Book of Mormon

[Big ned]

You printed a whole lot of stuff that are quotes and peoples opinions. I did read two things in there that were official statements from the church.
1. We love all people including gays and lesbians
2. Homosexual behavior is a sin.

Those are both church official statements. Most churches have the same stance. Anyone who does any gay bashing is not following what the church teaches and the church will take action against those people as well. Anything beyond that is either people operating on their own and has nothing to do with the church. I have an uncle, a brother in law and several cousins on both sides that are gay. A couple of them are members of the church.. the others are not. I love all of them.

[Big ned]

soulra, you really have a propensity for sprinkling your own words in and quoting from sources that are questionable.

First of all, there are plenty of people with homosexual tendencies that are members in good standing in the church. If being gay means you have to have gay sex, then you are right... there are none in good standing in the church. Those are two different things though. There are also no alcoholics in good standing in the church, there is no one having premartial sex in good standing in the church, there is no one using illegal drugs that is in good standing in the church. Committing sins puts you not in good standing... you need to repent and get yourself in good standing.

Also, the electroshock therapy thing has no reference on it and I doubt very much that any of that went on. Come on, have some integrity.

You post was mostly opinions .. the two statements above are the only ones that are official church statements. And I agree with them.

[JLives]

So now the church has gone from donating 20 million to donating just over 2 thousand for travel expenses. You are really scratching the bottom of the barrel on that one. The church is allowed to pay for it's leaders to travel and that is all they did. I can guarantee you that the church will not lose it's tax exempt status because it is very careful about staying out of politics. This is a moral issue and it has every right to voice it's opinion to it's members, just as individuals have every right to vote their conscience without fear of repercussions. I can tell you that the gay lobbyist are playing with fire on this one when they target churches and individuals for voicing their opinions.

Now, back to the book of mormon. Intersting that when science supports the religious book, all the proponents of science disappear or start bringing up old tired arguments. I guess they never thought in their wildest dreams that science would support religion.

You said they donated "nothing" I was demonstrating that you were mistaken. The church directly donated a few thousand, the members donated the rest. It's a technicality. You make it sound like 59,000 or so Mormons spontaneously and independently decided to donate time and money for Prop 8. There is clearly organization going on here and the church is being awful secretive of it.

Is this the type of behaviour that displays love to you? Why do you care if they marry? Why is a word (marraige) so important to you? Considering churches were not even required to perform the ceremonies why is the church involved in this at all?

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10982571

LDS Church didn't report Prop 8 aid, group says
Church denies accusation, says nonmonetary gifts were divulged
By Jessica Ravitz
The Salt Lake Tribune

Protester march outside of Temple Square along North Temple... (Chris Detrick/The Salt Lake Tribune)«1»Californians Against Hate, an independent nonprofit organization committed to shining the spotlight on hefty donors to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign, on Thursday upped the ante against the LDS Church.
The group filed a complaint with California's Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), alleging The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints failed to report nonmonetary contributions that helped pass the measure, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Fred Karger, the advocacy organization's founder, wrote in a letter to the FPPC and attorneys general Edmund G. Brown Jr. of California and Mark Shurtleff of Utah that the church "has been highly secretive about its massive involvement in the campaign, but we managed to piece together evidence of some of their more visible activities done directly to communicate with California voters."
Karger said by phone from Los Angeles that he and others had been monitoring contributions to support this campaign since July 1. He alleges that their research shows 59,000 Mormon families ponied up more than $22 million to the cause, amounting to 77 percent of funds raised.
"I know what things cost," said Karger, a retired political consultant with nearly 30 years experience. "I'm convinced huge expenditures were made that, for whatever reason, went unreported - which is not in keeping with California law."

