Hey, Mormons: Wilco Tango Foxtrot?
(Comments are now closed at the original post, so please comment below)
Serious kudos to The Millennial Star and John Fowles for taking on this topic in this M* guest post:
Harry Reid fireside canceled because of politics
IMHO, it’s a pitch-perfect response to this outrageous situation, and ought to be re-posted far and wide, at official sites such as the LDS Newsroom Blog as well as on every member’s Facebook page and family blog.
Linkage:
J. Stapley at By Common Consent: Heber J. Grant on politics
Independent American News: Our Victory Over Harry Reid Confirmed!
The Salt Lake Tribune: Rolly: Only Republican testimonies in Vegas?
KUTV Utah 2News: Senator Reid Cancels LDS Appearence
USU Shaft: Senator Harry Reid shunned by fellow Mormons
The Mormon Left: The Unhealthy Mingling of Politics in Mormonism
Daily Kos: If I see Harry Reid in the temple, Im going to hit him.
Extra reading: Enough with the Emails from Mormon McVeigh Wannabes, Famous Dead Mormons: Timothy McVeigh
Extraneous: And the Tea Party circus rolls into Provo, Utah:
Seen and heard:
“In Memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives and our children.” – Captain Moroni
“Anybody here want to be a socialist?”
“If we don’t win, that’s it for human rights on planet Earth.”
They eat their own.
Wow. Holy Jesus.
You know, I always figured it’d be the lefties agitating for change and openness and gay marriage and all the other Evile Lefty stuff that would lead to a mormon schism. It’s now looking far more likely that the Righties are going to cause the more dramatic shift. Being liberal has always been suspect; when it becomes a de facto worthiness litmus test and possibly even a death-threat-worthy condition, is that not a Very Bad Sign?
Of course, I spent my years in mormonism fantasising about the official smack-down of the righties by the Big 15, so maybe I’m still dreamin…
But hell, something’s gotta give. No?
Oh good god — I’ve also not kept up on my FDM reading. Having just had lunch, I feel a bit nauseated by the McVeigh entry. Seriously.
My former people continue to break my heart.
Frankly, I don’t know why everyone is so shocked and surprised by the reactions of so many Mormons. They vote as a bloc for the GOP. They divide the world into us vs them, black and white, righteous vs evil, so of course they’re going to think Harry Reid is the Devil Incarnate. That’s a no-brainer. And, while it’s sad and wrong that they would deny this man of faith the opportunity to share his conversion story, it’s also not surprising. In their narrow, fearful, self-righteous minds, Harry Reid can’t possibly be a man of faith or God, because 1) he’s a politician and, worse, a Democrat, 2) he supports Obama, and 3) he voted for healthcare reform.
What I find continually ironic (but maybe I shouldn’t), is how Mormons wear their collective history like a sack cloth of martyrdom and bemoan how persecuted they are as a people, but they fail to see their own insidious, evil discrimination and persecution of others. And, while I’m disgusted with the likes of Glenn Beck and have been wont to come to the defense of Mormonism and say “But Beck doesn’t represent what Mormons believe”, I’m beginning to realize that may not be as true as I’d like it to be. The only difference between guys like Beck and the majority of Mormons is, Beck is actually saying outloud what Mormons believe, but are too chickenshit to own and articulate.
Let’s face it: Mormonism is misogynist, racist, homophobic, hawkish, anti-intellectual, elitist, and millenialist. As a result, it’s little surprise that Mormons, in general, and Nevada Mormons, in particular, don’t want to hear from someone like Reid. I could go on and on, but I’m stopping there, because the whole thing disgusts me.
JM Tewkesbury, thanks. I think your analysis is spot on.
Wow! Yep, that’s it, wow! Harry Reid is a Mormon I like…
It’s sad. Kudos to Denae and her readers.
JMT,
For someone complaining about the supposed dualism of Mormons making “us/them” and “righteous/evil” distinctions, you sure seem to make a lot of huge generalizations about “them” Mormons.
TT,
Was Reid able to speak? Or was his talk canceled because stake leadership began to fear for the safety of all involved?
Sometimes, it’s not so much “generalization” as it is “observation” …
Rather than attack JMT, how about rounding up some fellow believers who are equally pissed off about this latest turn of events?
Because, thing is, Reid was invited and then it all went to hell.
The Mormon gal who wrote the original post – who eloquently expressed her disgust at this caving in to thugs masquerading as citizens – got it absolutely right.
And if you’re right, plenty of her co-believers ought to be lining up to back her up. Are they? If so, where are they?
Or are they, like you, lining up to attempt damage control by minimizing and dismissing what just happened out in that Nevada stake?
It’s FUBAR and the best y’all can bring are the same old petty ad hominems? Give me a break. Stand up and be counted for a change.
Chino,
What is it exactly that you expect me to do? Be pissed off about it? Fine. Done. Make a comment on a blog? Fine. Done.
It is obviously incredibly unfortunate that some LDS have reacted this way. Note that it is not the stake leadership or even the ward leadership that is reacting this way, but very likely a small, vocal minority of radicals. It is a tense time within Mormonism just as it is within the US in general. You may have noticed that threats against Democratic politicians aren’t all that uncommon these days. It is of course shameful that these kinds of episodes show up among people of the same religion (as they do among Catholic politicians and lay people over the abortion issues in the Health Care bill).
I’m not sure that this means that we can deduce from this larger statements about the “majority of Mormons,” “so many Mormons,” and “Mormonism” such as:
1) They vote as a bloc for the GOP.
2) They divide the world into us vs them, black and white, righteous vs evil,
3) so of course theyre going to think Harry Reid is the Devil Incarnate.
4) In their narrow, fearful, self-righteous minds,
5) The only difference between guys like Beck and the majority of Mormons is, Beck is actually saying outloud what Mormons believe, but are too chickenshit to own and articulate
6) Mormonism is misogynist, racist, homophobic, hawkish, anti-intellectual, elitist, and millenialist.
If you think I have made an ad hominem argument, you might want to look that up and reassess who is making the “same old petty” ones. If you think I’m “lining up to attempt damage control,” by pointing out hypocritical and offensive labels being put on me, my family, and my people that fail to contextualize these reactions to Reid within the larger historical moment of what is going on on the right, than I suppose that I am guilty as charged. I see a lot to condemn here about the crazy reactions to the health care bill from the right. I’m not sure that this proves anything about Mormons that comes close to what JMT said.
Where is this comment of which you speak? Here only?
I know I’m not in this discussion, but what I would expect of you is that you spend at least as much effort criticizing your own people for behaving in this manner as you expend criticizing the critics for pointing it out.
Yes, JWT’s comment comes off as a bit of an ad hominem. And yet there is a bit of a difference between prejudice (judging before actions) and criticizing a group’s actual actions. If you don’t want this negative image, you can start by helping convince your fellows to behave otherwise.
Let me state the very obvious: Threats against Reed by other Mormons is incredibly ugly. I don’t support it. If I knew the names of any of those involved, I would happily tell them so. (I doubt they are reading this blog.)
Let me state the apparently not very obvious: these threats don’t constitute “a groups actual actions” anymore than stomping on crosses,committing suicide because of global warming, or being Bill Maher saying anything about the “group” of No on 8 ralliers, environmentalists, or atheists.
Frankly, this game of trying to measure how indignant I am supposed to be relative to one wrong versus another is a waste of time. I was simply responding to a pretty silly set of claims about “the majority of Mormons” as deduced from this episode.
TT — look, I’ll grant that JMT’s generalizations were a bit more “anti-Mormon” than we usually like to see on this blog. All I ask is for you to help prove him wrong. I would like to see you put up a top-level post on your blog criticizing what happened, explaining what was wrong with it, and helping your own people to understand how they can do better. It’s a perfectly reasonable request that will give you the opportunity to make us here at MSP look like jerks for having thought you would do any less. 😉
I expect you to risk everything. But that’s just me. If it’s commiseration you seek, I could suggest a few online grottoes, where plenty of folks apparently find the warmth of close quarters an acceptable substitute for sunlight.
JMT is a she (Chanson — you met her at a recent Mexican dinner lol) and she is also a lifelong legacy/royalty mormon and sociologist of religion. So while she may be angry (Prop 8 leaves a lingering bad taste for many people, among other things political and yukky) and expressing it in a ranty way, she has certainly earned her right to talk about the mormons in general.
I don’t mind putting up a post on it, and maybe I will. It is not really in the general themes of my own blogging, but I am considering it. But I want to be clear about this. I really don’t think that I am under any obligation to condemn the obviously stupid things of a few out of control individuals to “my people,” whatever that means. Further, if anyone needs me to explain what is wrong with threats and actual violence, I doubt anything I put on my blog will change their mind. These aren’t the actions of rational people, you know.
But the real issue here is the expectation that I, simply because I am a Mormon, am responsible for condemning every stupid thing some random Mormon does. I’m not. Not my job, not my obligation, and definitely not my interest. Just as you all are not responsible for every stupid thing some ex-Mormon does or says. You’re not. Not your job. I don’t expect a “top level post” condemning the actions or words of JMT from you, just so you know.
