We’ve already talked about the LDS religion’s recent letter encouraging California Mormons to push for a constitutional amendment. Also, while I don’t think it’s been mentioned on here, though I’m guessing Hellmut has probably already harangued as many people as he can about this site: Signing for Something. It contains letters from people who disagree with LDS leadership on this issue. If you haven’t been there yet, check it out.
All that aside, I’m wondering what the real motivation is behind this anti-homosexuality position. Obviously there is the Biblical injunction against homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.†Sure, Mormons and many others can fall back on that scriptural reference, selectively choosing to accept that Biblical decree but ignoring the other 600+ laws of the Old Testament, like these from the next chapter:
- 26 Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it.
- 27 Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
- 28 Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves.
So, Mormons can poorly “justify” their position by saying, “The Bible says it’s wrong. We selectively choose to live by aspects of the Bible that we like, and this is one of them. So, it’s wrong.” But, come on! This position is untenable in any real argument.
Also, the oft-cited argument that “homosexual marriage threatens heterosexual marriage” is the most ridiculous claim I’ve ever heard. I have a long-standing challenge for my students that I’ll give them $100 if they can explain to me how homosexual marriage threatens heterosexual marriage. That argument makes no sense to me whatsoever.
What I think it really is, is male insecurity. When men have sex with other men, heterosexual men see this as a threat to their power and authority. Somehow the very existence of men who are willing to “submit” to other men makes heterosexual men feel like they are “lesser men” just because it is a possibility. In a sense, heterosexual men see homosexual men as giving all men a “weaker image.” As a result, they simply cannot tolerate homosexuality: it is a threat to traditional male dominance. This is doubly true in patriarchal Mormonism, where all the leaders are male and their authority is sacrosanct.
In sum, Mormon opposition to same-sex marriage is best understood as Mormon male leadership attempting to defend its power, however ill-gotten that power is. I could be wrong here, but I really can’t see another explanation for this discrimination without getting even more cynical (e.g., Mormon leadership is looking for solidarity with evangelical Christians?).
What I think it really is, is male insecurity.
I will give you $100 if you can demonstrate this with any evidence.
I was hoping someone would challenge me like this:
-Kimmel, M. S. (1994) Masculinity as homophobia: fear, shame, and silence in the construction of gender identity. In H. Brod and M. Kaufman (eds.) Theorizing Masculinities (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage), 119–141.
-Kimmel, M. S. and Mahler, M. (2003) Adolescent Masculinity, Homophobia, and Violence: Random School
Shootings, 1982–2001. American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 1439–1458.
–Ward, Elijah. 2005. Homophobia, hypermasculinity and the US black church. Culture, Health & Sexuality, Sep/Oct2005, Vol. 7 Issue 5, p493-504,
–LOCK, JAMES; KLEIS, BRIAN. 1998. Origins of homophobia in males. American Journal of Psychotherapy, Vol. 52 Issue 4, p425, 12p.
I even uploaded two of the articles for you to read yourself.
I accept Paypal. 🙂
You actually expect me to read all those books?
Not at all in the blogging spirit my friend.
First, at best these show homophobia to be the result of a perceived threat to masculinity, in some cases (this doesn’t explain female opposition to SSM, or female homophobia). That, however, is not your argument. First, you have to demonstrate that official LDS opposition is rooted in the specific kind of homophobia you mentioned, “as a threat to their power and authority.” From the titles of the studies you cite, they seem to focus on other kinds of homophobia such as the fear of being a homosexual, the fear of contagion, and um, black nationalism. Even the article on Black churches still admits “theologically driven” explanations that go beyond irrational fears. Second, you have to demonstrate that LDS opposition is entirely reducible to this specific kind of homophobia, since you have dismissed all other reasons as plausible explanations.
Frankly, these sort of psychologically reductionistic are pretty weak.
So, you’re moving the goal posts on me, huh? That’s okay, I don’t need the $100.
What those studies show is that there is evidence that some men are homophobic because of hypermasculinity: they denigrate homosexuals in order to shore up their masculinity. Do they use the LDS as an example of that? Even more specifically, do they use LDS leaders as an example of that? No. If that is your criteria, I can’t give you evidence to satisfy your criteria. But the evidence I gave supports the opinion I gave.