But LDS Church spokesman Scott Trotter issued a strong response, saying the church "fully complied with the reporting requirements of the California Political Reform Act," relied on advice from experienced California counsel and made no violations when it came to reporting expenditures.
In fact, he added in a written statement, the LDS Church "filed four reports with California authorities; these reports are a matter of public record. A further report will be filed on or before its due date, Jan. 30, 2009. . . . The so-called 'sworn complaint' filed by Fred Karger with California and Utah authorities has many errors and misstatements. Any investigation would confirm the Church's full compliance with applicable law."
The evidence Karger claims to have gathered points to unreported investments to organize phone banks in Utah and Idaho, send out direct mailers, provide transportation to California including travel by LDS Church leaders, mobilize a speakers bureau, develop Web sites, produce "at least 9 commercials and 4 other video broadcasts" and a couple of satellite simulcasts spanning five states. He said the church stepped over the line when communication stopped being just between members. At that point, he said, he believes reporting nonmonetary activity should have been required, which is why he turned the complaint over to FPPC, a group he described as the "political watchdog of California."
Roman Porter, executive director of FPPC, said from his Sacramento office that the commission had not yet seen the complaint but explained that upon its receipt, "We have 14 days to notify the person making the complaint of what our intended action is - whether we will investigate or not, or issue a warning letter."
Any actions by the commission will depend on whether it decides to pursue an investigation.
Karger said regardless of how the FPPC rules, he feels standing up for equal rights, including the ability to marry, is "for the best" and will help the LDS Church learn to "recognize and love everyone regardless of sexual orientation."
"We've turned a corner . . . We're fighting back," he continued. "They've awakened Godzilla."

[Big ned]

Jenny, I've explained why the church is so concerned with this situation..
You might assume that our church is like any other church, but it is not. it is the most organized church in the world and it is run by members in volunteer callings. Only the general authorities get a living expense allowance. so when you say that it would be impossible for there to be such a spontaneous grass roots movement, I'm afraid you are mistaken. The way the church is organized it is precisely communication between members that allows such things to happen. does the church have an official stand on the definition of marriage? Yes. Every member knows this, so they automatically knew what stance to take and how to go about working for the outcome they wanted.

Now the LDS church members may have donated a large part of money for lobbying purposes, but they only make up 2% of the population. Its obvious there were many more people besides the LDS members that disagree with redefining marriage.

[Mr Danksworth]

Also, the electroshock therapy thing has no reference on it and I doubt very much that any of that went on. Come on, have some integrity.

BYU Electroshock Aversion Therapy
The Mormon University Atttempted to Cure Homosexuality

© Shawn Landis

Oct 10, 2007
The Mormon Tarbenacle, morguefile.com
The Mormon Church's treatment of minorities has improved in recent years, but the horrific acts of the past should not be forgotten.

Aversion Therapy is no longer practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The practice of electroshock therapy at BYU ended in the 1970s. Aversion therapy had to be abandoned by BYU because electroshock aversion therapy failed to cure homosexuality. Reparative therapy programs today use behavior modification instead of the barbaric methods employed in the 70s by the Mormon church.

Evergreen, a group with ties to the Mormon Church, and Exodus International are two of the largest organizations reparative therapy organizatoins in the United States. The American Psychological Association does not recognize these programs. Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness and is not listed in the DSM-IV.
How BYU's Electroshock Aversion Therapy Worked

During the 70s, the psychology department at Brigham Young University experimented with electroshock aversion therapy in an attempt to cure homesexuality. Patients who went through BYU's program were shown erotic pictures of people of the same sex. When the counselors monitoring the patient sensed he or she was getting aroused, an electrical shock would be delivered to the patient. In later sessions, if a patient felt himself or herself being aroused they could press a plunger to stop the shock and an image of a fully clothed member of the opposite sex would appear on the screen.

BYU's attempts to cure homosexuality using electroshock aversion therapy are better known, but they were not the only method used. Patients undergoing treatment for what the church still calls same-sex attraction could be treated with a drug that would make them nauseous injected into them while looking at the images depicting homosexual activities, and a different drug that would cause euphoria injected into them while viewing images that depicted heterosexual activities. Neither method worked.
BYU Still Discriminates but the Problem is Mormon Culture

BYU’s attempts to track down gay students have resulted in an unofficial secret police form existing on the campus. The problems of how gays and lesbians are treated at Brigham Young university reflects how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints looks upon its members who do not fit the ideal Mormon mold. This unofficial secret police force still exists but has not played much or a role in the church in recent years.

