, I would simply vote my conscience and keep my views about the issue to myself.

Getting you to think is sort of becoming a hobby of mine. Even if you decline to answer. That's okay, I didn't truly answer your question either.

Interestingly, after the church took the extraordinary step of sending a representative to a SLC city counsel meeting to support the passage of an anti-discrimination relating to jobs and housing for gays, a subsequent poll showed that 28% still opposed a similar statewide measure. So there are plenty of people on the other side of the "spectrum" who are not ready to align them self with the church when it does something more progressive on this issue. Of course, there was a big jump in support after that as well.

[UtahDan]

I'm sorry to keep beating this drum but this topic remains on my mind lately. Here is a quote I heard today that bothers me:

When we Mormons get really historically clear on our whole journey we will have a long list of things that we are very, very proud of and I can make that list as well as anybody alive.

And then we're going to have another list of things we are not very proud of. We will always, of course, be uncomfortable with the Mountain Meadows massacre. We will always be uncomfortable with polygamy. We will always be uncomfortable with our history with racism. I believe that we will be uncomfortable that at a given time in history when we could, when our church could, have taken a leadership role in the issues that we conveniently called women's issues such as bringing back the concept of ... the feminine part of the divine in the Godhead, that rather than doing that we chose to work actively against it.

But I believe our greatest shame is going to be reserved for how we have treated our gay brothers and sisters because I don't think there is one black man who ever took his life over how we made him feel in not being able to hold priesthood in our church. Neither I nor any of my women friends have taken our lives over issues that were and are deeply important to us. Being not only marginalized but actively worked against.

However hundreds, and I do mean hundreds, of our best most beautiful LDS gay men, some women but mostly men, have taken their lives because we have made them feel so hopeless and so worthless. And when we get a real bead on that our shame will be enormous.

[The_Tick]

I'm sorry to keep beating this drum but this topic remains on my mind lately. Here is a quote I heard today that bothers me:

I don't get it though...I have yet to see a picture of the Church holding a gun or tying a rope.

People kill themselves. It happens. Folks can blame the Church if they want, but the onus goes on the person that pulls the trigger or uses the razorblade or slides the rope.

People are always looking for a scapegoat.

[TripletDaddy]

I'm sorry to keep beating this drum but this topic remains on my mind lately. Here is a quote I heard today that bothers me:

Source, counselor? interesting quote.

[UtahDan]

I don't get it though...I have yet to see a picture of the Church holding a gun or tying a rope.

People kill themselves. It happens. Folks can blame the Church if they want, but the onus goes on the person that pulls the trigger or uses the razorblade or slides the rope.

People are always looking for a scapegoat.

I think we have been down this road before, but I think we can all agree that institutions can contribute to conditions where people make this choice even if those persons are ultimately responsible for what they do. Just as a general proposition.

[The_Tick]

I think we have been down this road before, but I think we can all agree that institutions can contribute to conditions where people make this choice even if those persons are ultimately responsible for what they do. Just as a general proposition.

Now you are going to trip me up in legaleaze....but who then in responsible?

Person or Institution?

[UtahDan]

Now you are going to trip me up in legaleaze....but who then in responsible?

Person or Institution?

I think what I am saying is that it can be shared. If you were to treat Mrs. tick badly and she were to take her life (God forbid) of course she would be responsible for that choice. But you would have contributed to it. See my point? I'm saying recognizing her free agency would not be absolution for you.

[LA Ute]

Getting you to think is sort of becoming a hobby of mine. Even if you decline to answer. That's okay, I didn't truly answer your question either.

Interestingly, after the church took the extraordinary step of sending a representative to a SLC city counsel meeting to support the passage of an anti-discrimination relating to jobs and housing for gays, a subsequent poll showed that 28% still opposed a similar statewide measure. So there are plenty of people on the other side of the "spectrum" who are not ready to align them self with the church when it does something more progressive on this issue. Of course, there was a big jump in support after that as well.

Heber J. Grant was very vocally opposed to FDR and the New Deal, but Roosevelt carried Utah by a landslide in every one of his presidential runs. I've always loved that.

[The_Tick]

I think what I am saying is that it can be shared. If you were to treat Mrs. tick badly and she were to take her life (God forbid) of course she would be responsible for that choice. But you would have contributed to it. See my point? I'm saying recognizing her free agency would not be absolution for you.

And I would agree with you.

But she would be dead...so there isn't anyone for me to apologize too.

That is like people wanting Citibank to pay reparations for one of its founders owning slaves 150 years ago. Why would they pay to someone the didn't enslave. That is what I am saying is all.

I don't think the Church owes anyone an apology.

[UtahDan]

And I would agree with you.

But she would be dead...so there isn't anyone for me to apologize too.

That is like people wanting Citibank to pay reparations for one of its founders owning slaves 150 years ago. Why would they pay to someone the didn't enslave. That is what I am saying is all.

I don't think the Church owes anyone an apology.

I didn't say anything about an apology. It's about learning to love people more in the future.