If you have an alternative explanation, please do share it. At this point, all you’ve done is said you don’t buy my explanation and then said the evidence I gave to support it was not specific enough. Do you have an alternative explanation?
they denigrate homosexuals in order to shore up their masculinity
What these studies don’t show is that opposition to SSM is reducible to homophobia and the attempt to “shore up their masculinity” (which, I don’t think is necessarily the same think as your original claim that it was seen as a “threat to their power and authority.”) I think that this is the point that needs demonstration with respect to LDS leaders’ opposition to SSM. Can we at least agree that there are distinctions between “God hates fags” sign-holders, and contemporary LDS attitudes to homosexuals? Like “racism,” “homophobia” has become a largely uncritical term that is applied sloppily to all kinds of things, as some sort of easy answer to explain away people with whom one disagrees. I am not here to disagree with you that there are few if any compelling reasons to oppose SSM, only that I don’t think that such opposition can be reduced to homophobia, however you happen to be defining it.
You are correct, those studies do not show opposition to gay marriage (or SSM) is related to either homophobia or hypermasculinity. That is true.
As far as there being a distinction between the “god hates fags” sign holders of Fred Phelps and the LDS religion’s opposition to same sex marriage… Well, I’ll grant you that there is a difference in degree, but I don’t think it’s a difference in kind. Mormon opposition to SSM is a mild form of bigotry compared to the “death to gays” crap you get from Fred Phelps and his ilk, but it is still bigotry.
I think you’re right about insecurity, but I think it is a more general insecurity than just male insecurity. I know plenty of women who are every bit as homophobic as the men in suits. It’s the kind of insecurity that makes Mormons as a collective, actively discriminate against a minority population, in order for them to feel better about themselves and their self-righteous lives and I find it pretty inexcusable and frankly, sickening.
Just out of curiosity, what are the insecurities that cause people to self-righteously pick on Mormons?
Mormons love being “persecuted”, TT. They thrive on it! 😉
TT, I’ll humor you and pretend you were asking a sincere question and not just being snarky (among other less flattering things).
If it were the case that I only “picked on” (read: criticize) Mormons (which is not the case), then maybe it would have something to do with existential angst that I had left a religion I really believe in. Or maybe I’m worried about my salvation, etc.
However, considering I “pick on” (read: criticize) pretty much everything I disagree with and even many things I agree with, I’d say it’s because Mormonism is and its leaders periodically do morally repugnant things. This is also why I criticize: George W. Bush, bad movies, believers in pseudoscience and the paranormal, etc. I criticize in the hopes of making things better.
Maybe, deep down inside, there is some fear – some fear that what I disagree with will somehow take over the world and deny me the right to criticize. Yeah, I could buy that…
Sure, but as long as we are saying that anyone who is “sickened” by the practices of another group suffers from some irrational phobia, insecurity, and a threat to their power…
Injustice sickens me, TT. Plain and simple, I feel what the LDS Church is doing is an injustice.
12 was responding to 10.
profxm, I appreciate the honesty: “Mormonism is and its leaders periodically do morally repugnant things.” Are you willing to offer the same sort of good faith to LDS leaders who might see SSM as “morally repugnant” when they criticize it? Are they not also trying to “criticize in the hopes of making things better”? I think that your last fear, the “fear that what I disagree with will somehow take over the world and deny me the right to criticize” is really at the heart of how many LDS feel about SSM. They see it as undercutting their ability to take a moral stand in favor of heterosexual marriages and families, and perhaps even the legal right to perform mixed-sex marriages at some distant date.
To be clear, I am not saying that criticism of the LDS church’s stance on this is somehow rooted in an irrational anti-Mormonism. I am suggesting that the attribution of LDS motives to homophobia is the equivalent of such an argument.
WendyP, I think you are missing my point. I am suggesting that reducing someone’s position with which you disagree to “insecurity” is the kind of rhetorical move that can be turned on anyone who makes any kind of criticism.
I’m not missing your point TT. I see it loud and clear. However, I am interested in exploring the main topic of the post. We’re talking about what is behind “LDS homophobia”. You seem to be wanting to point fingers away from the Mormon faithful and point them any where else. That’s fine and dandy with me, but I’m personally more interested in thoughts on the main topic of why LDS people are homophobic. I really don’t fully know why LDS are so homophobic and I AM LDS (though probably not a very good one).
TT, I have no problem with the leadership of the LDS religion calling homosexuality, SMS, or anything “morally repugnant.” That is fully within their rights. The beauty and challenge of morality is that it is relative and variable. So, if they want to criticize someone’s sexual identity (that they did not choose, just like skin color, height, eye color, etc.), that is their right.
