Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Mormon church found to have spent almost $200,000 on Prop 8, but didn't report it

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU
 
ck4829 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-09 08:29 AM
Original message
The Mormon church found to have spent almost $200,000 on Prop 8, but didn't report it
Mormon church officials, facing an ongoing investigation by the state Fair Political Practices Commission, Friday reported nearly $190,000 in previously unlisted assistance to the successful campaign for Prop. 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California.

The report, filed with the secretary of state's office, listed a variety of California travel expenses for high-ranking members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and included $20,575 for use of facilities and equipment at the church's Salt Lake City headquarters and a $96,849 charge for "compensated staff time" for church employees who worked on matters pertaining to Prop. 8.

"This is exactly what we were talking about when we filed the suit," said Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate, which opposed the same-sex marriage ban. "They spent money on the campaign and were supposed to report it."

Church officials were not available for comment Friday night.

Up until Friday, the Mormon church had denied any direct financial support for the campaign beyond a reported $2,078 spent for bringing church Elder L. Whitney Clayton to California.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/0...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-09 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
1. Tax Time
Tax em.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-09 09:21 AM
Response to Original message
2. Meet Joe Black.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-09 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
3. So the Mormons lied about it all.
And they lied with impunity, thinking they were above the law and beyond ethical behavior. The leadership of LDS told an organized and rehersed set of public lies, false testimony, false witness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-09 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Lying is a strong indicator they knew what they were doing was wrong
if they truly did it because of their religious convictions (wrong though they were), they would have professed it loudly to the world.
so, this indicates to me even they knew this act was neither legal nor moral.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-09 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
4. Mormon "Church"?
Don't you mean: Mormon Fucking Bigoted Cult?

:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lochloosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-09 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
6. "Fuck"
Mitt Romney reading the morning paper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1776Forever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-09 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
7. This is very important - All religious organizations that supported Prop 8 should pay taxes!
From this website http://www.fadedyouthblog.com/62240/proposition-8-passe... /

Blogger Thelea Draganic reported:

Religious organizations that support Proposition 8 include:

Roman Catholic Church],
Knights of Columbus,
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America,
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons,
Group of Evangelical Christians led by Jim Garlow and Miles McPherson,
American Family Association,
Focus on the Family Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, Californias largest,
The Bishops of the California Catholic Conference released a statement supporting the proposition.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) has publicly supported the proposition and encouraged their membership to support it, by asking its members to donate money and volunteer time. The First Presidency of the church announced its support for Proposition 8 in a letter read in every congregation. Latter-day Saints have provided a significant source for financial donations in support of the proposition, both inside and outside the State of California. About 45% of out-of-state contributions to Protect Marriage.com has come from Utah, over three times more than any other state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nichomachus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-09 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
8. Mormons lie -- gee what a surprise -- it's a religion based lies
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hassin Bin Sober Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-09 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
9. Mormon Church = Cult
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nikkos_71 Donating Member (19 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-09 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
10. My email exchange with a mormon re: an article in Dallas Voice
which put the spotlight on the LDS involvement in the passage
of Prop 8.  I think this is the second email exchange where
my previous response is marked with > and his follows. 
The next post will be my rebuttal I sent and have as of yet,
not gotten a reply.  This email exchange was the catalyst in
asking my friend to post the thread on Kurtz and his article
regarding Scandanavian marriages.

> First of all, I am beginning to expose myself to your
beliefs. I must say
> as someone who was brought up with the Bible, your Book
of Mormon is
> strange indeed. I will continue to read on. However, I
have a few questions
> to pose and points to make.
> 
> I have read your suggestions about The Proclamation on
the Family as well as
> the Same Gender Attraction interview. It seems that the
Proclamation where
> is states "lawfully wedded" (which I assume
includes the jurisdiction of
> the State as well as the Federal Government) was
introduced in 1991 in a
> statement by the First Presidency and later in 1995 by
President Gordon B.
> Hinckley. I have used the search tool on the Book of
Mormon and found no
> text supporting these statements.

Latter-day Saints look to living prophets to give us inspired
guidance for today's situations. Same-sex marriage or other
efforts to give legally sanction to homosexual acts were not
an issue until quite recently.

The purpose of the Book of Mormon is not to provide a legal
code completely defining human behavior, but rather to
convince men to accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to be
baptized by proper authority, and to receive the Holy Ghost.

