College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students

LDS Church stance on proposition 8 illogical

By

Print this article

Published: Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Updated: Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Editor:

Proposition 8 in California remains hotly contested here in Utah. According to The Salt Lake Tribune, more than 59,000 members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have donated more than $19 million to efforts to pass the legislation. Pamphlets of questionable integrity and misinformation have been distributed in California wards. Memos from the LDS Church favoring the legislation have led to countless talks in local wards about sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. A similar political strategy was organized here during Utah’s own constitutional amendment in 2004.

The contradictions in their own doctrine are bewildering. The LDS Church and its members have cited their doctrine, such as the Proclamation of the Family to the World as a justification of their active position in this civil matter. Yet their doctrine clearly states the tenet of “free agency” as key and central to Christ’s plan.

Marriage is indeed highly prized in society; it has many important positive effects for a couple, religious or not. It fosters psychological and economic well-being. It possesses many attributes that civil unions do not. Those who argue that a ban on gay marriage does not restrict freedom ignore the fragmented laws involving civil unions and deeply discount the important personal benefits and rights that married people universally enjoy.

The LDS Church’s volatile history is ripe with oppression from the state. Now that the LDS Church enjoys moderately mainstream status in society, it seems the tables have turned.

Trent Raleigh,
Senior, Economics and Environmental Studies

Comments

30 comments
the kreater
Wed Nov 12 2008 11:28
tuche, new yorker, tuche!!!
The New Yorker
Tue Nov 11 2008 19:27
the kreater: Very professional response. It's been fun.
the kreater
Tue Nov 11 2008 17:34
whatever "new yorker" i dont know what I'm "deciding" the "people" have decided already, dont be mad because they didnt decide what you wanted.
The New Yorker
Tue Nov 11 2008 16:23
the kreater: Like I said, you don't get to decide this. Sorry you can't see that.
the kreater
Tue Nov 11 2008 14:57
to the new yorker: im sorry but you seem to have your own understanding about "choosing an oppressor"...in this case the oppressor of gays seems to be the people of california, NOT LDS and other church groups. there is not any type of oppression of the gay community from any church organizations, just oppression from homophobes and hate groups, which the LDS is neither. just like i said, from the point of view of gays, there has to be someone to blame, and in their case, its mormons.
Your name
Tue Nov 11 2008 14:56
to the new yorker: im sorry but you seem to have your own understanding about "choosing an oppressor"...in this case the oppressor of gays seems to be the people of california, NOT LDS and other church groups. there is not any type of oppression of the gay community from any church organizations, just oppression from homophobes and hate groups, which the LDS is neither. just like i said, from the point of view of gays, there has to be someone to blame, and in their case, its mormons.
The New Yorker
Tue Nov 11 2008 14:35
the kreater: You seem unable to understand the situation. A repressed group is allowed to determine who they deem their oppressor. Sucks, doesn't it? But it's usually correct. Are you really unable to see why the different races you mention would be mildly upset with the white majority in this country? Are you really unable to see the recent oppression of the gay community? If not, I'm supporting a proposition to eliminate the term "marriage" in favor of all legally recognized relationships being called "civil unions". Sound good?
the kreater
Mon Nov 10 2008 16:23
what really offends me is the fact that gays are looking for an oppressor, just like blacks, hispanics, and asians say that the white man holds them back...they just want someone to blame. prop 8 was just about DEFINING marriage between man and woman, NOT taking anyones rights. gays still have the same rights as they did before the prop 8 was passed. their civil union is still recognized, just the definition has changed.
Your name
Mon Nov 10 2008 12:35
god said everybody love everybody. but the church of latter day saints. makes god only there god. god loves me just as much as he loves mormans. and i still say god one day will open his temples to all. its the mormon people who are bigots
Harold Rabinowitz
Sat Nov 8 2008 22:06
so many germans sold out to Hitler, so many died.....
George Fallen
Sat Nov 8 2008 22:04
its time to stop hate, nazis, control, abuse, bullies. I am from Seattle and just cancelled my holiday in your fair state.
Tom Wall Hemet, CA
Sat Nov 8 2008 00:25
I am a proud member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and have a word to my Brothers and Sisters in the Church who are not happy with the Savior position against same sex marriage. You seem to think you can outwit the Lords council and run His Church your way. How did a church teaching so basic as following our prophet get away from you. While we're on the subject did you raise your hand and sustain President Monson as your prophet, seer and revelator? You must speak to our Father about this I am sure he would like to discuss this with you.
Rudi
Thu Oct 30 2008 18:26
Live and let live? Religion is all about making people better. Free Agency is not free. There are consequences to every decision that is made. The Church is there to help people avoid the negative consequences of wrong choices. This is totally within the doctrine of the LDS Church. The Church is urging its members to make the right choice in defending marriage. The Church also believes in agency, the freedom to make a choice for yourself. Nothing is illogical or contradictory about these two beliefs. The problem is that those who want to trash the Church for these beliefs, do not take into account the third belief, that man is accountable for the choices he makes. As I said, free agency is not free, there is always a price to pay.
The New Yorker
Thu Oct 30 2008 15:05
Oops, sorry that got posted twice
The New Yorker
Thu Oct 30 2008 15:04
I applaud Trent for being respectful regarding this matter. However, I think he is being too kind and diplomatic. Please do not accuse me of intolerance. I am very tolerant of religious beliefs. However, when you feel the need to impose what you believe on me, then I have a problem with it...

