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

The Daily Utah Chronicle > Opinion

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
« Previous
12
Trent Raleigh
Wed Oct 29 2008 23:26
To Kevin-
Unfortunately for me and you, the Chronicle edited my original piece quite a bit (in fact, I had a different title for the letter to the editor--- they changed it and added the word "illogical"; they also took my point about the alternative to Christ's plan founded on free agency, which was Satan's plan to restrict free agency and coerce people back to heaven). In my original letter-to-the-editor was some more information about the church's organized political involvement, mostly from the regional leaders and members out there in California. Some of this stuff has been covered in the news.

See recent articles by the Salt Lake Tribune- Prop 8: California Gay Marriage fight divides LDS Faithful. http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10797630

Here's an excerpt: "The LDS First Presidency announced its support for Proposition 8 in a letter read in every Mormon congregation. Since then, California LDS leaders have prompted members to sign up volunteers, raise money, pass out brochures produced by outsiders and distribute lawn signs and bumper stickers..."

Here is the actual pamphlet's faulty arguments and rebuttals from an active member of the LDS Church who graduated from BYU and then Harvard Law. http://www.mormonsformarriage.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/mat-responses-to-six-consequences-if-prop-8-fails-rev-1-1.pdf

Go to Mormonsformarriage.com to see LDS members leading the fight against a gay marriage amendment.

TO EVERYONE ELSE (Mormons or proponents of Proposition 8): look, I understand the natural tendency to stick up for whatever it is you believe. But if you look at the real crux of my argument you can see that it deserves some legitimate consideration and that 1) i'm not restricting you from believing whatever it is you believe because you get to go on living your life free to be straight and marry and everything, and 2) that organized attempts to stop people from doing what they feel is right and believe (in this case the freedom for gay people to marry those they love), is questionable to God's plan (per your own doctrine), the idea of separation of church and state, equality, and some argue even the Constitution. How 'bout we lead by example instead?

Trent Raleigh
Wed Oct 29 2008 22:55
To Amy and Xavier-
Xavier- I am not denying the Church the right to believe the way it wants. You're welcome to believe the way you want. Go back and read my article again, more closely this time. You seem to be injecting your own side arguments that have nothing to do with mine: 1)Nobody is condemning homosexuals, certainly not me, and 2) African Americans are a separate issue as well.

You're welcome to read my message to Amy, as it obviously pertains to you too.

Amy,
We need to clarify some things. To be FOR Proposition 8 is to be FOR restricting homosexual people from being able to legally be married. I agree with Todd, you missed the point of my argument revolved around your Church’s tenet of “free agency”. As soon as you prohibit somebody from doing something, in this case through legal means in California and here in Utah in 2004, you restrict their freedom from doing it. That’s it, no convoluted argument here.

You are welcome to not drink alcohol and do all things you deem virtuous- that’s “upholding your own values”. As soon as you get politically active to block people from doing something that offends you, but otherwise has no REAL effect on your own religion or personal marriage, then you are restricting their freedom. Any argument that states gay marriage does have an effect is tenuous (this means thin…real thin) at best, and these arguments reduce down to nothing more than being offended. Know how John and Mary’s marriage is going in upstate New York? Neither do it, and it doesn’t affect me. So why can’t we just get over it?

I would like to address your other comments about you having felt a “truthfulness” of things you’ve been taught and all the negative and positive consequences of actions. Here it is: okay. I respect you for that belief. I have many LDS friends who feel the same way. Just remember that there are plenty of Catholics, Muslims, Evangelicals, etc. that all have the similar feelings, convictions, and ideas about their religion- confirmed by their own truthfulness and justified by their own variation of what GOD is to them. Aren’t you glad we live in a country with an idea of “separation of church and state” where you aren’t in jeopardy of having to live by their imposed rules and standards simply because they may have a majority vote? I’m sure there are a lot of people that would like to change the way Mormons do things. Study your Church history, there was a lot of persecution there and a lot of unnecessary sacrifice to the coercive hand of the state (remember the Governor’s extermination order in Missouri? That had the population’s majority support too).

In his book, On Liberty, John Stewart Mills argues against the “tyranny of the masses”- stemming from a majority vote on civil liberties. No doubt this applies here. Read it, you’ll learn something. And hopefully when a tyrannical majority decides they don’t like something your population of friends and family members are doing simply because they personally believe it is wrong or it offends them, people like me will be around to fight with you.