Now, when it comes to limiting someone’s civil rights, that’s where I really take issue with the LDS leadership. You see, TT, it’s one thing to say, “Ewww, homosexuality, that’s gross.” It’s another to say, “Hmmm, yeah, those homosexuals, they don’t deserve equal rights. Let’s treat them as second-class citizens.” That, to me, is reprehensible. I really don’t see it as any different than Jim Crow laws in the South.
As for the next part of your post, that Mormons see SSM as “undercutting their ability to take a moral stand in favor of heterosexual marriages and families, and perhaps even the legal right to perform mixed-sex marriages at some distant date”. Are you really implying that Mormons fear that (1) allowing gays to marry will eventually lead to (2) no Mormons being able to marry? If that is what you are implying, the leap of logic from 1 to 2 is so enormously huge as to be beyond absurd. It is patently irrational and nigh insane. I have never, in all of the reading I’ve done in feminist literature, LGBT literature, etc. seen anyone say, “…and as a result of my arguments above, I think we should disallow religious groups from marrying their followers.” I really, really don’t get this. I think you need to clarify, because I’m kind of dumbstruck at this argument.
RE: 15 – I actually think this is a more interesting point. What you’re saying is, “You can dismiss anyone’s motivations for doing what they are doing as “insecurity.”” Okay, I see your point. You’re probably right that you could/can do this. At some level, I’m insecure about my right to criticize, so I criticize to ensure I retain that right. But I think you are taking my original point beyond where it was intended. In my original post I suggested that the Mormon leadership was taking this stand on SSM because of insecurity about their masculinity (grouped in here with their power and authority). I think I was being quite specific. I didn’t say, “Somewhere deep inside the minds of the Mormon leaders there is some type of insecurity, and that is why they are doing what they are doing.” In other words, I was giving a specific type of insecurity and saying that was the basis for the action. Also, unless you take into consideration the other possible reasons for the behavior that I dismissed, it doesn’t make sense to just criticize my argument. I don’t think the LDS leadership are doing this because the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, though they may use that justification (I pointed out why that is a terrible, stupid argument). I also don’t think the LDS leadership is doing this because it threatens heterosexual marriage. There is no intelligible argument that draws a connection between those two types of marriage (clarification of your argument pending…). So, I was left with a third explanation: insecurity about masculinity/power/authority. I think that is specific enough that you can take issue with that one example and not the general idea of using insecurity as the basis for all behavior. I could be wrong.
Lol! Okay, this has become Kafka-esque as both of you seem to be accusing me of all sorts of crimes and not paying attention to the point that I am making. Let me try to state what I am saying as clearly as possible:
I am not interested at all in the arguments for or against SSM. I have already explained that I am unconvinced by such arguments. What I am objecting to is the sort of name-calling and reductionistic explanations of LDS opposition to SSM.
I have suggested that the term “homophobia” is not transparent, and too vague to be usefully applied without thorough explanation. (I count about 5 or 6 different definition in this thread alone.) I don’t think it is a useful term.
Further, I have suggested that reducing someone’s criticism to irrational fears is a sword that cuts both ways. It is a rhetorical device, not an actual argument with any substance.
Wendy, your LDS creditials, good or otherwise, are not enough to convince me of the basic premise here of “why LDS people are homophobic,” whatever you think that term might mean. I don’t doubt that many LDS are depending on how you define it. I don’t think that LDS opposition to SSM can be reduced to this, at least not according to most definitions of homophobia.
profxm, you’re right that I mispoke. I meant to say “only mixed-sex marriages.”
I am not sure that specifically identifying the insecurity really solves the problem. I think that one could say that your criticism stems from your deeply rooted anti-Mormon insecurity. That doesn’t constitute a constructive assessment of your situation, right?
Further, I have suggested that reducing someone’s criticism to irrational fears is a sword that cuts both ways. It is a rhetorical device, not an actual argument with any substance.
I think identifying the irrational root of our viewpoints is valuable. Fear makes us more conservative. When we are afraid, some subconscious atavistic part of us circles the wagons, identifies who is “us” and who is “them”, and fights to preserve the status quo. This survival response has served us well in violent situations but can get in the way of establishing civil society.
I’m not sure I’m convinced that the LDS leadership is insecure in their masculinity. I’m still mulling it over and will research more about it, but so far it doesn’t pass the sniff test.