Nephi expressed frustration with those of his people who
expected to be told all that they could or could not do,
explaining that the "Holy Ghost . . . will show unto you
all things what ye should do." (2 Nephi 32:1-5)

In Benjamin's farewell address to his people, he cautioned
against a legalistic approach to defining what is right and
wrong, saying that there are so many ways to commit sin that
we cannot number them. (Mosiah 4:29-30)

The Book of Mormon, however, is clear in its condemnation of
homosexual acts:

1. It affirms the Law of Moses, as given in the Torah (2
Nephi 5:10). The Law of Moses clearly condemns homosexual
acts (Leviticus 20:13). (See also Topical Guide:
Homosexuality).

The Nephites kept the law of Moses until the death of Christ.
(2 Nephi 25:24-30). Animal sacrifice and its associated
rituals were done away by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The
form of sacrifice that the Lord now asks is a "broken
heart and a contrite spirit (3 Nephi 9:19-22).

2. The Book of Mormon teaches that sexual transgression (in
this case between Alma's son Corianton and a prostitute) is
an abomination in the sight of God, "most abominable
above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or
denying the Holy Ghost (Alma 39:1-5). I have heard this
hierarchy of sin explained thus:

a. The Holy Ghost is the agent of purification. He carries
out the atonement of Jesus Christ and purges us of our sins.
If we deny the Holy Ghost, we refuse the only means by which
we can be forgive of our sins.

b. God alone has power over life and death. To murder -- to
willfully terminate the life of another, is to take into our
own hands the authority of God.

c. In like manner, God governs the beginnings of life. He
gave us the means for bringing new life to earth, and he has
given us laws governing the use of those means. To tamper
with those means is also to reject God's authority over life.

> demonstrated that the Bible is the holy book of choice
as it is used in all
> formal ceremonies, the most recent being the
inauguration of our 44th
> President. So, from these statements, I again ask the
question, were it not
> to affect any religious teaching or redefine a religious
marriage, what is
> the big deal in civil unions for same sex couples?

There are many sound and ethical reasons for fostering
traditional marriage. Study after study shows that children
do best when they have a father and a mother. Great harm to
traditional marriage has come in every society that has
sanctioned homosexual marriage or its "civil union"
equivalent. This is not theoretical. Europe has already proven
the case.

"The End of Marriage in Scandinavia: The 'conservative
case' for same-sex marriage collapses," by Stanley
Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, Vol. 9, Issue, 20, 02/02/2004.

(I recommend the entire article, and include significant
excerpts below, for my own future reference, should the
article not remain on the Internet. By
"conservative" he is referring to economic
conservatives like homosexual activist Andrew Sullivan, who
also happens to be a vicious anti-Mormon.)

"The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is
spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can
answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage
debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of
marriage? It already has."

"Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to
marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the
message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually
any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is
acceptable."

"Swedes themselves link the decline of marriage to
secularism. And many studies confirm that, throughout the
West, religiosity is associated with institutionally strong
marriage, while heightened secularism is correlated with a
weakening of marriage. Scholars have long suggested that the
relatively thin Christianization of the Nordic countries
explains a lot about why the decline of marriage in
Scandinavia is a decade ahead of the rest of the West."

"And scholars agree that cultural tradition plays a
central role in determining whether a given country moves
toward the Nordic family system. Religion is a key variable.
A 2002 study by the Max Planck Institute, for example,
concluded that countries with the lowest rates of family
dissolution and out-of-wedlock births are "strongly
dominated by the Catholic confession." The same study
found that in countries with high levels of family
dissolution, religion in general, and Catholicism in
particular, had little influence."

(TH: This reflects upon the fact that it was the Catholic
Church which asked the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints to join its efforts to pass California Proposition 8.)

"These three groupings [Nordic & French,
British/Netherlands/Belgium/Germany, and
Spain/Portugal/Italy/Greece] closely track the movement for
gay marriage. In the early nineties, gay marriage came to the
Nordic countries, where the out-of-wedlock birthrate was
already high. Ten years later, out-of-wedlock birth rates
have risen significantly in the middle group of nations. Not
coincidentally, nearly every country in that middle group has
recently either legalized some form of gay marriage, or is
seriously considering doing so. Only in the group with low
out-of-wedlock birthrates has the gay marriage movement
achieved relatively little success."