Thanks Wry — she just left a comment on my blog, so now I know who she is! I just put up a post about stereotyping on my blog, and I still fall into that trap of “everyone on the Internet is a white male unless they make a point to identify otherwise.” Oy, how embarrassing!
Perhaps my arguments are ad hominem, so let me provide my resume, which seems to be the only way a lot of Mormons find legitimacy in other people’s comments.
Before I do that, though, let me also point out that I chose my language carefully. I didn’t say “all Mormons” or “most Mormons.” I said “many” and “a majority.” These are both adequate and acceptable assessments, based on the political make-up of church membership. Nearly 2/3 of Mormons identify as or vote Republican/conservative. (If you’d like links to recent polls and studies, I’m happy to provide several.)
Having said that, here’s my resume.
I was born and raised Mormon.
I lived 17 years in the heart of Mormonism (Provo/Orem.)
I graduated from Seminary.
I served a full and honorable mission to Vienna, Austria, where I taught and baptized eight converts.
I served for nearly two years as a Temple Ordinance Worker in the Washington, D.C., Temple. (Incidentally, I worked with Orrin Hatch’s wife, Elaine. A lovely, lovey woman.)
I am a sociologist of religion, who specialized in Mormon culture and sociology. I have a degree (not that matters) from the Graduate Theological Union where I wrote my master’s thesis on the effect of temple participation in the lives of young adult Latter-day Saints.
A copy of the my thesis is on file at the Church Office Building and has been used as a reference and guide for preparing members of the church to receive their endowments.
In addition, I am a feminist, an intellectual, and a homosexual.
While my “attacks” may seem “ad hominem”, I think I have some ground to stand on. Many Mormons, NOT ALL, do see the world in dualities. This isn’t an attack, as much as it is fact based in theology and bolstered by sociological data.
As for my other assertions, I have met more Mormons, than less, in my day who are homophobic, racist, and fearful. I know that not all Mormons are this way, but I also know that those who are not this way are a very small minority.
TT — Here’s my point:
Either you think that (1) this incident is somewhere between “A-OK” and “no big deal” or (2) you think it is somewhere between bad and deplorable.
If (1), then it is not an insult or ad-hominem to suggest that Mormonism encourages such behavior. If (2), then unless you’re bothering to criticize the people who did it, bothering to come here to criticize the critics comes off as pretty hollow and disingenuous.
I suggest you try posting about it. Even if it’s not your blog’s usual theme, it may be interesting. 😀
chanson,
You’re making an assertion, not an argument. You’ve set this arbitrary standard that the only way that I can possibly have any ground to criticize something dumb said about this incident as an example which condemns “the majority of Mormons,” is not if I think threats against Reed are “somewhere between bad and deplorable,” (which I already said) but only if I say such things on my own blog.
I guess I don’t see the logic of either of the conditions you’ve set. First, I already passed the first standard (in case there was really any doubt that I support threats against anyone!), and I don’t see the point of the extra-high standard you’ve set in order for me to make a comment here.
I never defended the actions of those making the threats which is the implicit point of the post, one which I also implicitly consented to. Rather, I was making a point about the interpretation of this event by one commenter, JMT. I don’t see why before I can criticize an interpretation of this event, that I am somehow required to pass a test showing that I think that the event was bad in the first place.
I was responding to a set of generalizations about Mormons that not only go against the facts of the episode (did I mention the stake leadership invited and supported Reed?), but also interprets this issue as something which is exclusive to Mormons and Mormonism without paying attention to broader political climate of the reactions on the right to health care. That some Mormons have been swept up in this says no more about Mormonism than that Harry Reid was a primary architect of health care says something about Mormonism. To make that rather obvious point seems so non-controversial that I am not sure why I have to pass a test in order to make it.
Perhaps there is an argument to made here in favor of JMT’s thesis. I am willing to engage that argument and consider it. I have instead offered at least two reasons why her assertions are wrong. I will happily (time permitting) engage in real arguments, but I don’t really want to have to pass a test first. Can we move on?
Chapel Mormon hatred of all things Reid aside, what I’m also bemoaning is the ridiculous state of affairs that allows the bloggernacle to post all manner of provocative links in its sidebars, with apparently no expectation from readers that a peep (or post) from a faithful blogger might be forthcoming by way of response.
Apparently, as far as that crew is concerned, simply acknowledging external reality is all the street cred that’s ever required.
In other words, you don’t want to be seen as misogynist, racist, homophobic, hawkish, anti-intellectual, elitist, or millenialist? Great! Write about how and why you’re so different from your co-religionists on a blog that matters to, well, you know, your co-religionists.
And of course that’s been done before. But has it been done in this instance? When tensions are so high? In the aftermath of Reid’s and the Stake leadership’s humiliation at the hands of thugs?
On this particular front, all I’ve seen so far from the LDS A-list is a bunch of protestations that we’re not “all” that bad.
Such bravery. Seriously. You rock. Blech.
Chino,
Can you please point me to the links of every one of your posts condemning every one of the stupid things done by No on 8 activists, whether toward Mormons or not? Can you please also point me to all of your posts condemning every stupid thing done or said by an ex-Mormon? I need you to prove to me that you’re not all bad, because it is not totally, ridiculously obvious.
TT — I’m not playing some sort of rhetorical game with you in order to make you look bad or to “win” a debate, or whatever. I am so not interested in that sort of thing. I sincerely think it would be interesting, constructive, and useful if you’d be as willing to talk to faithful Mormons about this as you are to take it up with us. If you disagree, then c’est la vie.
You’ll have to enumerate the badness you allude to before I’ll engage. If you’re gonna call me out, drop the boilerplate, and get specific.
And even then, I’d like some assurances that you’ve given this explication of ressentiment a once over.
I’m kinda with TT on this one in many respects. Critiquing the “anti-Mormons” who might spin this is just as worthy a cause as critiquing the “crazy Mormons.” Both do Mormonism a service (if that’s one goal). The only way I see “Mormonism” itself as encouraging this behavior is that since the Church is more comfortable making sure tomorrow is the same as yesterday, Mormons tend to be more conservative. But it’s not like Prop 8, where the leadership turned a specific issue into a cause. I do agree with wry@2, though, that at some point “something’s gotta give” if Mormons aren’t letting their own attend services.
chanson,
If you’re asking me nicely to address this issue among “faithful Mormons” because you think I would have an interesting take on it, not as a requirement to engage in a discussion about the interpretation of this on your blog, then, well I am flattered. As I said, I will consider it. It is not something that I think I have much interesting to say about, since really the only think I can think about this event is that it is really stupid for Mormons (or anyone) to behave this way.
Yet, as I have said, I am not sure that real genesis of these feelings behind this event says anything about Mormonism in particular, even if particular Mormons are involved. I think it says much more about the state of political discourse on the right. Since I am not on the right politically, these are not my people to speak to.
Chino,
Thanks for the free psychology session. What exactly do you see me as frustrated about? As I already said, I am not really interested in making sure you condemn everything “your people” (whatever that means) do that is dumb. I just don’t think that you need to require that as a precondition for engaging in the analysis of any particular issue. I’m not sure why you have set this as the bar that one must clear before they can provide some thoughts on what the issue at hand signifies.
And I’m kinda still waiting for TT’s parade of horribles. I’m particularly interested in instances where us baddies somehow prevented our political opponents from expressing themselves. I’m fully prepared to apologize and shut up if TT can come up with one instance where anyone – anywhere – called off a religious sermon/talk/appearance because it looked like the angry lefty homosexual mob might invade and inflict bodily harm.
TT version 1.0: “Can you please point me to the links of every one of your posts condemning every one of the stupid things done by No on 8 activists, whether toward Mormons or not? Can you please also point me to all of your posts condemning every stupid thing done or said by an ex-Mormon?”
TT version 2.0: “As I already said, I am not really interested in making sure you condemn everything ‘your people’ (whatever that means) do that is dumb.”
You lost me there, TT. Did I miss a retraction?
Chino,
Yes, comment 16: “Just as you all are not responsible for every stupid thing some ex-Mormon does or says. Youre not. Not your job. I dont expect a top level post condemning the actions or words of JMT from you, just so you know.”
This is not really the issue here, and I don’t want to be baited into rehashing Prop 8 backlash with you. I’m just going to stick to my point that you are under no more obligation to blog about every instance where someone with whom you share a particular identity as I or any other Mormon is to blog about what any random Mormon does.
As much as I hate these back-and-forths, there’s one subtle point that I think is being missed here:
I have not gone over to faithful Mormon blogs to criticize them for criticizing particular (bad? stupid?) exmormon actions. Sure, people aren’t responsible for every stray action of every fringe person in their group/category. But I wouldn’t criticize the critics — without equally criticizing the original action — unless I thought that analyzing/criticizing was worse than the original action.
I’m starting to lose the thread in this conversation, but I am a bit ADD, so it’s perhaps not too surprising. While I understand the fervent hope that reasonable people will/should do more vigourous eschewing of the wingnuttier folks in the politico-religious realm, I still don’t think TT is required to defend or attack (told ya I’m lost) “his (her?) people” here. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick entirely?
