Zanosuke Kurosaki wrote:
Now, as for Prop 8: Yeah, just like with any organization, you're going to get types that do things as an individual, and then make the arrogant move of attaching the name of their organization to it, as if the entire group backed them. I went and I looked at the church home page, and even asked my stake (re: regional leader) president about it, and he told me straight up, "This Church as an entity does not get involved in politics. As individual people, yes. As a Church of Christ, no. If some political list has the name of the Church as a supporter on it, it means someone somewhere ignored their leadership's admonishments on this matter."
Zanosuke, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but... this is a flat-out lie.
Now, I'm not saying you lied--I believe you were told exactly what you say you were told.
I don't even necessarily believe your stake lied--he might very well have been informed this was the official stance of the LDS church.However...
While it's true that ALMOST all of the $20 Million given to the "Yes on 8" campaign came from individual Mormons giving personal funds, the LDS church
gave the organization $190,000 in 'non-monetary donations'. (These are usually in the form of free space to operate, providing labor, and so forth. A big bloc was also in shuttling Mormons from Utah to California to participate in efforts.)
Again, not individual people. This support came directly from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Likewise, the Mormon First Presidency issued a letter telling LDS adherents "to do all you can"
to support Prop 8. I find it difficult to believe that at least some of the $20M referenced above wasn't prompted by that letter.
To deny that Prop 8 was supported by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a flat-out, bald-faced lie. You should inform your stake of that fact.
Ah, lovely. Thanks a lot, boys, I go to bat for you, and you crusty old pale-faces up there make me wrong to do so. *headdesk*
Gah... Whyfore do these journalists use web sites as sources? Especially in that first one: "mormonsfor8" has disappeared, so there's no way to confirm, deny, or even say "Hey, wait a tick" on that one.
(I'm suddenly also feeling the pain of some of my teachers that tell students to "cite your sources!" because the other one doesn't do it either, except for one reference to "the numbers come from this guy, from this website"... *facepalm*) One bit I can address though, because I flat out know people aren't supposed to be saying such (yes, just like every other church, we have our good priests [we call 'em "bishops", anyway] up there, we have some bad ones. I had a particularly not-so-good one myself, when I first joined. I wasn't surprised when he got released from that calling within two years of my having been there...) "Some Mormons who declined to donate said their local church leaders had made highly charged appeals, such as saying that their souls would be in jeopardy if they didn't give.
" That right there in italics (emphasis mine)? I already know without even needing to ask my stake president or my bishop, those are bad bishops that do such. It's not up to any of them, especially not even the top man himself, to say "if you don't give money to this secular thing, your soul is in jeopardy." That's the double trap they fell into and didn't see it. Bad enough it's persecution of people for something that's just part of them, but now they're caught pushin' (nay, demanding) for involvement in what's most definitely defined as a secular affair that's not at all a good idea. Ugh...
Now, as for the actual issue: *sigh* What can I say? Actually, someone else over in last night's Dumbing of Age comment section said it quite well.
CP wrote:The thing is that it was never about prejudice against LGBTs, at least not originally. It was very simply about the fact that heterosexual marriage is an important doctrinal point that the church wasn’t willing to give up. Sometimes a culture war is inevitable, when it comes to politics.
Now, again, does it mean they were right for stepping in that way? HELL NO. Especially not if they'd bothered to think far enough to realize they were putting a metric ton of people down with such shullbit. In fact, this is one of the places I honestly can't help but occasionally wish, if the Return is gonna happen in my lifetime, that it'd hurry up and happen so Christ can come down Himself and put all of the thoughtless speculating on all by so many religions, to rest (personally, I'm more than inclined to think He's going to come down on the side of "Dubya-Tee-Aitch, you guys! Didn't you get the memo? I didn't say a thing about same-sex marriages being bad, now back off! In fact, heck with you guys, I'm outta here! Go have your own millenium of piece, or whatever. Idiots!") [note: if I have offended anybody with that bit, my apologies. After searching rather extensively for one single reference to Christ making any sort of condemnation of same-sex marriage though, and being unable to find it, I can't help but think that He must sometimes be shaking His head and saying "Dad, can I please
smite just one of them? I'm so sick of them attaching my name to that sort of project!" "No, son." "Oh come on, look at your Old Testament track record! You smote left and right!"]
I think I'm going to go play Uncharted for a little while. For some reason, I feel like shooting repeatedly until something explodes, now...
Stand tall and shake the heavens.
Beep beep, I'm a jeep.