"This suggests that gay marriage is both an effect and a
cause of the increasing separation between marriage and
parenthood. As rising out-of-wedlock birthrates disassociate
heterosexual marriage from parenting, gay marriage becomes
conceivable. If marriage is only about a relationship between
two people, and is not intrinsically connected to parenthood,
why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to marry? It
follows that once marriage is redefined to accommodate
same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock in and
reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and
parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin
with."

"Gay marriage is both an effect and a reinforcing cause
of the separation of marriage and parenthood. In states like
Sweden and Denmark, where out-of-wedlock birthrates were
already very high, and the public favored gay marriage, gay
unions were an effect of earlier changes. Once in place, gay
marriage symbolically ratified the separation of marriage and
parenthood. And once established, gay marriage became one of
several factors contributing to further increases in
cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birthrates, as well as to
early divorce. But in Norway, where out-of-wedlock birthrates
were lower, religion stronger, and the public opposed same-sex
unions, gay marriage had an even greater role in precipitating
marital decline."

"A frequent public presence, Moxnes enjoyed her big
moment in 1999, when she was embroiled in a dispute with
Valgerd Svarstad Haugland, minister of children and family
affairs in Norway's Christian Democrat government. Moxnes had
criticized Christian marriage classes for teaching children
the importance of wedding vows. This brought a sharp public
rebuke from Haugland. Responding to Haugland's criticisms,
Moxnes invoked homosexual families as proof that
"relationships" were now more important than
institutional marriage."

"The Scandinavian experience rebuts the so-called
conservative case for gay marriage in more than one way.
Noteworthy, too, is the lack of a movement toward marriage
and monogamy among gays. Take-up rates on gay marriage are
exceedingly small. Yale's William Eskridge acknowledged this
when he reported in 2000 that 2,372 couples had registered
after nine years of the Danish law, 674 after four years of
the Norwegian law, and 749 after four years of the Swedish
law."

"According to Halvorsen, many of Norway's gays imposed
self-censorship during the marriage debate, so as to hide
their opposition to marriage itself. The goal of the gay
marriage movements in both Norway and Denmark, say Halvorsen
and Bech [who is homosexual], was not marriage but social
approval for homosexuality. Halvorsen suggests that the low
numbers of registered gay couples may be understood as a
collective protest against the expectations (presumably,
monogamy) embodied in marriage."

"Young Americans are more likely to favor gay marriage
than their elders. That oft-noted fact is directly related to
another. Less than half of America's twentysomethings consider
it wrong to bear children outside marriage. There is a growing
tendency for even middle class cohabiting couples to have
children without marrying."

"If, as in Norway, gay marriage were imposed here [in
the US] by a socially liberal cultural elite, it would likely
speed us on the way toward the classic Nordic pattern of less
frequent marriage, more frequent out-of-wedlock birth, and
skyrocketing family dissolution."

"What about Vermont-style civil unions? Would that be a
workable compromise? Clearly not. Scandinavian registered
partnerships are Vermont-style civil unions. They are not
called marriage, yet resemble marriage in almost every other
respect. The key differences are that registered partnerships
do not permit adoption or artificial insemination, and cannot
be celebrated in state-affiliated churches. These limitations
are gradually being repealed. The lesson of the Scandinavian
experience is that even de facto same-sex marriage undermines
marriage."

"Conservative advocates of gay marriage want to test it
in a few states. The implication is that, should the
experiment go bad, we can call it off. Yet the effects, even
in a few American states, will be neither containable nor
revocable. It took about 15 years after the change hit Sweden
and Denmark for Norway's out-of-wedlock birthrate to begin to
move from "European" to "Nordic" levels.
It took another 15 years (and the advent of gay marriage) for
Norway's out-of-wedlock birthrate to shoot past even
Denmark's. By the time we see the effects of gay marriage in
America, it will be too late to do anything about it. Yet we
needn't wait that long. In effect, Scandinavia has run our
experiment for us. The results are in."

Kurz did not mention the demographic disaster that this has
already brought to Europe. The birth rate is far below the
replacement rate, and so workers must be imported from
elsewhere -- chiefly, now, from Muslim countries.

> The only reference to
> marriage in the Book of Mormon is the following:
>
> 4 Ne. 1: 11
> 11 And they were married, and given in marriage, and
were blessed
> according to the multitude of the promises which the
Lord had made unto
> them. 
>
> Likewise, I also found no scripture referring to
same-sex relations, same
> gender attraction or homosexuality.

(There are actually many references to family relationships
and sexual morality. The Book of Mormon also strongly
condemns all forms of "lasciviousness,"
"whoredoms," and "abominations." See also
the references provided above).