Well anyhow, I did learn something new today. I like that word ressentiment — I was not familiar with it. Kinda like a cross between cognitive dissonance and fundamental attribution error, with a dash of the bogeyman. 🙂
Chanson,
thank your for he concession on the issue of whther or not I must login this topic. But now I’m not sure what you’re saying. I did not criticize the critic JMT for criticizing this particular action, a criticism with which I would agree, but for the absurd interpretation of this action she offered.
iPhone typing while driving. You get the idea.
Thank wry.
If I gave a toss about random Mormons, I’d be blogging elsewhere about John Yettaw, David Archuleta or whoever. Yawn.
So your 16 supersedes your 22. Got it. This is me letting it go.
And I understand that you feel you’re under no special obligation in this instance. Rest easy, it’s a shared feeling among your fellow Mormon believers and bloggers. Accountability is obviously something we ought to be requiring of those other people. Over there. Wherever that may be.
And please don’t mind me, but I’m going to copy-and-paste something from another forum that for some reason struck a chord:
Chino — good call. I thought GD’s quote was quite apropos. I tend to believe lifelong Democrat Mormons’ stories, as they have lived the marginalisation way more than I ever have (I wasn’t really ever politically and religiously active at the same time [or ever really politically or religiously active at all lol]). Their experiences all have a remarkably similar plot, and it’s not a warm, friendly one.
I just think there is this time-honored die-hard bit of semi-paranoid, anti-government fundamentalist DNA in even mainstream mormonism that sort of winks and nods at the rightwing nuts amongst them, while really questioning the essential righteousness and character of the liberals in their midst (or rather, on their margins). They just collectively lean very hard (even if not collectively very *far*) to the right. The people who do attempt to decry this are often granted just a tidbit of “help, help, I’m being oppressed!” condescension and then it’s back to your regularly scheduled programming. This whole situation just seems like a more extreme example of that.
It seems that we all agree now that 1) JMT is wrong. 2) Mormon bloggers don’t need to blog about these issues on principle or as a precondition for
discussing their interpetation here or anywhere. That leaves Chinos last point about 3) the desirability for LDS bloggers to blog about these issues and/or engage in specific attacks against wignut conservatives. This is an interesting issue. I’m interested in thinking about the efficacy and ethics of such an approach. While I think it would be hard by any measure to think of the bloggernacle as complicit with conservative Mormonism, I do wonder about the ways that it can raise these issues more effectively. At least for me, being effective over the long term is more important than short term alienation for the sake of principle, prioritizing sincere committed dialogue.
All that said, I’m not sure that me blogging about this somehow crosses the magical moral line that Chino has drawn for what counts as standing up to consevstives. As someone who blogs about ancient Christianity, religious studies, and feminist/queer theory, I doubt my blogging indignation about these episodes has any effect whatsoever.
This conversation is pretty interesting – not.
It got sidetracked from the original issue. That is that Mormons are overwhelmingly right-wing and have a surprising number of extremist, angry nitwits amoung their ranks. Forcing “brother” Reid out of a nonpolitical fireside testimony is stupid, petty, ridiculous – but exactly what I expect from cultish fringe lunatics. I include my whole Mormon family in that broad brush.
Once upon a time the Mormons used to teach that one could be a member in good standing regardless political affiliation – and that all members deserve the respect and Christ-like love from every other member. I guess that’s no longer true. Of course, if it is true, then there are a lot of fucking hypocrites filling those pews – which also wouldn’t surprise me.
Yeah, let’s get back to this issue as evidence for the insidious evil that is Mormonism!
You won’t be getting any agreement out of me re 1) and 2), and I probably also disagree with your last bit re 3). If you suspect that your blogging indignation about these episodes has no effect whatsoever, I have to wonder: why continue?
If you’re truly interested in efficacy, you might want to ponder Medawar’s observation that:
And not because Sir Peter was right. Rather, the point is to understand Medawar’s POV as someone accustomed to having access to the data that an informed analysis requires.
It’s an almost universal bias wherever people are divided by class and information is hoarded.
Chino,
I’m sorry but I interpreted your letting go as a signal that you were out of arguments. I think I’ve shown you the willingness to engage in a real discussion, but often you’ve opted for passive agressive psychologizing and then randomly changing the subject. Just what exactly is your point of disagreement with me, and if you wouldn’t mind giving some, any, rationale, I’d appreciate it.
Let’s? Who’s “we” kemosabe?
As far as passive-aggressive games go, I suspect you’re on your own.
So, is that a ‘no’ on having any substantive point to make?
TT – My “letting go” was a polite move to set aside your 22 for the purposes of discussion.
To no avail, apparently.
You haven’t even begun to engage in discussion, other than to suggest that when/if the topic casts a dim light on Mormon behavior, your meager blogging skills are no remedy and no match for reality.
Ugh. I see. You still think I’ve contradicted myself at some point on the issue of whether or not I’m responsible to blog about bad things Mormons do simply because I am a Mormon blogger. Because of this grave sin on my part, you can’t seem to be anything but a jerk to me since I have already proven to be so illogical as to contradict myself. Let’s see if we can remedy this issue and then move on to the discussion, if you don’t mind.
Let’s recap: You say (9) I need to stand up and be counted.
I say (10) what do you want me to do exactly?
Chanson says that I need to spend and equal amount of time critizing “my people” before I can criticize JTM (11). You say I need to put everything on the line (12).
I say I will consider writing a post, but I don’t think I’m under any obligation to do so simply because I’m Mormon (16). (The discussion about why I need to post on my own blog before I am allowed to make a critical comment here continues with chanson).
You come back in and restate an earlier point that Mormons are obliged to condemn these things on their blogs (21). I sarcastically reply that by that logic you would need to be responsible for every negative thing done by No on 8 or ex-Mormons to prove that you are not all bad, which I say is “ridiculously obvious” that this not be the case (22). (Everyone but you seems to agree with this point after that) You then ask me to point out examples, blah, blah, blah. I state that this is not the point I am making, since I have argued that it is a silly burden to require that anyone belonging to a group need to be held accountable for everything anyone else in that group does.
From here you somehow imagine an inconsistency, when there never was one, and cease to engage with any substance. If you would like to get past this and discuss any of the substantive issues at stake, such as 1) whether this episode says something about “Mormonism” or “the majority of Mormons; 2) whether I or any other Mormon is required to blog about these issues; or 3) the issue that I would like to discuss more is how Mormons could better address radical conservatism within their ranks. While I suppose that on this last point asking a bunch of people who’ve opted to give up on that particular issue may yield some skewed responses, as someone who does actively care about these issues and deals with them on the ground as a participant in this community, I am definitely willing to listen to just about anyone at this point.
If you just want to think of cheap shots and change the subject, I’m as experienced as anyone in that department, but I’m bored with it. I’d rather discuss real issues than make up perceived offenses.
JMT (18),
Please excuse me but I seem to have missed your response earlier. I apologize for the oversight.
FWIW, I’m not that impressed by resumes for a variety of reasons, and an MA in the sociology of religion isn’t as great as you make it out to be, and really adds zero “legitimacy” to what you’ve said. Rather, I am interested in arguments. Let’s leave resumes out.
I appreciate the attempts to qualify your original claims, and I think that emphasizing that nuance is very helpful, but I’m afraid that your final claim that only a “very small minority” of Mormons aren’t racist and homophobic undoes any claims to nuance. Just because 2/3 of Mormons identify as republican doesn’t automatically make them all racist homophobes.
While your claim that many Mormons see the world in dualities, I’d question whether or not such a claim is exclusive to Mormons. I’d bet that one of the basic elements of any cohesive group identity is dualistic thinking between us and them, as exhibited by your own barely qualified depictions of “them” Mormons.
Whether or not JMT is right or wrong is an empirical question.
What she is describing is certainly reflecting my own concerns. I am afraid that the LDS Church is an extraordinarily authoritarian organization, especially, when you compare the Church to other organizations in the western world.
Mormon authoritarianism is an observable and measurable phenomenon. JMT has acknowledged that there is variance within the Mormon experience.
People who think that JMT is wrong can reasonably respond in two ways.
1. They can present evidence that JMT’s claims are false.
2. They can challenge JMT to present reasons and evidence in support of her claims.
I’m glad you agree, TT. Mormonism is a religion based on hypocrisy and lies and it’s not surprising that it’s adherents keep that tradition going strong.
And after all the back-and-forth, the fact remains that the U.S. Senate Majority Leader was prevented from delivering a private talk about his faith to fellow believers … by members of his own church.
Maybe fair-minded fellow Mormons might think that rates a mention. If not, nevermind. My bad. Nothing to see here. Move along. And stay tuned for the next installment from Dallin Oaks about how religious freedom is under threat in this country.
Helmutt,
I’m not sure that this is an empirical question, but rather an interpretive one. The question is not, as I understand it, whether or not Mormonism is “authoritarian” (that claim certainly fails here where the conservative members rose up against Stake leadership!), but what this episode signifies. Does this specific LDS backlash against Reid tell us something about “the majority of Mormons” feel, or about something deeper about “Mormonism,” as JTM suggested, or not?