I remember, however, how much currency fear has in LDS thought. “Everything bad is part of a fiendish plot by legions of Satan’s followers to ensnare the righteous. The world is getting ever more sinful and dangerous. The world will become hell for the unrighteous before Jesus comes again. Even the elect will be deceived. Be on your guard.” At least that’s how it was when I was growing up.
If you look at the world with such fearful eyes, you’re going to subconsciously seek to protect the tribe from the different, the unknown, the unfamiliar. This might not only explain the LDS reaction to same-sex marriage (I agree that homophobia is a pretty useless word more at home in political speeches than in discussions where we seek understanding) but also the predominantly conservative thought in Mormon culture.
And while the black church seems to suffer from hypermasculinity, does this apply to LDS men? Is is just me, or has the LDS ideal for men become more feminized (if you’ll pardon the term) over time? LDS men these days are more Mr. Mom than Marlboro Man.
I find this a little silly. A striaght man can’t understand a gay man. Therefore gays seem irrational to many of us. Excuse my langauge, but while I try not to be homophobic, I don’t understand fucking a guy when you could fuck a woman. The former has no appeal to me and seems rather gross. I just tell myself gays are born that way and I try to be tolerant.
BTW, the LDS church is full of flaming effeminate men. Just go to BYU. I’m not saying they’re all gay, but straight fems obviously don’t care if you think they’re gay so they can hardly be considered homophobic.
My guess is that in the hunter-gatherer groups before civilization, the most sucessful groups had some alpha polyg males with females and gays as natural eunuchs. I think having some gays is a normal part of the human condition. But with homosexuality driven into the closet for generations, it seems bizarre to many of us now.
I admit, I am having real difficulty with this First Presidency letter. I’ve struggled to see a reason that would somehow make sense so I won’t have to say, “The Prophet of God is completely wrong on this issue.” I don’t want to have to say that. But neither do I want to support something I do not believe. With some issues I am able to just have faith that there is something I cannot see for now and just follow with blind faith. But it’s impossible to do this when the behavior the Church is asking of us is actually harmful to other human beings.
Anyway, I can see some fear and insecurity in the reasoning some of the LDS are giving behind the opposition to same sex marriage. I don’t think it’s insecurity about masculinity. But look, for example, at Meridian Magazine’s call to “protect marriage.” (Skip the first part of the article, which will make you mad because the arguments are so retarded.) Toward the end of the piece, Maurine Proctor writes:
She goes on to talk about how if sexual orientation is defined as a legal right, religious organizations and others will lose their freedom to receive government benefits, tax-exempt status and freedom to keep proponents of SSM from teaching and influencing their children.
This is the fear that I see motivating the current conflict.
In perusing Origins of homophobia in males, I get the feeling that the word homophobia in an academic context means something different than how it’s used by the public. It is used academically to mean an actual fear of being near or associated with a homosexual person, often caused by a perceived threat to a man’s masculinity.
I relate to this through an experience that I had as a teenager. A man approached me where I worked and asked me on a date. There was nothing overtly threatening in his manner. He apologized and left without incident when I made it clear that I wasn’t gay. Yet I felt emasculated to be attractive to a man and a little resentful. (Now I just say I have broad-based appeal.) I can understand why someone who is insecure about their male identity would feel subconsciously threatened and react violently to the subliminal threat.
I don’t see how this applies to LDS church leadership. Something else seems to be in play.
I’ve said this before regarding the church’s stance: I think it has far more to do with polygamy than gay marriage. Legal polygamy in the USA would open a can of worms for the LDS church. Defining marriage as between one man and one woman is like burying that can of worms under Yucca mountain.
Jonathan, I know what you mean as a straight teen. As adults we gain more confidence and wit. It wasn’t until my twenties I started to say in those situations : no, but do you have a sister?
I think it does threaten the power and authority of the LDS church hierarchy.
The LDS church’s male-only power structure is justified through divine and eternal gender roles. Once you allow the possibility of families headed by two men or two women (so you have families that don’t have one leader and one mother), it calls the need for rigid gender roles into question.
It seems to me that the word “homophobia” really isn’t any different than the word “anti-Mormon.” And both words are flung around with such free and careless abandon that they’ve both lost much of their usefulness.
“Cult” would probably be another one.
Sure, they all have their hyper-technical academic definitions. But honestly, who cares?