When the Lord re-emphasized the Ten Commandments to the
Latter-day Saints, he broadened his emphasis:

"Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt
cleave unto her and none else." (Doctrine &
Covenants 42:22)

"Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor
kill, nor do anything like unto it."
(Doctrine & Covenants 59:6) 


> So I again am confused on the churches
> hard core stance against allowing same sex couples to
enjoy all the Federal
> Benefits heterosexual couples enjoy.

I think the best explanation is offered by Kurtz: "The
goal of the gay marriage movements in both Norway and
Denmark, say Halvorsen and Bech [who is homosexual], was not
marriage but social approval for homosexuality."


> Moreover, it seems that while the
> Christian faith has at least a few biblical scriptures
to point at . . .

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is
emphatically Christian, and we accept the Bible as the word
of God. The Book of Mormon strongly upholds the divinity of
the Bible. Consider, for example, the last words of Nephi
speaking prophetically, many hundreds of years before the
Bible was completed, of the reception that his words would
receive among the Gentiles in the latter days:

"And because my words shall hiss forthmany of the
Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible,
and there cannot be any more Bible.

"But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a
Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient
covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible
which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean?
Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains
of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth
salvation unto the Gentiles? 


"O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine
ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and
have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But
behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads;
for I the Lord have not forgotten my people.


"Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a
Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible
save it were by the Jews? [TH: think about it: every word in
the Bible was written by a Jew: Jesus himself was a Jew.]


"Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know
ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and
that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and
that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath;
and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even
upon all the nations of the earth" (2 Nephi 29:3-7) 
Consider also Nephi's last words, where he again refers to
the Bible (as "Words of the Jews.")

"And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye
ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in
Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in
Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in
these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath
given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should
do good.

"And if they are not the words of Christ, judge yefor
Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that
they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall
stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I
have been commanded of him to write these things,
notwithstanding my weakness.


"And I pray the Father in the name of Christ that many
of us, if not all, may be saved in his kingdom at that great
and last day.


"And now, my beloved brethren, all those who are of the
house of Israel, and all ye ends of the earth, I speak unto
you as the voice of one crying from the dust: Farewell until
that great day shall come.


"And you that will not partake of the goodness of God,
and respect the words of the Jews, and also my words, and the
words which shall proceed forth out of the mouth of the Lamb
of God, behold, I bid you an everlasting farewell, for these
words shall condemn you at the last day.


"For what I seal on earth, shall be brought against you
at the judgment bar; for thus hath the Lord commanded me, and
I must obey. Amen." (2 Nephi 33:10-15)[emphasis mine]


> albeit weak arguments indeed,

Only if you consider God "weak."

> you only have a proclamation made within the last 15
> years to fall back on.
(http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html)

I personally consider the Proclamation on the Family to be
very prophetic, anticipating by at least decade the public
demand of homosexuals for same-sex marriage.

> I understand the concept of "saving" yourself
for
> marriage which would pertain to heterosexuals since
homosexual marriage is
> not legal. But like I have stated before, your own
definition of marriage
> as well as the Christian form of marriage has changed
dramatically
> throughout the ages.

I forgive the sly reference to polygamy. But polygamy, both
in the Old Testament and during the 50 years that my
ancestors practiced it was always a covenant between a man
and a woman. It was never between a man and a group of women.
When my great-grandfather James Harvey Langford Jr asked James
Jackson for permission to marry his daughter Rose-Ellen, her
father said yes, but only if he would also marry her older
sister Mary Lydia, who was approaching
"spinsterhood." He was married to each separately,
in separate ceremonies. Each wife was married to her husband
-- not to each other.

Citing the bad examples of David and Solomon, the Lord
commanded the Nephites not to have more than one wife, but he
also explained why, from time to time the Lord commands it:

"Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments,
saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their
sakes. 


"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed
unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall
hearken unto these things." (Jacob 2:29-30) 
The Lord commanded the early Latter-day saints to live plural
marriage for exactly that reason -- to raise up seed unto him,
and it achieved exactly that result. James Harvey Langford Jr
and Rose-Ellen Jackson raised 12 children; James Harvey
Langford Jr and Mary Lydia Jackson raised 10 children. Six of
my eight great-grandparents were polygamists, and all raised
large families. Even though plural marriages were a minority
among LDS in that period, their posterity far outnumbers
those who did not enter into plural marriage.