I have offered two reasons why it does not, which I think are arguments against interpreting this episode as revealing something about Mormonism, which I don’t believe anyone has yet answered: 1) LDS leadership supported Reid, and it was a vocal subset of Mormons who behaved in this way, which is not indicative in any way of what official Mormonism (represented here by the Stake) or even close to how a “majority of Mormons” reacted.
2) This event is better understood in the context of the protests against, and in some cases minor violence against Democratic officials by the radical right. Had this event taken place 6 months ago (as it has, many times before in many stakes and wards), or 6 months from now when the Tea Party rage has died down a bit, Reid would not have received this reaction. That is, this episode tells us about the level of political discourse on the right (I’d be willing to bet that none of the events around the country such as breaking windows or spitting on politicians have been done by Mormons) which harbors a great deal of anger right now. This event doesn’t reveal anything about Mormonism as a whole or really even in signficant part, but rather about the political tactics of a very few right wing activists.
So Chino, again, I take that as “no,” you don’t have any substantive contribution?
Thanks for the response, TT. I agree with you that this event needs to be viewed in the context of the current political climate in the United States.
However, the right wing rhetoric prevails in Mormonism because it is millenialist and Manichean.
I know what you mean by “right now” but need to point out that the right wing has been this way for a long time. They were just as hysterical and paranoid about Bill Clinton, the ERA, the civil rights movement, John F. Kennedy, FDR, and the New Deal.
The reaction and the tactics of the right are really not that new. They are just another manifestation of American anti-intellectualism and the communal need to dominate minorities.
Those behaviors emerge and submerge regularly in the American experience. It is interesting that the LDS Church regularly sides with fear and traditionalism while other religions, such as the Quakers, for example, regularly side with hope and progress.
I do think that tells us something about the essence of the Mormon religion.
I am not particularly surprised that authoritarians rise against a leadership that seems to be “too open minded.” I am not sure if the aggressors were a minority or a majority. We only know that those who threatened violence against their co-religionists prevailed.
TT – I’m not sure we agree on the meaning of “substantive contribution” … you seem to equate the concept with bloviating at length about “context” … Rock on.
In any case, if I’m reading you right, you’re claiming that this episode reveals *nothing* about Mormonism.
Just out of curiosity, what does a revealing episode look like on your planet?
Chino,
I guess we’re done. While I’ve read your stuff for many years now, I still get disappointed when I see you melt.
Hellmut,
I appreciate you taking this issue up. You’re a great example of what this blog is when it is at its best.
I think that there are two issues that we are speaking about. 1) For what reason do many Mormons lean to the right? 2) Are there aspects of this episode that tell us something distinctive about Mormonism?
As for the first, I certainly agree that a majority of Mormons are right leaning. There may be elements of Mormon culture as it has developed in the past 50 years, especially in the context of the rise of Communism, which are reasons that Mormonism in part has identified with conservatives. As for to what degree millennialism and dualism contribute to this, no doubt they do. I am not sure that they do so uniquely, since in my experience many liberals (of which I am one) often paint the Other is similarly starkly reductionary terms, and even depicct the issues that they care about in apocalyptic terms.
That said, I think that your linking Mormonism in the broader context of the political right is exactly the point I want to make. To the extent that the right is activated, MOrmons who lean right are activated. That leads us to the second issue, whether there is anything uniquely indicative about Mormonism in this episode since these kinds of protests have been made by plenty of non-Mormons all over the country.
I do think that we learn something interesting here, which I’ve mentioned already, that is that conservative Mormons actually privilege their politics over their religion. By taking such explicit moves against the Stake, conservative Mormons show they’ll depart from the church when they see it conflict with their political ideology. Does this tell us something about “the essence of the Mormon religion”? I’m not so sure it tell us much more than about how some radical Mormons see the relationship between their religion and their politics, but hardly how official Mormonism or even a majority of Mormons behaves.
It seems that we all agree now that 1) JMT is wrong.
I don’t agree. If we look at JMT’s specific claims,
1) is obviously true in the sense that a large majority of US Mormons vote GOP, 2) is certainly at least somewhat characteristic of Mormon teaching and thinking, 3) is a hyperbolic expression of a view that can be held without any real social (much less religious) penalties in the church, 4) is characteristic of the kind of people who subscribe to views like 3), 5) is possibly an exaggeration in its use of the word “majority,” and while I wouldn’t say that “Mormonism is” any of the things in 6) except “millennialist” (that’s half the meaning of “latter-day,” after all), I would say that there are definitely strains of each of those characteristics in Mormonism (along with some countervailing strains as well). So no, we don’t “all agree that JMT is wrong.”
Kuri,
To say that JHM is wrong is to say that this episode tells us something about the majority of Mormons or Mormonism in general, not the veracity of any of the overly broad generalizations (which I also think are wrong in many cases, as do you). The question is not whether any of these thing may be said about some Mormons, and as you concede they certainly can’t be said in such absolutist terms as presented, but whether or not we should be “surprised” that Mormons reacted this way toward Reid. 1) While I’m not sure I’d agree with the loose definition of ‘bloc’ that you agree to here, this is certainly not evidence that Mormons are therefore likely to want to hit Harry Reid in the temple. 2) Sure, but it is characteristic of a lot of social groups. That is how group identity works, but to depict Mormonism or even a majority of Mormons as simply incapable of thinking or acting beyond these categories so that for them violence against Reid is a common, expected option, doesn’t follow. 3) Yes, it’s hyperbolic. The “they” there as I understand it is Mormons, not some Mormons, so it is doubly hyperbolic. Should the church intervene beyond its yearly statement of non-partisanship and recent LDS Newsroom posts calling for a more calm political tone? Maybe. Many liberal members are wary of this though, because it could cut against them too. If the church starts to regulate political though even more actively, it might not go so well so I for one am uncomfortably satisfied with the church not doing more, but I could be convinced otherwise. Again, the idea that many object to Reid’s politics in the church does not suggest that we shouldn’t be surprised by calls of violence. 4) Again, these statements are being made about Mormons in general, and making the claim that the violence threatened against Reid is a result of their Mormonism, not their conservative politics. I think that distinction is important. 5) I agree that Mormonism and even Mormon GOP affiliation doesn’t mean that they think like Beck. 6) I agree completely with you.
Should the church intervene beyond its yearly statement of non-partisanship and recent LDS Newsroom posts calling for a more calm political tone? Maybe. Many liberal members are wary of this though, because it could cut against them too. If the church starts to regulate political though even more actively, it might not go so well so I for one am uncomfortably satisfied with the church not doing more, but I could be convinced otherwise.
I don’t think the church should “regulate political thought” in any general sense. I think it comes too close to that already. There are plenty of other things it could do, though. It could, for example, reiterate its opposition to violent rhetoric. It could make it clear that threats of violence are “sins” as well as (sometimes) crimes. It could state that people who publicly question another’s “worthiness” because of political differences are placing their own “worthiness” in serious jeopardy.
…these statements are being made about Mormons in general, and making the claim that the violence threatened against Reid is a result of their Mormonism, not their conservative politics. I think that distinction is important.
I’m not sure politics and religion can be so clearly separated. Many (American) Mormons are conservative because they are Mormon, and/or Mormon because they are conservative. And the threats and rhetoric were directed in this case at Reid’s “worthiness” to participate in a church function because of his politics. There’s a great deal of religious/political intertwining there.
Kuri,
I think you’re right that these things could be said again, though they are already part of official LDS statements. As for any specific disciplinary actions in this case, it may be that they are already underway. Who knows, but given that the Stake supported Reid I doubt they’ve taken kindly to this intimidation.
I agree with you about the interrelation between politics and religion, but I’m
not sure about the causality you give it. You say that Mormons are conservative because they are Mormon, and that’s exactly te point I’m trying to press. When I say we should distinguish Mormonism and consevstive politics that is not to say that they are not related, but that we should pay attention to the particular ways in which they are related. Mormonism is not reducible to conservatism and deserves to be analyzed more closely than a simplistic assessment such as this. I think it is significant for instance that a traditional Mormon value of respect for churh leaders was abandoned here in favor of poltical judgments. It is not that those judgments don’t have a religious character, but they cannot be explained by simply appealing to that religious character. Something else i suggest is at work here, something outside of Mormonism, namely the broader political climate on the right which is not distinctly Mormon at all.
Please don’t talk to me about disappointment. Everyone in your class got a gold star except me. And you wonder why I’m a puddle, TT.
I think it is significant for instance that a traditional Mormon value of respect for churh leaders was abandoned here in favor of poltical judgments.
I think so too. I even blogged about something like that a few months ago. That’s probably the most interesting point to me (and the one that reflects most poorly on the church imo): why can’t Mormonism “insulate” its members from that kind of behavior (assuming from past statements that that’s indeed a goal of the church)?
It is not that those judgments dont have a religious character, but they cannot be explained by simply appealing to that religious character. Something else i suggest is at work here, something outside of Mormonism, namely the broader political climate on the right which is not distinctly Mormon at all.