While Mormon apostles have made statements that Reparative therapy does not work for many dealing with same-sex attraction, bishops and other church authorities still refer patients to Evergreen International. The idea that led to electroshock aversion therapy and the popularity of Reparative Therapy programs leaders still exists and is promoted by Mormon leaders today.

People who suffer from what the Mormon leadership call same-sex attraction are expected not to act as their sexual orientation would dictate. Rhetoric from church leadership, including the God Loveth His Children pamphlet on LDS.org still treat it as a problem that is capable of being cured, although Dalin Oaks stated that many people struggling with same-sex attraction will not find a cure in this life.

Sources:

Legacies – A Documentary by Sean Weakland on BYU’s Sexual Aversion Techniques

“With All Thy Getting, Get Understanding.”.

“God Loveth His Children”

The copyright of the article BYU Electroshock Aversion Therapy in Mormonism is owned by Shawn Landis. Permission to republish BYU Electroshock Aversion Therapy in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

[Mr Danksworth]

P.S. You cannot 'cure' homosexuality. There is no disease to cure. It's a naturally occurring part of 'gods perfect creation".

[JLives]

They are afraid that churches will be subject to lawsuits of discrimintation? Now if that is put quite clearly in the law that it can't happen then why do you feel this is even a church issue?

Why is the word marraige so important to you or the Mormon church?

Assuming they don't have to participate in the ceremonies how does this affect them in way?

Do you believe civil rights should be subject to majority rule?

Why do other species demonstrate homosexual behaviour if it is to be consider a choice or a behaviour?

Does this behaviour demonstrate love, nonjudgement and tolerance to you?

[Mr Danksworth]

Does this behaviour demonstrate love, nonjudgement and tolerance to you?

That would mean that people can be more moral than the gods they profess to worship. Uh-oh, down the rabbit hole....

[Glacier]

Speaking of tolerance...http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/colu ... 384.column

[JLives]

Grassroots movement huh?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/po ... ref=slogin

Mormons Tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage

By JESSE McKINLEY and KIRK JOHNSON
Published: November 14, 2008
SACRAMENTO — Less than two weeks before Election Day, the chief strategist behind a ballot measure outlawing same-sex marriage in California called an emergency meeting here.

“We’re going to lose this campaign if we don’t get more money,” the strategist, Frank Schubert, recalled telling leaders of Protect Marriage, the main group behind the ban.

The campaign issued an urgent appeal, and in a matter of days, it raised more than $5 million, including a $1 million donation from Alan C. Ashton, the grandson of a former president of the Mormon Church. The money allowed the drive to intensify a sharp-elbowed advertising campaign, and support for the measure was catapulted ahead; it ultimately won with 52 percent of the vote.

As proponents of same-sex marriage across the country planned protests on Saturday against the ban, interviews with the main forces behind the ballot measure showed how close its backers believe it came to defeat — and the extraordinary role Mormons played in helping to pass it with money, institutional support and dedicated volunteers.

“We’ve spoken out on other issues, we’ve spoken out on abortion, we’ve spoken out on those other kinds of things,” said Michael R. Otterson, the managing director of public affairs for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as the Mormons are formally called, in Salt Lake City. “But we don’t get involved to the degree we did on this.”

The California measure, Proposition 8, was to many Mormons a kind of firewall to be held at all costs.

“California is a huge state, often seen as a bellwether — this was seen as a very, very important test,” Mr. Otterson said.

First approached by the Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco a few weeks after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in May, the Mormons were the last major religious group to join the campaign, and the final spice in an unusual stew that included Catholics, evangelical Christians, conservative black and Latino pastors, and myriad smaller ethnic groups with strong religious ties.