"Same-sex" marriage is not about raising up
children to the Lord.

> Sorry if I seem to be adamant, but we are talking
> about my birth rights as an American.

There is no more a "civil right" for homosexual
relations than there is a "civil right" for
fornication or adultery.

> Can you really sit there and sanction
> the barring of my partner to see me while I lay in a
hospital?

If you want to have that right, make sure you and your
partner have a contract that stipulates that right. Have you
heard of a medical power of attorney? My wife has one for her
mother.

> Or deny me
> social security benefits when my partner of 20+ years
dies?

Absolutely. The state has no valid interest in providing a
financial incentive for a practice that, as is already proven
by the Nordic example, will contribute to widespread breakup
of the family. 

> Where is the
> humanity in those actions? 

Immoral behavior has very real-world consequences, and the
state has no valid interest in rewarding immorality.




> 
> Like I said. I just don't understand. Even with all the
arguments over
> religious beliefs, doctrines, the true word of God,
Jesus, Mormon or his
> son, we live in a country where Biblical law is not the
same as Federal or
> Civil Law. 

We live in a country where law traces its roots to Biblical
values. Our founding fathers wisely forbade the establishment
of a state Church, but they would be appalled at the efforts
to undermine public morals just because they trace their
roots to religious values.

> 
> Any insight would be greatly appreciated. I am just
trying to understand
> fully the controversy on such a heated topic in America
and the World.

Thank you for your willingness to listen. Your reference to
the "humanity" of your situation immediately
brought to mind the difficulties that Alma's son Corianton
had with the "unfairness" of God's justice in
punishing the sinner. Alma clearly taught him that mercy
cannot rob justice.

"Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning
restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness.
Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness."
(Alma 41:11) 

"What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say
unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be
God. 


"And thus God bringeth about his great and eternal
purposes, which were prepared from the foundation of the
world. And thus cometh about the salvation and the redemption
of men, and also their destruction and misery. 


"Therefore, O my son, whosoever will come may come and
partake of the waters of life freely; and whosoever will not
come the same is not compelled to come; but in the last day
it shall be restored unto him according to his deeds. 


"If he has desired to do evil, and has not repented in
his days, behold, evil shall be done unto him, according to
the restoration of God. 


"And now, my son, I desire that ye should let these
things trouble you no more, and only let your sins trouble
you, with that trouble which shall bring you down unto
repentance.

"O my son, I desire that ye should deny the justice of
God no more. Do not endeavor to excuse yourself in the least
point because of your sins, by denying the justice of God;
but do you let the justice of God, and his mercy, and his
long-suffering have full sway in your heart; and let it bring
you down to the dust in humility. 


"And now, O my son, ye are called of God to preach the
word unto this people. And now, my son, go thy way, declare
the word with truth and soberness, that thou mayest bring
souls unto repentance, that the great plan of mercy may have
claim upon them. And may God grant unto you even according to
my words. Amen." (Alma 42:25-31) 
(Corianton did repent).

I highly recommend all of Alma's words to Corianton. (Alma 39
- 42)

Best wishes,

Tracy(the Mormon)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nikkos_71 Donating Member (19 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-09 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Here is my rebuttal
Dear Tracy,

I have taken the time from our last exchange to do some
research on various topics you addressed. What I found was
quite impressive. In addition, I have come up with a few of
my own topics as well as a theory I hope is put to the test.
Below you will see where I addressed in no particular order
the subject matter of our emails.

 

First I want to start with the Book of Mormon. You provided
much insight into this book and seemed to rely heavily on
some of the passages to prove your many points about gay
marriage and homosexuality alike. Below is a link I hope you
find useful. While I have made no attempts to research the
validity of the claims contained in this link, I am offering
you that challenge. Below the link, you will see some
excerpts I chose to cut and paste. The first is direct quotes
from former Presidents of the LDS Church inviting its
followers to question their own faith and texts. I hope you
heed their words and prove this document wrong for your own
sake. Again, I come to you not with hostility, but with hope
of understanding. When I simply typed in origins of book of
mormon, these links were prominently displayed. The first
link which I read is what prompted this part of the email,
the second link I found gives a more in depth view on the
origins of the Book of Mormon. Please know I mean no
disrespect. I am sure you are aware of the statements made
within these links. 

http://www.whatismormonism.com/

http://www.irr.org/mit/human-origins-bom-p1.html

 

George Albert Smith: "If a faith will not bear to be
investigated; if its preachers and professors are afraid to
have it examined, their foundation must be very weak."
Journal of Discourses, Volume 14, Page 216 

Brigham Young: "Take up the Bible, compare the religion
of the Latter-day Saints with it, and see if it will stand
the test." Journal of Discourses, Volume 16, p. 46, 1873


the Book of Mormon isn't an original work. It also can't be
the translation of an ancient document. What could it be?
It's obviously a fiction novel, heavily plagiarized from
books which were freely available at the time.