Obviously, those Mormons are reflecting current manifestations of a long tradition of American right-wing “eliminationist” rhetoric. That’s a given. But that leaves the question unanswered: why Mormons? What is it about Mormons that makes so many of them buy into that kind of rhetoric and think that their religion supports them in it? I think that’s what JMT was getting at, and what you seem to be trying to evade.
Why Mormons?
A. Because Mormons are terrible, stupid people, who hate all that is good in the world. (JMT)
B. Because Mormons are just like everyone else. (me)
Had protests against democats in Congress been confined to Mormons, perhaps A would explain it, but they aren’t, so I don’t see Mormonism as a suficient explanation for this kind of reaction.
Why can’t the church reign it in?
A. Because Mormonism itself is to blame (JMT)
B. Because (A) is incoherent, there must be forces stronger than Mormonism as a belief/community alone to account for this break of the taboo on going against authority. (me)
I think what I’m trying to do is resist what I see as a simplistic assessment of what I see as a rather complicated situation. Personally, I’ve never heard anyone say they’d hit another person in the temple, and unlike JMT I am surprised by that. I also happen to think that this degree of anger, assuming it reflects a real plan of action made by a single person, constitutes an exceptional statement by a Mormon rather than an exemplary one. Can such a state of affairs be explained with recourse to some self-contained formulation of something called ‘Mormonism’? Or do such episodes need to be understood within the broader context of American politics? If this episode doenst fully make sense as a dsipute internal to Mormonism, I’m not seeing how Mormonism is either a sufficient or even a necessary cause for this type of reaction at all.
Let me just make one more quick statement before I sign off this thread:
why are we looking to see Mormonism as the root cause for this lone persons statment about wanting to hit Reid (distinguishing it from the other kinds of protests like signs and heckles), but not see Mormonism as the root cause of Reid’s actions in getting health care passes? Although Reid has repeatedly said that his religion does influence his political values, why are we suggesting that somehow the conservative ugliness reveals something about Mormonism’s essence and not Reid. It seems that we are using two different theories of the relationship between poltics and religion here, one that says that Mormonism is reducible to and a necessary and sufficient explanation for radical conservatism, and another which says that is irrelevant to liberalism. As kuri and I have both said, the relationship between politics and religion is more complicated than either explanation allows, an I think we owe it to ourselves to bring that level of analysis to bear on uncovering in what ways politics and religion intersect rather than seeing one as reducible to the other.
Anyway, I really need to get back to work tomorrow so I probably won’t be able to keep up on this thread. I hope I’ve been clear enough by now on what I’m trying to say. Thanks all for the discussion, especially those who live up to the ideals of what a good discussion can be. I appreciate it and hope to have many more with you all. It’s been a pleasure for the most part.
As far as I’m concerned, this response from John Fowles ought to be posted at the LDS Newsroom and in every ward bulletin and on every member’s Facebook page and blog.
Chino,
on that we agree completely. :). Thanks for pointing me to it. It was said by a conservative on a conservative LDS blog and hit the mark entirely. I guess Mormon bloggers aren’t as bad as you thought!
Good night all.
TT,
You’ve got me confused with someone else. I like plenty of Mormon bloggers. I’ve even been known to help post their stuff from time to time. My complaint has always been that they’re nowhere near bad enough. 😉 And their complaint is usually that I’m nowhere near polite enough. And they’re usually right about that.
Why Mormons?
B. Because Mormons are just like everyone else. (me)
Doesn’t work. Not unless every group has as high a percentage of right-wingers and fringe right-wingers as Mormons do.
Had protests against democats in Congress been confined to Mormons, perhaps A would explain it, but they arent, so I dont see Mormonism as a suficient explanation for this kind of reaction.
I agree that it’s not a sufficient explanation. I think what we disagree on is whether it’s a necessary explanation in the case of Mormons. You’ve apparently concluded it isn’t; I think it probably is.
Anyway, thanks for the interesting discussion. I know it’s not always easy being the one person arguing against several others (I’ve definitely been there), and I appreciate the way you’ve kept it civil and made your points.
kuri@55:
So, Mormons are millenialist because they they believe we’re in the last days (and the world is turning to crap)…and the other half is what? Postmillenial, that it’s their job to usher in an era for Christ, to turn the world into not-crap?
My understanding is that “latter-day” means both “the end times before the Millennium” and “the current era” (i.e., contrasting the saints of “these latter days” with the saints of the “former days” of the Bible). So the “end times” part is the half that carries a “millennialist meaning. The “era” part basically just means “now” or “not olden times.”
The term “latter-day,” BTW, presents a translation problem in languages like Japanese, where there is no word that carries both nuances. The church in Japan uses a word that means “last days,” i.e., “end times.”
“Latter Days” used to specifically refer to the times immediately before Christ’s Second Coming.
If the meaning of “current era” has been added, I don’t believe it’s anything like the official mormon definition. Any talk from a GA or quote from a lesson manual pretty much refers to Christ’s coming.
I am not homophobic. I am not afraid of myself nor am I afraid of homosexuals. I do not know of a single organization that is not filled with homosexuals that approves of homosexuals. This does not make them homophobes.
I readily admit that I am homonauseaic. That means homosexuals make me sick. From what I understand this a genetic problem which means there is really nothing I can do about it. I have no choice. When I get near them or see them on TV I get sick to my stomach.
I hope that homosexuals will be tolerant of my genetic difficulties concerning their genetic difficulties. Perhaps some day science can develop a cure. Naturally if they cure the genetic difficulties of homosexuality then there will be no need for a cure of homonausea.
Goldarn,
The term has carried those two nuances from the beginning. Emphasis shifts over time — I think the emphasis on millennialism has actually diminished significantly since I joined the church in 1982 — but the dual meaning has always been there.
Christopher, your comments are homophobic. And no, ignorance and hate are not genetic conditions.
Although, on second thought, I am not sure if Christopher is trying to be a caricature of a homophobe.
Christopher, thanks for dropping by and representing for the crew that got Harry Reid’s fireside canceled. Just in case our readers are confused by your comment, I’m noting that you’re here because I linked to your post over at Independent American News titled “Our Victory Over Harry Reid Confirmed!”
Some victory. And that comment of yours is something, too.
TT,
Of course, Mormons are just like everybody else. But as Hannah Arendt pointed out, some people who are like everybody else, are capable of the unspeakable.
(Let me be clear, these events are not anywhere in the same league like Auschwitz, just so that there is no misunderstanding.)
The question is rather if there is anything in Mormonism that loads the dice of human nature.
It seems to me that there is a reason why Quakers are reliably on the side of liberty, inclusion, and progress while Mormons are less concerned about the rights of people other than their own.
There is a reason that Utah vies with Oklahoma to be the most Republican state in the union. There is a reason why Mormons are concerned about other people’s sexuality. There is a reason why Mormons have many children.
There is a reason why Mormons are a peculiar people. That does not make us any less human than others. Neither does it mean that there are a lot of gentiles who behave just like us. Nor does it mean that there are many Mormons who behave differently.
Many Mormon behaviors cluster with substantial variation from other American subgroups. That is because Mormons view the world in a specific way.
Christopher, your comments are homophobic. And no, ignorance and hate are not genetic conditions.
In a roundabout way, I think Christopher’s actually are. His “nausea” is caused by his inability to deal with his own homosexual desires. And those desires, if not genetic, are certainly innate. But he does have a choice. He can stop fighting his real feelings and admit to himself what he really is: a self-hating gay man. That would be a first step towards inner peace.
Glad you liked it. Harry is a Marxist. I have watched Marxist Mormon Stake Presidents support him for years in Vegas. I was thrilled to show my absolute disgust for that war criminal constitution violating thief. If people got angry about what I did that makes it all the better.
And I am not afraid of homosexuals.
A phobia is an intense, unrealistic fear, which can interfere with the ability to socialize, work, or go about everyday life, that is brought on by an object, event or situation.
Homosexuals do none of those things for me. I do not fear them at all and have no fears about them breaking into my home at dinner and ruining another American family. In fact we had a “couple” over for a party for my daughter’s birthday last week. If ever there was two guys that had homosexual tendencies it was those two. But they still had a choice.
I honestly have no more interest in gays than in adulterers or Republicans using GOP funds to attend faux lesbian clubs or unwed mothers. If people choose to be immoral then that is their choice. We all pay for our poor choices. To claim it is not a choice is to say I don’t have a choice in refusing to cheat on my wife. I do have a choice. I choose not to be immoral.
They do make me sick to my stomach. So do child molesters, murderers, thieves, Republicans (especially Orrin Hatch) and Obama. My father and mother had the same problem with such people. So did my grandfathers on both sides. It must be genetic. Right? The way I figure it if gays believe they do not have a choice then it must be an illness to be gay. If it is an illness then it needs to have a cure. After all I have been a heterosexual for as long as I can remember and I have never cheated on my wife even though as a man I certainly have that natural tendency.
Now if it is a choice then it is not an illness. It may be a bit odd or different but not an illness. So do gays have a choice to have sexual relationships with people of the same sex or not?
How about polygamy? Is that genetic and they really have no choice? Three ways? Group sex? Pedophilia? Choice or not?