I brought up the issue of slavery, and I am surprised that several people denounced the comparison. History repeats itself, and the slavery issue is directly related to this matter, just as women's rights are tied in as well. All the issues are related because they are issues of civil liberties. Denouncing the comparison reveals your true ideology and agenda of ignorance and control. Saying that homosexuals have no right to marry is a civil concern. During the time of slavery, and even today, there are Christians that proclaim anyone with dark skin is a devil, so there certainly is a moral concern with both issues, at least to some people.

Would you like it if there were a law that restricted Mormons from wedding? Think about that carefully, because it's a part of LDS history that is still an issue today. Really though, if I believe that allowing two Mormons to marry was detestable and something I found objectionable, would you be satisfied with that?

And do not go throwing a book with printed pages at me. I am glad you have a guidebook to life. However, make your argument based on something other than what someone has told you to believe. Because when you start saying, "God this" and "God that", I will just start saying that I believe Mormons should not marry, and we will get nowhere.

Amy Lou
Thu Oct 30 2008 14:39
I agree with what you're saying to a point. I agree that everyone should have their personal freedoms so long as they're not harming other citizens, and obviously this isn't harming other citizens. Now I am feeling that by taking a certain stance on the proposition I am pushing my beliefs on others...which is not what I want to do. Because of my belief's I feel a responsibility to protect the righteousness of my country to continue the protection I feel we have, and by voting for this or not being a strong opposition I feel that I am not completing that responsibility. Everyone has their right to an opinion. If members of one religion OR ANOTHER feel compelled to choose an opinion and fund it that is their right. I just don't want you to single out one religion.
The New Yorker
Thu Oct 30 2008 14:27
I applaud Trent for being respectful regarding this matter. However, I think he is being too kind and diplomatic. Please do not accuse me of intolerance. I am very tolerant of religious beliefs. However, when you feel the need to impose what you believe on me, then I have a problem with it...

I brought up the issue of slavery, and I am surprised that several people denounced the comparison. History repeats itself, and the slavery issue is directly related to this matter, just as women's rights are tied in as well. All the issues are related because they are issues of civil liberties. Denouncing the comparison reveals your true ideology and agenda of ignorance and control. Saying that homosexuals have no right to marry is a civil concern. During the time of slavery, and even today, there are Christians that proclaim anyone with dark skin is a devil, so there certainly is a moral concern with both issues, at least to some people.

Would you like it if there were a law that restricted Mormons from wedding? Think about that carefully, because it's a part of LDS history that is still an issue today. Really though, if I believe that allowing two Mormons to marry was detestable and something I found objectionable, would you be satisfied with that?

And do not go throwing a book with printed pages at me. I am glad you have a guidebook to life. However, make your argument based on something other than what someone has told you to believe. Because when you start saying, "God this" and "God that", I will just start saying that I believe Mormons should not marry, and we will get nowhere.

Sher
Thu Oct 30 2008 13:26
"Live and Let Live". Its as simple as that. If you truly believe the superiority of your religion(s), then the example setting is most likely the balance of what "God's" intention was. He gave each of us the 'Free Agency' to choose. Why should anyone be allowed to remove that right? There are many marriages, that have fallen apart and many causal factors that brought that about. Just because a person has chosen a different form of lifestyle does not mean they are not capable of being LDS, in fact, you would be surprised to find out how many of them are. So, don't get stuck in the "Judging Role". Look into the mirror and if your lifestyle works for you and someone else's is not affecting you directly - leave'm alone. They have the right to be 'different'. Your comfort zone gives you many choices to make and no one is asking you to give up those choices. Why then, would we want to take those same choices away from individuals whom are different? They have the same right's as those of us whom claim to be 'Norm', if you can define 'Norm' in our world today!
I am grateful for individuals whom can find a balance in our society for everyone. Our constitution protects us from the extremities of areas that need to be addressed. But I think sometimes others have a tremendous need to control other's lives so much that they lose sight of the 'human factor'.
We as a people must retain out rights to speak out, to vote in what we believe, and to be reasonable in our expectations without thrusting our personal beliefs on others whom don't necessarily agree. It is okay to disagree, be different, and to still be a part of society. There are some pretty awesome 'different people' out there. Shutting the door on them is not the answer, controlling them is worse.
'Live and Let Live".
...about the children
Thu Oct 30 2008 09:22
Again, gay couples as parents is a separate issue from the original topic. I don't know about the studies you are referring to. I have met a few gay couples with kids, they seemed pretty stable to me, but I would be open to reviewing those studies. By your logic however couldn't we say the same thing about low income families and restrict them from having children? Don't they have some pretty negative social correlations about the "type" of kids coming out of these homes? What would you do? Sterilize them? Prevent poor people from getting married?
What about children?
Thu Oct 30 2008 01:50
Children deserve to have a mother AND a father. Where is the child's "agency" in this matter? They have none. That's the problem. Studies have proven that homosexual parental enviornments are more detrimental to the emotional, behavioral, and psychological health of chlidren than other forms of so-called "broken homes" (i.e. abusive parent, divorce, etc.). Tendency towards crime increases, as does the likelihood of mental illness. That's not to say that problems are exclusive to gay parents (because they aren't), but risks to children MUST be included as ramifications of the gay marriage debate. Argue it how you will, but you cannot deny that children (resulting from adoption rights that would be guaranteed to legally recognized gay marriages) will be negatively externalized by the "choice" of homosexual spouses. When the issue is protecting the rights of those who cannot protect them themselves, it is right and necessary to undertake action (including legal actions as the Church is persuing) to protect these interests. The church is well within its legal and ethical rights to publically fight for proposition 8.






log out