If the Book of Mormon is true, then why has the Mormon church
changed it? Examples are: 1 Nephi 11:21; 19:20; 20:1 and Alma
29:4. Compare these with the original Book of Mormon. (Gerald
and Sandra Tanner have counted 3,913 changes in the Book of
Mormon, excluding punctuation changes.) 

The Book of Mormon is not the translation of an ancient
document, regardless of any feelings, emotions, "burning
in your bosom," or testimony. "Knowing" that
it's true doesn't correlate with the historical and
archeological facts and evidence. Wanting it to be true
doesn't change the facts and evidence.

The Book of Mormon was not from God.

Again...

"Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the
story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God,
divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he
was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There
is no middle ground." Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of
Salvation, Page 188. 

The next point I want to make is regarding the notion of
Modern Day Prophets or Living Prophets. I mentioned that when
you first directed my attention to the Proclamation on the
Family that this was the first inclusion of the term legally
wedded in regards to marriage. You proceeded to inform me
that these were words from a Living Prophet and in turn,
seemed to have prophesied correctly. In addition, you
directed me to an article by Stanley Kurtz titled, The End
of Marriage in Scandinavia. This article in detail made
assumptions based on studies of varied degrees that the
introduction of gay marriage into mainstream society
collectively contributed to the decline of hetero marriages,
the increase in divorce as well as the increase in out of
wedlock births and the increase in co-habitation amongst the
hetero crowd. In effect, the article blamed gay marriage
single handedly in destroying the institution of marriage.
The first introduction of same sex marriage was introduced in
the Nordic region around 1989. The inclusion of the word
lawful or lawfully appeared in Proclamations which were
made in 1991 and 1995.  You claimed this proclamation was a
prophecy but was merely the work of an extensive network of
researchers and analyst who surmised that with this trend
appearing in Europe, it would only be a matter of time before
it would appear on our shore. Prophecy? Probably not.
Foresight? Maybe.

 

The link below will direct you to an article which directly
refutes the claims made in this article.

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/

 

In addition, let me point you to this website which graphs
the rate of marriages and divorces in Sweden. Pay attention
to the time period between 1990 and 2005.

 

http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/sweden-marriage-and-divorce-rates-1950-2005/

 

You will notice that while the rate of marriages went down
initially, and the rate of divorce went up initially, over
the span of ten years it stabilized and even went in opposite
directions by the time 2005 rolled around. Where is the end of
marriage there? To state that gay marriage will lead to
co-habitation and out of wedlock children, Im afraid its
too late. Instead of trying to work within the system and
fixing the internal problems, you would rather deny a group
of people from strengthening the system.

 

From the Living Prophet to the total acceptance of the Kurtz
article it is clear that as a faith based group, you take
propaganda literally and place blind faith in anything which
supports your cause and make changes to texts when it
doesnt. A little research would of shown the fallacy of your
arguments. 

 

As far as the Bible is concerned, I will direct you to the
following websites which seek to debunk your notion that
homosexuality is reviled through out the whole Bible. While I
have read some interesting rebuttals it seems clear it all
stems from a pick and choose method used to justify the many
atrocities committed in the name of GOD.

 

The first one is:

http://www.twopaths.com/faq_homosexuality.htm

The next one is:

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

And the next:

http://www.truthsetsfree.net/studypaper.html

 

I believe these articles speak for themselves. But something
that really bothers me is the picking and choosing of which
passages to follow and which ones to ignore. The Leviticus
passages get the most recitations but it confuses me as to
how the New Testament can make these Laws of Moses obsolete
but still have influence today. I mean if we must follow the
man shall not lay with man passage, why dont we have to
follow the passages Leviticus 20:9-12? Even in your own words
you said the Laws of Moses were observed until Jesus death.
Additionally, even though I believe the above links address
this issue, it is inherent to acknowledge the context in
which these passages were written. Homosexuality in its form
today was not observed in ancient times. The homosexual acts
portrayed throughout the Bible are acted out by otherwise
heterosexual males. The pagans were intrinsically
heterosexual acting out homosexual acts to please their Gods
of Sexuality and such. The man laying with man passage quoted
above referred to the conquering of an enemy and treating him
like a woman who in those times was considered a second class
citizen and even as property. There is nothing stated against
a union of two monogamous homosexuals.