The day before we got the church drop their unlawful support of Harry Reid I attended the Tea Party in Searchlight, Harry’s home town. You may enjoy my wife’s article called Sarah Does Searchlight where she compares Sarah Palin’s appearance to Debbie Does Dallas. It should be posted on Independent American News tomorrow. She is just finishing it up.
Amazing that so many Republican men would vote for her because she is “So Hot and I want to do her.” Yes we heard that more than once. I am so glad I did not go to see Princess Sarah.
Now I have to go and make a choice to have sex or not tonight. You see I have a choice concerning who I have sex with. I don’t have an illness that needs to have a cure. So I ask again. Is it a tendency with a choice to be gay or is it an illness that removes choice and needs a cure?
I thought once I may be gay but I realized it was just the acid. LSD! LDS! My dyslexia has always created problems for me.
I actually realized I was not gay when I learned to read and there was an odd birthmark on my backside. It says, “Exit only.”
So sorry to disappoint you. I know you homos want me but I was gifted with the genetic natural tendency to love faces that don’t need to be shaved and with the opposite sex so she could that can have our children.
But you bosy and girls that find attraction with your own sex certainly have the right to make your own choices. As long as it is a choice and not something that you cannot keep from doing. Then it would be a mental illness and need a cure.
Gay does not need to be cured does it?
So please remember to make your own choices and allow people like me to be tolerated by those that do not approve of my choices. If you want to be tolerated you has best grant it to others or you become hypocrites.
Or are you hypocrites? You appear to be. But then maybe it is genetic and you have no choice?
Christopher,
It must be painful to so deeply hate what you are. You have my sympathy.
Mormons are mostly Republicans because they are taught to be slaves and the Republican Party fully supports slavery and Fascism so most Mormons fit right in and feel comfortable.
Democrats offer Marxism so many Mormons are also Democrats because those Mormons also support slavery. A few Mormons, like the general population can actually think for themselves. They are rare.
Now on the other hand all Latter-day Saints that are true to their faith reject Fascism and Communism. But then Mormons are not Latter-day Saints because they are too stupid to read the Book of Mormon and learn that they are not to call themselves after a man like Mormon and not after Christ.
If Down’s Syndrome is genetic why isn’t ignorance? It seems to be very prevalent among the gay population. Perhaps the two are tied together? Have their been any scientific studies that any of you are aware of on this? Or do you just go on faith?
And as far as hatred goes I save most of mine for Cops.
Well, I guess we allow anyone to comment here. So, Christopher gets to comment. But, IMO, Christopher, you’re an ass.
And, you’re the type of ass who is pointless to debate as your hatred is so deep-seated that nothing we say can or will change your views. You’re the type of person that, when I think about it, makes me sad to be human. 🙁
Yeah, it’s hard to know what would be an appropriate policy for commenters like Christopher. The usual rule-of-thumb has been to ask everyone to make a good-faith effort to keep their comments (and criticism) constructive so that we can have a fruitful exchange of ideas.
In this case, I don’t see how we could expect to have any kind of exchange of ideas with someone who has so totally bought into reciting the hateful talking points (down to repeating these same tired “jokes” like the “exit only” thing). At best — as Chino suggests — this exchange serves as a bit of an “Exhibit A” for our earlier discussion…
At this point, I’d vote in favor of leaving any further comments from Christopher in moderation.
That seems reasonable. His POV has been duly noted and blogged…
Hellmut 75,
“Many Mormon behaviors cluster with substantial variation from other American subgroups. That is because Mormons view the world in a specific way.”
This very well may be true, and I have no reason to doubt it. Perhaps I should have been more clear when I said that Mormons were just like everyone else, which I see as a better explanation for this behavior than Mormonism per se. I should have said that conservative Mormons are just like other conservatives. The behavior exhibited here is not in variation at all with what other conservative subgroups are doing, and this particular conservative subgroup of Mormonism is best explained as having something in common with other conservative subgroups than having something as vague as the “essence of Mormonism” as the core explanation.
At the same time, I’ve tried to make the case that this sort of reductionary thinking that sees religion as a priori to political actions, and political actions as reducible to religion is a pretty weak methodological assumption about either human religious or political behavior, not least because it fails to account for someone like Reid.
TT — Just because religion doesn’t always (or necessarily usually) affect people’s politics, that doesn’t mean it’s a priori “reductionist” to point to a specific example where a religious organization may be influencing its members’ politics. Maybe it’s not the “essence of Mormonism”, but are you claiming that Mormon connection with the far right is some sort of random coincidence?
Ultimately, in this case, it’s the Mormons’ own behavior that is reflecting badly on Mormonism — and not just a tiny handful of flukes — and not lies invented by “antis”. If you try to make it some sort of taboo to ask the question “Is there a connection with Mormonism? If so, what?” — you merely make it more difficult to address problems within the LDS community.
A safe bet?
And Freedom of Speech is sent to the dust bin. How expected by those that support immoral behavior.
The promotion of Reid by Area Seventy Gibson, a long time Reid supporter, was the main reason I got involved in the first place. He and Stake President Tate (also a Democrat) used Ward lists to promote a Harry Reid meet and greet 12 years ago that I picketed. Stake Presidents are not allowed to use Ward Lists for politics.
President Tate denied me a Temple Recommend because I did not and do not file Income Tax returns. 32 years now. I was denied one even though I have signed letters from the IRS that I am not required to file a return. I simply moved to another Stake and had no more problems with temple recommends.
President Tate also supported brand new convert Dario Herrera for office. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dario_Herrera
He was committing adultery and was also taking bribes from a Strip Club owner and was nailed by the FBI in G-Sting. He joined the Church at the request of Harry Reid.
I do not support the use of church buildings for political candidates to campaign. This fireside was nothing more than a political meet and greet and I would have protested it no matter the candidate or the party.
And if you don’t want all the old tired Gay jokes then don’t use the old tired jokes about me being a closet homo or a self hating fag. Eye for an eye works fine for me.
Show respect for my sexual preference and I will show you the same respect.
No one has told me if it is a choice or not to have homosexual relations yet? Why?
Speaking of political Religions like Mormonism here is one Harry fully supports:
World renowned economist John Maynard Keynes in his 1925 A Short View of Russia as edited down for ESSAYS IN PERSUASION (Harcourt Brace, 1932), clearly defines why Communism (Leninism) is, without question, not only a religion but an alternative to Christian capitalism. (Bold emphasis added, italic emphasis in the original.)
Chapter IV, Page 297
I. A Short View of Russia
(i) What is the Communist Faith
Leninism is a combination of two things which Europeans have kept for some centuries in different compartment of the soulreligion and business. We are shocked because the religion is new, and contemptuous because the business. We are shocked because the religion is new, and contemptuous because the business, being subordinated to the religion instead of the other way around, is highly inefficient.
Like other new religions, Leninism derives its power not from the multitude but from a small minority of enthusiastic converts, whose zeal and intolerance make each one the equal in strength of a hundred indifferentists. Like other new religions, it is led by those who can combine the new spirit, perhaps sincerely, with seeing a good deal more than their followers, (p. 298) politicians with at least an average dose of political cynicism, who can smile as well as frown, volatile experimentalists, released by religion from truth and mercy but not blinded to facts and expediency, and open therefore to the charge (superficial and useless though it is where politicians, lay or ecclesiastical, are concerned) of hypocrisy. Like other new religions, it seems to take the colour and gaiety and freedom out of everyday life and to offer a drab substitute on the square wooden faces of its devotees. Like other new religions, it persecutes without justice or pity those that actively resist it. Like other new religions, it is unscrupulous. Like other new religions, it is filled with missionary ardour and oecumenical ambitions. But to say that Leninism is the faith of a persecuting and propagating minority of fanatics led by hypocrites is, after all, to say no more nor less than that it is a religion and not merely a party, and Lenin a Mahomet, not a Bismark. If we want to frighten ourselves in our capitalist easy-chairs, we can picture the Communists of Russia as though the early Christians led by Attila were using the equipment of the Holy Inquisition and the Jesuit missions to enforce the literal economics of the New Testament; but when we want to comfort ourselves in the same chairs, can we hopefully repeat that these economics are fortunately so contrary to human nature that they cannot finance either missionaries or armies and will surely end in defeat?
I’m gonna copy-and-paste the reply I left over at the Trib:
It’s interesting to hear this local POV on the nature of Reid’s fireside, but it strikes me as little more than a plausible-sounding negative characterization of an event that could more simply be described as an opportunity to hear a prominent LDS member in good standing speak to fellow Mormons about his faith. If we accept the premise of ElForesto’s characterization, wouldn’t that lead to banning all Mormon politicians from ever speaking in their churches? Would the local candidate running for school board also need to keep quiet rather than stand and bear testimony in F&T meeting? In other words, my sense is that this is still all about members who disagree with Reid’s politics looking for any justification to cast Harry as something other than a full-fledged Mormon who has as much right to act like a Mormon as any other LDS member. What’s next? Characterizing Osmond firesides as ploys to prop up record sales? C’mon. Bearing testimony is not a “partisan activity.” Members of the Mormon church are surely grown-up enough that they can handle hearing a testimony from a fellow believer without feeling the need to align their tastes in music or politics with whoever happens to be speaking.