Xavier
Wed Oct 29 2008 22:29
Oh please....Anyone who says the LDS church is intolerant of homosexuals is a hypocrite. You demand tolerance but in the same breath will rob a church of its right to believe the way it wants. That, my friend, is hypocrisy. It is important to remember the LDS church's (and Christ's) view on a "sinner": the sin is condemned, not the sinner. There are plenty of upright homosexuals; that's not the argument here.

I also think that African-American rights activists should be annoyed with the continual comparison being made with the gay marriage issue. It is not the same. Morality wasn't a primary concern with the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Now morality is the concern; is the LDS Church just supposed to turn a blind eye about something they view as reprehensible?

Why tolerance for thee but not for me?

Todd
Wed Oct 29 2008 20:09
Amy Lou, I think you may have missed the point. In America freedom of speech is welcome in any dialogue, and you are always free to join the millions of Americans who say that marriage should be between a man and a woman. However, when you legalize that statement, you have just removed the agency of that individual who would like to marry another individual of the same gender and have all of the rights that go with it. Please feel free to uphold your beliefs in your families and in your own relationship between you, your partner, and God. Leave another's choices and rights, which honestly do no harm to your relationship between your partner and God, available to themselves.

If 60% of Americans believed that women shouldn't have the right to vote because it was denigrating to a man's view of himself and his relationship with his ballot, would you offer up the same argument or was that just a convenient argument for you to offer up?

Truth is, civil rights are civil rights, whether they are white, black, or gender-specific.

Todd
Wed Oct 29 2008 19:57
Kevin, that whole statement about logic wasn't, in fact, all too logical. If you were truly were a Darwinist and understood the basics about evolution, you would in fact have nothing to argue about. Those that happen to be homosexual who choose not to reproduce heterosexually would have no impact on the next generation's prevalence of homosexuality, assuming there is some biologic component. Indeed, heterosexuality needs no protection from being endangered, and your idea that the instinctual way is the right way, even the moral way is far from Darwinian nor does it have any place in scientific thought. The reality is, the human race is in no shortage of heterosexuals but has far too many who would like to restrict and dictate the rights of others.
Kevin Jensen
Wed Oct 29 2008 18:01
Oh, and Trent Raleigh, can you please provide an example of the material that you find of "questionable integrity and misinformation?" Because people can just make stuff up, and it would be nice to have some proof.
Kevin Jensen
Wed Oct 29 2008 17:42
You want logic. Logically, in an exaggerated example, if everyone in the world were to turn homosexual, and there was no such thing as methods like in vitro fertilization, then the whole human race would become extinct in one generation. So, say that I am a darwinist, then this whole example goes directly against darwinism. One could say that this would be a step back on the path of evolution. So, it seems to me that the church is being very logical. The only way to preserve a society is to maintain heterosexual relationships.
The New Yorker
Wed Oct 29 2008 14:51
Ignorance is blissful, is it not? Isn't it a fundamental christian belief that god loves us, and we will be forgiven for our sins. If, by some twisted truth, homosexuality is a sin, then isn't it up to the individual to seek out forgiveness, and not for religious foke to prevent them from practicing what they naturally feel?

Proposition 8 is an embarrassment for the state of California, and the people of America. In 1861, states started seceeding from the Union because they oppossed ending slavery. When the Civil War was finally over, our government determined that the slaves would be freed, despite the opposition of a great number of people in this country. Now here we are, over 140 years later, and we are leaving a major civil concern up to the people. Where is the leadership?

On the contrary, where is the opposition? It amuses me that bloggers, and other internet rants outright oppose this measure, but why not come out into the open and show yourself? Do you fear being labeled a bigot? Or is that you are afraid to show your face, because you actually believe that homosexuals do have the right to marriage? You leave it up to priests, reverends, and the like to stand up and speak for you. I'm glad you coware behind the word of god, rather than speaking for yourself. Your ignorance, and follow-the-leader mentality expose you for who you really are: a lemming. Have fun running to the ocean.

Amy Lou
Wed Oct 29 2008 14:34
Free agency is central to Christ's plan. We do believe that. We also believe that there are good choices and bad choices in that free agency. Which is why we choose not to participate in certain activities. We choose not to consume alcohol, we choose to be virtuous. We choose these things because we have been taught, have felt the truthfulness of them, and firmly believe in the positive and negative consequences of our choices. We believe marriage is ordained of God and is between a man and a woman. I don't consider it a bad thing to work to uphold your beliefs and values. If members in California want to fight against proposition 8 that is their right as citizens of the Unites States to do so. There is no contradiction in that doctrine. There IS free agency and there ARE consequences to our actions. Fighting for what you believe in is not contradicting free agency.
Your name
Wed Oct 29 2008 11:16
After reading your article, I am now for Proposition 8.
« Previous
12






log out