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

[ck4829]

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/2009/01/30/BA7615KLB9.DTL&type=politics

[bahrbearian]

1. Tax Time

Tax em.

[Coexist]

2. Meet Joe Black.

[Bluenorthwest]

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.

[Lerkfish]

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.

[Hepburn]

4. Mormon "Church"?

Don't you mean: Mormon Fucking Bigoted Cult?

:grr:

[Lochloosa]

6. "Fuck"

Mitt Romney reading the morning paper.

[1776Forever]

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-passes/

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, California’s 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.”

[nichomachus]

8. Mormons lie -- gee what a surprise -- it's a religion based lies

[Hassin Bin Sober]

9. Mormon Church = Cult

[nikkos_71]

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 forth—many 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 ye—for
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)

[nikkos_71]

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, I’m afraid it’s 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 doesn‘t.
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 don’t 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 don’t 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
wasn’t until the mid to late 1900’s 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 don’t 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
Darwin’s 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 Don’t.” 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 can’t
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. It’s 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, wouldn’t 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 wasn’t 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
it’s 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
it’s 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 Mary’s 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 don’t care what
you believe or how strong you believe it, just don’t 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 don’t
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 doesn’t 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.

 



 



 

[NMMNG]

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".