The plot thickens!
Chino — I agree that this is interesting and relevant information, and I also agree with your take on it @91.
Also, regarding the earlier discussion with TT: Check out this great post at Mormon Matters. It discusses the actual stats on LDS political demographics, and then offers ideas on why it’s a problem and what to do about it. This is the sort of thing I was talking about earlier, so TT you’re off the hook since MM is on the job. 😉
Also, I know we agreed to send Christopher’s comments to the spam filter, but @89 actually contains new, relevant information which shouldn’t be suppressed.
That said, I have three things to say to Christopher:
1. If @88 is a reference to the discussion of whether your comments should be moderated or deleted: Free speech does not require any private individuals to publish your words and give you a platform. If I were to try to shut down your blog or prevent other blogs from publishing you, then you could legitimately say that that would be an attack on your free speech. If we say “here on our blog we have guidelines for the comments that we allow to be posted” — that has nothing whatsoever to do with the right of free speech.
The stupid meme that “criticism = attack on free speech” is one of my biggest pet peeves.
I would hope I wouldn’t have to explain this to a guy who picketed to (successfully) keep someone else from giving a public address.
On the other hand, if your comment @88 was a reference to your own actions towards Reid’s free speech, you might be able to make a legitimate case.
2. I really don’t think there’s anything to be gained by attempting to discuss the question “Is homosexuality a choice?” with you.
3. It’s true that some of the Communist regimes of the early 20th century exploited religious-type fervor to the point of essentially acting as alternate religions. Your attempt to equate Reid and Obama with Lenin is where your reasoning takes a short trip through some alternate reality. I realize all of the chain emails in the far-right feedback loop are saying “Obama’s a socialist!” but in reality universe he’s not.
And if you dont want all the old tired Gay jokes then dont use the old tired jokes about me being a closet homo or a self hating fag.
I wasn’t joking. I really do think you’re gay.
Several candidates for the Independent American Party including myself were not allowed to bear our testimonies in F and T meeting while we were running for office. One candidate was even removed for a teaching position while running for office.
But even that is not the same as have a “Fireside” while a person is running for office. Having a Fireside is a direct promoting of that individual.
No candidate for public office, especially during an election year, should be the keynote speaker at a Fireside UNLESS every candidate for the same office is given an equal opportunity to be the keynote speaker at a Stake promoted Fireside.
In that case I would call it nothing more than a community service. But that is not what was going to happen in this case.
What happened in this case is that an Area Seventy that has long supported Harry Reid pressured Stake Presidents (not just one) to hold Firesides where Harry Reid could speak. That is not equal treatment of candidates and is a blatant attempt to promote Gibson’s good friend that is in serious threat of being removed from office.
I for one would much rather see Harry Reid re-eleted than have a Republican elected. I simply do not support Republican Fascism/Corporatism and find Harry’s support of Marxism far less destructive of liberty although still totally evil.
And I was not joking when I said homosexuals make me sick to my stomach and that I do not fear them at all. A little Pepto and I can handle the sick stomach, I get around queers, just fine.
I did not picket successfully to stop a “public” address. I never picketed to stop any public address. I have no idea where you got such information. The Stake Leadership declined to have a Fireside. No pickets were ever used. And a Church Fireside is no more public than this forum. And you do indeed have the right to silence me here but if you do you have STILL limited free speech.
I am not opposed to Harry speaking at a Mormon Church if all other candidates for that office are also allowed to speak at the same or a similar Church sponsored forum. I would not even oppose him speaking in an non-election year. I oppose such obvious Church censorship of opposing views and so I did what I could to stop such censorship of the other candidates none of which I have endorsed. I was successful in stopping that obvious censorship without picketing.
No one ever wants to discuss the “Homosexual acts are a choice” because they are either a choice or an illness and the Gay agenda will not confront that issue. I never expected anyone to discuss it. Silence is ALWAYS the response as are the blatant attacks upon my sexual choices. I have been in politics for 45 years. I have seen it all.
I have also changed my position of homosexuals over the years. One change I had was that I now fully support the licensing of gay marriages while at the same time I totally oppose all marriage licenses for anyone. But if there are marriage license then let the government enslaves the Gay community in the same manner they do the heterosexual community. Equal treatment for all. I do not care what you folks do in your homes and believe that the government should get out of the marriage business all together. Marriage is a religious act and I support the separation of the State from Religion. The government can break into my home and destroy my liberty. I have no concerns that Gay will do so. The government is far more dangerous than the Gay community and I want them to have far less power.
I also oppose all forms of Socialism and Fascism. If you keep you hands off my wallet I will keep my hands of your sexual choices done in the privacy of your homes.
In the reality universe when the government takes from me to give it to others it is Socialism or Fascism. I really am not very affected directly by such government theft since I do not have a Socialist Security number and do not pay income taxes nor file their voluntary forms and returns and have not done so for 32 years. You see I have the right to practice my religion and that includes the right to eschew Socialism and all false and Satanic isms.
Message from the First Presidency: Latter-day Saints cannot be true to their faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to false ideologies such as socialism and communism. The official Church position on communism remains unchanged since it was first promulgated in 1936: “We call upon all Church members completely to eschew Communism. The safety of our divinely inspired Constitutional government and the welfare of our Church imperatively demand that Communism shall have no place in America.”
The voices I hear are persuasive, seductive, fascinating, and confusing. Speaking across the earth, they are part of a mighty battle that is being waged for the minds of men. They are aimed at persuasion in political philosophy. There are voices of democracy competing with voices of communism, and each is winning converts according to the discernment and the judgment of listeners. The stakes are high, the weapons are sophisticated, the methods are clever. President Gordon B. Hinckley, Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, p. 407
The reality is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that Socialism, Fascism and Communism are Satan’s counterfeit religions and a threat of all liberty.
President Marion G. Romney, in the First Presidency Message in the September 1979 Ensign, wrote: Communism is Satans counterfeit for the gospel plan, and it is an avowed enemy of the God of the land. Communism is the greatest anti-Christ power in the world today and therefore the greatest menace not only to our peace but to our preservation as a free people. By the extent to which we tolerate it, accommodate ourselves to it, permit ourselves to be encircled by its tentacles and drawn to it, to that extent we forfeit the protection of the God of this land (p. 5).
I have the right to practice my faith without government interference.
No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between Church and State. Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164, 25 L.Ed. 244. Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing Tp. 330 U.S. 1, *15-16, 67 S.Ct. 504,**511 – 512 (U.S. 1947)
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act gives me even more protections from the Federal Government when it attempts to impose its established civic religion of Marxism with Socialist Security, Income taxes and things like Obamacare. I simply use every legal protection afforded to me to keep my property from the government.
I misread your comment — I thought you said something about picketing.
My point is that — coming from a guy who successfully intimidated an organization into rescinding an invitation to speak — it’s pretty rich that you’d claim it’s an attack on your free speech if some individuals debate whether your comments fit the guidelines of this blog.
When using the term “free speech,” the connotation is the right to free speech as guaranteed by the Constitution. If you think that the principle of free speech somehow requires MSP to host your comments on our server — then, sorry, no — you don’t have an effin clue what “free speech” is.
Also wrong. It is neither a choice nor an illness, it is a harmless natural variation.
Are you living off the land, not dependent in any way on human society for your survival?
And I was not joking when I said homosexuals make me sick to my stomach and that I do not fear them at all. A little Pepto and I can handle the sick stomach, I get around queers, just fine.
Oh, I believe you. That’s one of the reasons I think you’re gay. Straight guys just don’t care that much.
1. Hey guys,
there’s a new book out from an anthropologist who worked at the Mormon Church headquarters.
It’s really amazing stuff, with some wild revelations and surprising stories.
It can be found here:
https://www.createspace.com/3440531
Or on Amazon here:
http://www.amazon.com/Book-Mammon-About-Corporation-Mormons/dp/1451553706/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270314312&sr=8-2
The “gay agenda” has been underpinned by choice since the beginning, the choice to be with whomever you want to be with. So, in that sense I agree with you that all sexual acts are choices. But you don’t seem to realize that whenever conservative Christianity talks about sexuality as a “choice,” it’s always in the context that people are free to at any moment (that is, must immediately) choose to adhere to a particular sexual identity (heterosexuality). This is not how desire manifests itself across the human species. This is why the “gay agenda” leans toward innateness in many cases.
Mormons frame it as an illness AND a choice. Perhaps you should think about the contradictoriness of that. For many decades now, homosexuality has been considered a normal variation of human sexuality. This is because people figured out that contradictory notions have be held to support the notion that it’s not a normal variation.
This thread looks like a transcript of an old Jerry Springer show. Christopher is a spoof, nest-ce pas?
Hmm, we just had April Fool’s Day, didn’t we…?
Yet, I think he’s a real person and he’s serious. Just click on his name and go see his blog.
macpotter — Looks interesting, but I don’t think it’s relevant to this thread.
Please email me so we can discuss putting up a post about the book: chanson dot exmormon at gmail dot com.
The relevant thread is probably this one: http://bycommonconsent.com/2010/04/02/correlation-an-uncorrelated-history-part-9-history-done-backwards/
Daymon’s rant alone is worth the price of admission.