Shortly after receiving the invitation from the San Francisco Archdiocese, the Mormon leadership in Salt Lake City issued a four-paragraph decree to be read to congregations, saying “the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan,” and urging members to become involved with the cause.

“And they sure did,” Mr. Schubert said.

Jeff Flint, another strategist with Protect Marriage, estimated that Mormons made up 80 percent to 90 percent of the early volunteers who walked door-to-door in election precincts.

The canvass work could be exacting and highly detailed. Many Mormon wards in California, not unlike Roman Catholic parishes, were assigned two ZIP codes to cover. Volunteers in one ward, according to training documents written by a Protect Marriage volunteer, obtained by people opposed to Proposition 8 and shown to The New York Times, had tasks ranging from “walkers,” assigned to knock on doors; to “sellers,” who would work with undecided voters later on; and to “closers,” who would get people to the polls on Election Day.

Suggested talking points were equally precise. If initial contact indicated a prospective voter believed God created marriage, the church volunteers were instructed to emphasize that Proposition 8 would restore the definition of marriage God intended.

But if a voter indicated human beings created marriage, Script B would roll instead, emphasizing that Proposition 8 was about marriage, not about attacking gay people, and about restoring into law an earlier ban struck down by the State Supreme Court in May.

“It is not our goal in this campaign to attack the homosexual lifestyle or to convince gays and lesbians that their behavior is wrong — the less we refer to homosexuality, the better,” one of the ward training documents said. “We are pro-marriage, not anti-gay.”

Leaders were also acutely conscious of not crossing the line from being a church-based volunteer effort to an actual political organization.

“No work will take place at the church, including no meeting there to hand out precinct walking assignments so as to not even give the appearance of politicking at the church,” one of the documents said.

By mid-October, most independent polls showed support for the proposition was growing, but it was still trailing. Opponents had brought on new media consultants in the face of the slipping poll numbers, but they were still effectively raising money, including $3.9 million at a star-studded fund-raiser held at the Beverly Hills home of Ron Burkle, the supermarket billionaire and longtime Democratic fund-raiser.

It was then that Mr. Schubert called his meeting in Sacramento. “I said, ‘As good as our stuff is, it can’t withstand that kind of funding,’ ” he recalled.

The response was a desperate e-mail message sent to 92,000 people who had registered at the group’s Web site declaring a “code blue” — an urgent plea for money to save traditional marriage from “cardiac arrest.” Mr. Schubert also sent an e-mail message to the three top religious members of his executive committee, representing Catholics, evangelicals and Mormons.

“I ask for your prayers that this e-mail will open the hearts and minds of the faithful to make a further sacrifice of their funds at this urgent moment so that God’s precious gift of marriage is preserved,” he wrote.

On Oct. 28, Mr. Ashton, the grandson of the former Mormon president David O. McKay, donated $1 million. Mr. Ashton, who made his fortune as co-founder of the WordPerfect Corporation, said he was following his personal beliefs and the direction of the church.

“I think it was just our realizing that we heard a number of stories about members of the church who had worked long hours and lobbied long and hard,” he said in a telephone interview from Orem, Utah.

In the end, Protect Marriage estimates, as much as half of the nearly $40 million raised on behalf of the measure was contributed by Mormons.

Even with the Mormons’ contributions and the strong support of other religious groups, Proposition 8 strategists said they had taken pains to distance themselves from what Mr. Flint called “more extreme elements” opposed to rights for gay men and lesbians.

To that end, the group that put the issue on the ballot rebuffed efforts by some groups to include a ban on domestic partnership rights, which are granted in California. Mr. Schubert cautioned his side not to stage protests and risk alienating voters when same-sex marriages began being performed in June.

“We could not have this as a battle between people of faith and the gays,” Mr. Schubert said. “That was a losing formula.”

But the “Yes” side also initially faced apathy from middle-of-the-road California voters who were largely unconcerned about same-sex marriage. The overall sense of the voters in the beginning of the campaign, Mr. Schubert said, was “Who cares? I’m not gay.”