I do… 😐
Add disgust to the list of things that make us judge people more harshly. Maybe the LDS church just can’t stop thinking about anal sex when they think about gay marriage. Perhaps their squick factor plays a part in this. 🙂
chanson,
My question is do they perceive this as a threat to their own personal power or does it threaten the patriarchal status quo? I tend to think it’s more of the latter, but that’s a guess.
The latter. It would give the ladies more room to argue that eternal gender roles don’t necessarily apply to everyone, which opens up the “women and the priesthood” question.
Bored in Vernal, the person that wrote that Meridian article doesnt know enough about Civil Rights law to have anything to say that’s worth listeing to, for what it’s worth.
I find most of Meridian to be a waste of perfectly good brain cells.
Jonathan
I like your take on the fear factor. Circle the wagons when it seems like things will change; and fight, even when there is only a perceived threat. You don’t even have to put opposition to SSM up to homophobia; just our natural fear of change.
I do think that the fear of being dominated by another man has a lot to do with homophobia only because of my own homophobia.
I’m not homophobic. I didn’t have much personal disgust about homosexual sex to begin with, and what little I did have, I’ve pretty-much gotten over. Seriously, it doesn’t bother me much.
I just don’t agree that a pairing of a man and a man (or woman and woman) is something my Church should recognize as “marriage.”
It seems ridiculous to me that people would take a position like that and call “homophobia.” To me, the word increasingly seems to mean “you don’t agree with our agenda.”
You’re right, I don’t agree with their agenda. But neither do I find homosexuals particularly scary or threatening.
For instance, I probably wouldn’t have much problem with a homosexual couple babysitting my young kids while my wife and I went out for a movie (provided we knew them well of course). If that doesn’t qualify as proof that I’m not scared of homosexuals, I don’t know what does.
Yes! We need to stop the gays from getting married. We need to heed the prophets on this one, guys.
It’s really simple: first, the gays get to marry; second, the gays take over the government; third, the gays lead the world into chaos, gay chaos.
It’s like we’re so blind and it’s all happening right before our eyes.
Wake up, people!!!
Don’t you see the damage this is doing right now to our america! This use to be the land of the free! Not the land of the free to get married to a man if you’re another man!!
Gay Marriage = Gay Chaos
It’s happening. Right. Now.
Elder Gandy,
Does your mission president know you’re playing around on the internet?
I just don’t agree that a pairing of a man and a man (or woman and woman) is something my Church should recognize as “marriage.â€
Except for LGBT Mormons, I don’t think most people care whether the LDS church recognizes those marriages. If the LDS church doesn’t, some other church will. I really don’t see this as a religious issue. It’s a civil rights issue.
I keep thinking this concern that same-sex marriage will be forced on churches is baseless. Am I wrong?
I don’t think “marriage” is a definition the government has a right to give to ANY group. Including traditional Protestant couples.
It’s unfair for the government to be handing out social status symbols.
Give “civil unions” to everyone and drop the issue. Then people can call themselves whatever they want, just like Jonathan said. That’s what I’d like to see.
In sum, Mormon opposition to same-sex marriage is best understood as Mormon male leadership attempting to defend its power…
I find it interesting to correlate the attitudes toward women and homosexuals across cultures. They seem to go together. Countries that treat women well tend to be good for gays, too. The harsh, male-dominated backwaters of the world… not so much.
So you think the government also shouldn’t be handing out birth certificates, adoption certificates, passports, etc.?
I think this is a very common point of confusion.
When the government issues a birth certificate, it’s not that the government is claiming the right to decide who is born and who isn’t. It’s that we no longer live in a society where people live in their home village their whole life (where such certification is unnecessary since everyone knows everyone else), so it is useful for an impartial body (the government) to provide legal documentation of family relationships. That way there is no question over who is whose mother or whose spouse, etc.
This was the topic of my post Just write it down.
I believe that profxm is on to something with his argument that homophobia and the inability to see us gays as equals stems from some sort of male insecurity.
Does anyone remember Boyd Packer’s statement in “To Young Men Only”?
Oops, i totally forgot the closing tag on my Packer quote. Sorry! Here’s the quote that should have been included to go along with my comment.
“There is a falsehood that some are born with an attraction to their own kind, with nothing they can do about it…From our premortal life we were directed into a physical body. There is no mismatching of bodies and spirits. Boys are to become men –masculine, manly men –ultimately to become husbands and fathers.”