I am not a Mormon.
I have never been to a Mormon Church nor have I ever seen one. I can’t even find a Mormon Church listed in the phone book.
If I am Gay then it is obviously a choice since I have chosen not to have sex with men and have been happily married to the same woman for 32 years.
Free speech is just that. It is not controlled. It does not imply a right unless a person says it is a right. I have no right to free speech on your site but if you do not allow it then you have restricted free speech (actually freedom of the press).
I believe that gay tendencies are indeed genetic. I believe the the decision to act upon those tendencies is a choice. If it is not a choice then that person is mentally ill.
You may not be a Mormon, Christopher, but you do appear to be a pathological liar. Otherwise, how to explain your previous comment?
If I am Gay then it is obviously a choice since I have chosen not to have sex with men and have been happily married to the same woman for 32 years.
Even assuming that is true (which I don’t, actually), repressing your true nature is not a conscious choice.
3 Ne. 27: 8 And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses name then it be Moses church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel.
I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am a Christian and a Latter-day Saint.
There is no Mormon Church and never has been. And members that call themselves Mormons are not following the words of Christ recorded in the Book Mormon.
And since Brigham Young said that the natural man is an enemy to God and I completely agree with that statement, repressing my true nature is what it takes to be a civilized and moral human being and not a licentious dog.
The natural man would crap in own water supply. The natural man would not love his neighbor but would kill his neighbor if his neighbor got in his way. The natural man is a thief and lair and a pervert. The natural man covets. The natural man does not worship God and obey His laws. The natural man has no joy but only happiness and pleasure at best.
Josh. 24: 15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
Naturally you have the right to worship or not to worship whatever you choose. ANd naturally there are costs for all choices.
I know, I know, I should not be encouraging this (since it has obviously passed the point of no return), but (out of curiosity) do you live “the principle”?
The Church is okay with the word “Mormons” and the word “Mormonism” when speaking of the cultural whole. It prefers “Latter-day Saint,” but Mormon is acceptable. You’re right that it doesn’t like the phrase “Mormon Church” and prefers “the Church.” But the point is, reporters that report on religion need a way of differentiating between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other churches. Not everyone is a Latter-day Saint, in case you haven’t noticed.
I’m beginning to think that this whole “natural man” argument is all that underpins arguments today’s against homosexuality. Is it not true that “natural man” reproduces? Does that mean that we should not reproduce?
arguments todays = today’s arguments
…repressing my true nature is what it takes to be a civilized and moral human being and not a licentious dog.
I guess I can take that as an admission of your homosexuality, you poor repressed fellow. But the odd thing is, I express my true nature every day, yet I am a civilized and moral human being. Go figure.
The natural man would crap in own water supply. The natural man would not love his neighbor but would kill his neighbor if his neighbor got in his way. The natural man is a thief and lair and a pervert. The natural man covets. The natural man does not worship God and obey His laws. The natural man has no joy but only happiness and pleasure at best.
Nonsense. Your “natural man” is a religious fantasy. In reality, the natural man — human beings as they have actually evolved and actually live in actual societies — has a strong dislike of feces. The natural man generally obeys the rules of his society. The natural man usually worships some sort of god, which he may or may not believe to be a lawgiver. The natural man has as much joy as anyone else. It is the unnatural man who behaves otherwise.
I never said homosexuality was going to condemn anyone. I certainly do not know. Ben Franklin was a serial adulterer and was exalted for doing other things of great worth. I believe adultery is FAR more of a sin and damaging to liberty than homosexual fornication. Yet monogamy is certainly not the “natural” genetic tendency in most men.
You folks want to label me and did so quickly but the facts are that I an not what most seem to believe. I have worked actively with the ACLU on many issues. My wife’s good friend is an openly gay man and activist. I certainly do not interfere with that friendship. We had three gay men to Thanksgiving dinner. One is a security guard that keeps my wife safe while she walks in the park every day. I trust him to keep her safe. A homophobe would not trust him.
I am currently suing the Cops and have fought for civil rights with a passion for well over a decade. My family taught me to be a racist growing up but I saw that such things were wrong. My son is getting married and his wonderful wife to be is Asian, Black and American Indian. My mother would not even watch a TV show with Blacks in it.
All people have difficult hills and mountains to climb in this life and I certainly do not know why God gives us the trials but this life is for each of us to grow. I believe we are becoming what we are. And after all, there is no such thing, currently, as eternal marriage for homosexual couples. You face those risks just as certainly as I face risks fighting the IRS and State governments.
If the government was not so involved in our daily lives then the homosexual community would not have needed to fight for their fair share of government benefits and socialism and almost no one would have fought back against your activities.
I do not approve of what I have seen of homosexual lifestyles and feel as though many and even most are very hurtful to those involved. But then so are many marriages. I do not believe in marriage licenses or Socialism or Driver’s licenses or gun licenses and I do not participate in Socialism. I fight against injustice but also understand that the majority has the right to establish laws that will help to secure their safety and happiness. It is an eternal struggle. Minority against majority. Jefferson was keenly aware of it.
You all have the right to fight for your rights as you feel will best secure your safety and happiness. I have the right to oppose or support your efforts as I see fit just as I do with the ACLU.
And I disagree with your claims about the natural man. The natural man is tamed by society and nurture over nature. If a child is not taught language at an early age they will never be able to communicate as we do. Nurture overcomes nature in many ways.
Society puts a wild dog into a cage. It does the same to wild men. A dog knows that if he is hurt that he should not do the things that caused the hurt. That does not mean that the dog is any less a dog. Men obeying the law is no different. They subject themselves to good or evil because if they do not they are at least made uncomfortable. Many homosexuals would rather be homosexuals openly than to conform to society. Society in general has become more and more sexually immoral by previous standards. Historically that will harm the civilization to the point it is destroyed.
I see that destruction coming and it has far more to do with the immorality of heterosexuals and socialism than homosexuals. Heterosexuals are the ones that have supported and allowed for their own slavery to occur by and through socialism.
As a nation we ignored the warning signals which preceded the great depression; we were also unready to face the onrushing realities of Fascism and Communismwhereas today many are blind to the dangers of self-oppression, the chains we put on ourselves, which is the real tyranny of our time. Neal A. Maxwell, 1972
On Mormonism and Mormon Church. Long before the Church started pushing away for the word Mormon I knew that I was not a Mormon. My brother and I got in a fist fight over it because I refused to be a Mormon. He attacked me. VEry Christian of him.
I refused to sing at my Grandfather’s funeral because they sang: I am a Mormon Boy. I am not and refused to sing that song. Once again I was treated as an outcast, something I learned to live with in my family and my church.
The Prophet Samuel called Saul to be king of Israel because the people wanted what God did not. Knowing what I know today I would not have bowed to Saul. I would have left like many Israelites did. I am not a Mormon no matter what is “allowed” by the Church.
For anyone that is a practicing homosexual to question my acts concerning Mormonism is laughable since if you are a practicing homosexual and still a member of The Church you are a 100% hypocrite. I know of no scripture of statement of the prophets that condones practicing homosexuality. I, at least, have a verse in the Book of Mormon declaring the words of Christ as to why I am not a Mormon and reject that name.
Christopher, I am sorry that you had a hard life. I hope that you will find a good way to deal with your past soon.
Christophers shotgun spoof approach reminds me of a Dexter season a few years back where Dexter, concerned the FBI lead task force in his police department will discover hes the Bay Harbor Butcher, writes a bogus manifesto to the local paper that pushes everybodys buttons with the intent of throwing the investigation in a dozen directions at once. But the manifesto fails when the FBI guy realizes the manifesto’s intent when everybody is going crazy like squirrels after scattered nuts and concludes the Bay Harbor Butcher must be a law enforcement insider.
http://www.mormonmayday.org
I love Dexter. Great show. We need someone like him to take care of the criminals in the police forces since the justice system refuses to do anything about them. But since I am a pacifist it will not be me.
And I have had a wonderful life. A beautiful wife of 32 years. Four lovely children. My eldest daughter was adopted. We got her out of a awful situation with drug user parents. She had/has Multiple Personality Disorder caused by the local police using her as a pawn to get a drug dealer. She was, not any more, the youngest diagnosed case in the world. It was amazing to se what the the mind is capable of. It gave me a look at what is a choice and what we have no control over. It gave me a hatred of police.
My parents loved me and did the very best they could to give me what I needed to survive as they saw the world. They gave me the true and everlasting gospel. They gave me a love of liberty. They taught me to trust no one and that all men are sinners.
I have been given the opportunity to live freer in America than 99% of the Tax Slaves and Social Security Numbered cattle. I have been given the opportunity to fight a tyrannical government and win many times in court.
And I am dealing with my past and the injuries to my body and mind by Criminal Cops and corrupt politicians.
And may all of you have good lives and may you all find joy in this life and may you be happy in the next.
Kate — Your site looks quite interesting (not to mention relevant to our discussion).
Care to elaborate?
Hello there, I found your website via Google while searching for a related topic, your website came up, it looks great. I’ve bookmarked it in my google bookma