To counter that, advertisements for the “Yes” campaign also used hypothetical consequences of same-sex marriage, painting the specter of churches’ losing tax exempt status or people “sued for personal beliefs” or objections to same-sex marriage, claims that were made with little explanation.

Another of the advertisements used video of an elementary school field trip to a teacher’s same-sex wedding in San Francisco to reinforce the idea that same-sex marriage would be taught to young children.

“We bet the campaign on education,” Mr. Schubert said.

The “Yes” campaign was denounced by opponents as dishonest and divisive, but the passage of Proposition 8 has led to second-guessing about the “No” campaign, too, as well as talk about a possible ballot measure to repeal the ban. Several legal challenges have been filed, and the question of the legality of the same-sex marriages performed from June to Election Day could also be settled in court.

For his part, Mr. Schubert said he is neither anti-gay — his sister is a lesbian — nor happy that some same-sex couples’ marriages are now in question. But, he said, he has no regrets about his campaign.

“They had a lot going for them,” Mr. Schubert said of his opponents. “And they couldn’t get it done.”

Mr. Otterson said it was too early to tell what the long-term implications might be for the church, but in any case, he added, none of that factored into the decision by church leaders to order a march into battle. “They felt there was only one way we could stand on such a fundamental moral issue, and they took that stand,” he said. “It was a matter of standing up for what the church believes is right.”

That said, the extent of the protests has taken many Mormons by surprise. On Friday, the church’s leadership took the unusual step of issuing a statement calling for “respect” and “civility” in the aftermath of the vote.

“Attacks on churches and intimidation of people of faith have no place in civil discourse over controversial issues,” the statement said. “People of faith have a democratic right to express their views in the public square without fear of reprisal.”

Mr. Ashton described the protests by same-sex marriage advocates as off-putting. “I think that shows colors,” Mr. Ashton said. “By their fruit, ye shall know them.”

[Big ned]

Yes Jenny, that is by definition a grass roots effort that was very powerful. As you could see, the catholics and the evangelicals... although outnumbering the mormons manyfold were unable to do what the LDS church was able to do because of their grass roots organization. when you get 2% of the population raising 70% of the funds, that is very powerful.

Why is marriage such an important thing to me? you said in your post "lets assume that the church doesn't have to be involved in performing marriages" don't you think the same thing happened in massachusetts? You start by saying that and then once the bill is passed, there are suddenly court challenges to change the wording of the bill saying it is discriminatory for churches not to perform wedding ceremonies.... and it never ends. Now you may not care about religion just as most of the posters responding to this thread also don't care, but the majority of North America does. So if you can't understand why we have concern... sorry... I can't explain it any better than that. You haven't done such a good idea convincing me that the gay lobby feels really bad that the majority of people don't understand why they are fighting to change the definition of a word.

My view is that the gays have every civil right that anyone else does. Changing the definition of a word is not a civil right. No one has been able to explain to me why gay couples who reject traditional religion for the most part .. want to be involved in a traditional religious ceremony? They have civil unions, they have all the rights a married couple do under the law... why do they want to change the definition of a word?

[Mr Danksworth]

Where exactly does it say that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman? The early christian church was way more tolerant than it is today.

[steven lloyd]

The early Christian church was way more tolerant than it is today.

Interesting idea and I’m not disputing it. Certainly the modern Roman Catholic Church (since the beginning of the Middle Ages) has demonstrated how intolerant the Church has been and can be. Can you provide specific examples of how more tolerant the early Christian church was?

[Mr Danksworth]

The early Christian church was way more tolerant than it is today.

Interesting idea and I’m not disputing it. Certainly the modern Roman Catholic Church (since the beginning of the Middle Ages) has demonstrated how intolerant the Church has been and can be. Can you provide specific examples of how more tolerant the early Christian church was?

Oops, my bad...i was following a line on Adelphopoiesis and the possible marriage of catholic saints Sergius and Bacchus, but it ran dry. The church has always been bigoted.

[ImRight]

I think i'm going to kill myself.

Is that a choice or would it be better if i was gay-hence no choice?