Birth is a bare fact. Marriage is a cultural and religious notion. The government is welcome to deal in the former, but should get out of the latter.
I disagree. Marriage is not a religious notion even if religion has co-oped it.
Marriage exists in every culture and means somethng to people quite independently of any religious significance that gets attached to it. It isn’t an artificial construct of some particular culture, it is as real a part of the human condition as birth. And if you don’t believe me, then I’ll request the resident sociologist’s opinion… 😉
The entirety of the government’s interest in this issue can be encompassed by “civil unions.” There is nothing that “marriage” offers outside of civil unions that the government has any business with.
I agree. Like I said, we should do it like Germany does and let the religious marriage ceremony have absolutely no legal effect. “Get married” in a church if you want. We don’t care. But if you want a legal partnership, you also have to do it at the Standesamt
writerjake, thanks for the vote of support. I know it seems like I’m overly complicating the issue by saying it has to do with male insecurity (better said, gender insecurity), when one could simply point to traditionalism and conservatism as possible explanations. But, as you put it, this is bigger than just not liking homosexuality. This is actually about warding off any threat to the traditional male hierarchy of power. Now we’re on to something…
Okay, chanson, you’re going to hate me here, but I think Seth is right: marriage is a cultural and religious phenomenon. There is nothing biological about it. Let’s start with biology: many animals pair up, but many don’t, and even among those that do, mating for life isn’t particularly common.
Among humans, mating does not require commitment (wink wink, nudge nudge). And even if you want to argue for commitment, it does not require “marriage”. Cohabitation is on the increase in the US, Europe, and most other developed countries. In fact, 1/3 of children in the US are born outside of marriage today (many to cohabiting partners). So, marriage is not required for commitment. Ergo, mating, which is biological, can be done outside of commitment and outside of marriage.
Marriage, on the other hand, has a number of facets. Obviously it has roots in pairing rituals that go back millenia and are both religious and political: jumping over sticks, kidnapping the girl, paying bride ransom, etc. There are a lot of variations on marriage, but it is not a cultural universal. In fact, fewer adult women in the US live with a partner now than live without one (the transition to just over 50% being single was within the last 2 years), and I don’t believe the US has quite collapsed yet.
While it may accurately be said that there is some form of “commitment ceremony” akin to marriage in just about every culture, it can also be said that marriage is not a necessary component of any culture: there is absolutely no need for marriage as a religious or commitment ceremony.
In short, Seth’s point that we could simply resort to civil unions for everyone and call religious ceremonies “marriages” is a valid point. “Marriage” is culturally defined. As long as everyone has the same rights from our secular government via a civil union, I don’t think anyone would really care if we moved to a system like Germany’s. Everyone who chooses to form a union does so at the hands of the state and then can do whatever religious hocus pocus they want at a later date. You could still say you’re “married,” as changing the popular terminology would be rather challenging, but if you want to indicate that you have some “special marriage,” you’d probably have to add a clarifier, like, “I’m “covenant married” or “religiously married.” Otherwise, “married” would probably become the equivalent of “civil union” and people would use the two interchangeably to indicate a legally recognized union between two people that provide equivalent rights. Just my two bits…
Note… I think there is a real need for better laws protecting cohabitating (but not currently “married”) couples.
I’m feeling a bit queasy. I just the Meridian Magazine article.
What an absolute piece of written compost! I’m utterly exasperated. Here I am trying to defend ordinary believing Mormons, and then some among them pull crap like this… Thanks a lot Gary!
And whoever the doofus on the BYU Daily Universe Editorial Board was too. Thanks for the help you dingbats!
And you know what really kills me? The Meridian author – Gary Lawrence is supposed to be authoring an upcoming book:
“How Americans View Mormonism; Seven Steps to Improve Our Image”
Improve our image? Really Gary? You mean by characterizing our opponents as “Satan’s followers?” Yeah… I can see how that would definitely improve our image.
I’m at a loss for words.
Careful there, Seth, you’re beginning to sound like, well, me! 😉
You’re overthinking this. The cynical explanation is the correct one: the Mormon church is taking its cues from the Evangelicals as to what “real Christians” do, hoping to impress their critics on the right. Plus, it’s “icky” and it involves sex, and anything that’s icky and involves sex (and thus arouses feelings of shame) must be bad. In any case, Mormonism’s real insecurities always go back to theology.