 

The next topic which seems to intrigue me is you said the
Founding Fathers, while seeking a refuge from religious
persecution, or adopting a state Church would be appalled
at the efforts to undermine public morals just because they
trace their roots to religious values. I dont think the
purpose to undermine public morals is correct in regards to
the matter of gay marriage. We are not seeking to have the
institutions of religion acknowledge nor condone gay
marriage. We are seeking to obtain legal representation in
the eyes of the government. And being traced to religious
roots is not accurate either because while only three of the
Ten Commandments are actually laws, religion has no domain
over Government affairs. While religious communities
continuously lobby for legislature which compliment their own
doctrine, time and time again they ultimately fail.

 

In this instance I guide you to the next link:

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8716.html

 

It is a link which invites you to explore the concept of
Religion and Race in American Politics. Our Founding Fathers
had slaves and rightfully so in their eyes. But according to
moral law, the mixing of races was not to be tolerated. It
wasnt until the mid to late 1900s that interracial
relationships were made legal, even though they are still
frowned upon by some. Imagine a Founding Father going against
modern day morals of his time and having not only sexual
relations with a slave but to have fathered children with
said slave. Not to mention the adultery or fornication
implications. Well see for your self here:

 

http://www.monticello.org/plantation/hemingscontro/hemings-jefferson_contro.html

 

Not long after this country was founded, divorce,
prostitution, infidelity and other non moral behaviors
crept in. So I dont think moralistic behavior carried much
weight. 

 

The next topic is the idea of marriage for procreation. Here
it gets interesting because the old debate of Creation versus
Evolution rears its ugly head.

 

While is was true in ancient times and even necessary to
procreate and produce offspring to populate the world, I
would hardly consider that a necessity today. In reference to
Darwins theory of Evolution, including the ideas of Survival
of the Fittest and Natural Selection, it is guaranteed that
the Human Race will continue to multiply being the superior
of all species. Just like Polygamy was important to the LDS,
and multiple wives to the ancient cultures, it is also
important to note that with 6 Billion inhabitants now living
on Earth, these ideas of motivated procreation are outdated
and no longer needed. I truly believe that with evolution, we
tend to modify our behavior to adjust to the current
situation. So like couples who marry without producing
children, (who, by the way, ARE granted the privilege of
marriage), likewise homosexual couples who marry without
adopting/surrogating children will have no ill effect on the
world. In fact, I believe it will be useful in slowing down
the rate of births to avoid an over population. Moreover, by
letting gays have the right to say I Do does not mean the
hetero population will say I Dont. If procreation was so
important to the institution of marriage then why not
proclaim a statute of limitations on it? It could state that
within a certain amount of time, if an offspring is not
produced, the marriage must be nullified. In addition, we
could have a proclamation of birth claiming that if any child
is to be born out of wedlock, the parents would be required to
enter into a state of marriage before the birth in order to
legitimize the child. You cant have it both ways. This is
just another example of the religious community condoning
prejudice, discrimination and segregation. 

 

One of the most nagging part of this whole debate is that no
matter which topic is being discussed regarding
homosexuality, the topic of promiscuity and non-monogamous
relationships enter the equation. Never mind that it seems
perfectly all right and sometimes downright accepted for a
heterosexual male to claim his virility by stating his
numerous conquests. We have celebrated celebrities and sports
figures climbing the mountain and raising their flag for all
to see. While certainly some consider it vulgar or vile,
others revere these studs, these stallions, these pillars of
masculinity. But when a woman admits to one too many romps in
the hay, she is branded a slut, a whore or worse. Its a whole
other story when you attach the word gay to it though. Then it
becomes unnatural, or an abomination or worse Immoral. You
stated that there is no more a civil right for homosexual
relations than there is a civil right for fornication or
adultery. But you forgot to mention that the Stud and the
Slut can enter into Marriage as well as the Fornicator and
the Adulterer. Consider this: given the bonds of matrimony,
and having the boundaries such a union might present,
wouldnt it be plausible that homosexual couples would
consider their relationship more formal and strive like all
marriages to remain faithful? In speaking in absolutes and
branding ALL homosexuals as promiscuous or non-monogamous you
invalidate those relationships which do mirror hetero
marriage. Relationships that have stood the test of time and
shown a committed and faithful homosexual couple.

 

I am almost done here so bear with me. You stated that This
reflects upon the fact that it was the Catholic Church which
asked the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to join
its efforts to pass California Proposition 8. First of all,
the Catholic Church has no business sticking its ugly head
into any debate regarding morals. The scandals of molestation
which were covered up with the intent to lie and deceive its
own followers should have been enough to send them packing.
Not to mention their numerous transgressions against the
innocents in the name of God. Second, it is so nice to see
that while the LDS Church is taking a lot of flack for their
involvement with the passage of Proposition 8, you feel
compelled to clarify, It wasnt us who started it or better
yet, It was them, not us. It implies the LDS Church would
not otherwise have gotten involved had it not been for those
Catholics and that is just too much to stomach. And besides,
the Catholic Church condones annulments to allow those
divorced to denounce their previous marriage in order to
remarry within the church thereby bastardizing any current
children and having the sanction of the church. Hypocrisy at
its finest.

 

Finally, I point out the argument of natural and
unnatural acts. It is often said that marriage between a
man and a woman is considered the ONLY natural option and
that homosexuals represent the unnatural alternative. I
would like to point out the fact that homosexual behavior is
present in many species within the animal kingdom. Time and
time again we have been witness to animals displaying acts of
homosexuality in its most natural form. Without the thought
capacity to acknowledge the presence of a ruling GOD, these
animals act on pure instinct. What could be more natural than
that? You can read more with the following link:

 

http://www.nhm.uio.no/againstnature/index.html

 

If you follow the links you will see where it states
Homosexuality is natural.

 

In addition, the APA has declassified homosexuality as a
mental disorder. Even though some religious leaders will try
to declare the opposite, it has been proven that while the
cause of homosexuality is yet to be determined, it is not the
result of a mental disorder. I feel the reason why religion
wants it to be different, is that if it is not a mental
disorder or otherwise unnatural, it would have to be God
made, and we know that if God made it, there could be no
flaws about it.

 

Oh yeah, I forgot to add one more thing while we were
discussing the Great Catholics. One account of the church
establishment twisting scripture to fit their own needs at
the time is the story of Mary Magdalene and Pope Gregory the
Great. You can read about it here:

 

http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0506.asp

 

It was later established by the Catholic Church that Pope
Gregory was wrong and Marys reputation was restored. But for
centuries, the lie was perpetuated. In addition, for centuries
science butted heads with religion and over time, religion
came around and accepted that which was true and made
adjustments. Hence, we now believe (and know) that the Earth
does revolve around the Sun and the Earth is round. Like I
said in the beginning, I am open to new ideas and even
curious about the many varied beliefs of so many cultures in
the World. But when you use these beliefs for power, control
and defamation, that is where I draw the line. I dont care
what you believe or how strong you believe it, just dont
expect me to believe it. I have never claimed to not believe
in a Supreme Being nor have I ever expressed that I do not
believe in something bigger than what or who we are. I just
dont claim to know without a shadow of a doubt. It is a fact
that more people have fought and died in the name of the Lord.
It is also a fact that there are millions upon millions who
claim their Lord is the ONE. The ONE and ONLY GOD. How can so
many people get it wrong?

 

I eagerly await your response and hope, again, that I have
not offended you. In this little exercise I have learned much
and have regained hope that in time, we all will see the error
of our ways and strive to live in a more peaceful accepting
environment. One which doesnt ostracize or exclude those who
are different. I want to also take this time to apologize for
the deplorable acts against your church in response to the
passage of Prop 8. While it unleashed feelings of hurt and
anger, the response should not of been attacking or
attempting to threaten any organization which merely
exorcised their right to Free Speech. I truly believe it
should of brought about a desire to communicate and educate
not only for ourselves but to those who still do not
understand our nature or purpose. You stated that the real
purpose was to strive for public acceptance. While we as
individuals continually strive for acceptance from family,
friends and society in general, I can honestly state that it
is for the pursuit of happiness. Something the United States
Declaration of Independence told us we could have.

 



 



 

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-31-09 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
12. This would be great for LBN, no?
:evilgrin:

There's another article in the LA Times if you want to use a different source for it. You could also have someone else post it so you don't get accused of "crossposting".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 22nd 2014, 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC