Unfortunately, my Google News feed on the word “Mormon” regularly pulls up articles on Mormontimes.com. I rarely read anything on Mormontimes.com; I’m not a fan of propaganda. But I saw one on same-sex marriage and figured I’d take a look. I should have known better…
The article, Use Spiritual Message to Share Same-Sex Marriage Beliefs, is by Linda and Richard Eyre, who apparently are important because they started valuesparenting.com and have written some books.The Eyres get one thing correct: Trying to explain why the LDS Church opposes same-sex marriage based on logic (they say “political arguments”) or reason (they use “historical arguments”) doesn’t work,
You can talk till you are blue in the face about how marriage has always been between a man and a woman, or about how we should honor the California popular vote, or about how kids could become gender-confused, and you will just sound more narrow and prejudiced and homophobic than ever to your opponent.
Yep. That’s right. Mormons will sound more “narrow[-minded]” and “homophobic” the more they try to justify their bigotry. Why? Because it’s still bigotry.
This is pretty simple to understand in mathematical terms:
justifying bigotry = bigotry^10
I am, of course, just making that up. But that’s how it seems. When you try to justify your bigotry, you really just come across as a bigger bigot.
So, what do the Eyres suggest instead?
We’ve taken to just saying, “Let me just spend a minute telling you about a spiritual belief that I think will explain our position.” Then we say something like this:
Mormons have a highly family-centric theology, believing that God is literally our Spiritual Father and that we lived as spirit persons with our heavenly parents before coming to this earth. Marriage and procreation provide the physical bodies that allow additional spiritual siblings to come from the spiritual pre-life into mortality. And we believe that families can continue to be together in the hereafter.
In this context, marriage between a man and a woman, and having children together, lies at the center of God’s plan and is a core purpose and reason for this earth and our life on it. Hopefully, understanding that Mormons have these beliefs makes it easier for you to see why we want to protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and for you to understand that our church is not anti-gay but pro-marriage.
We always try to mention that we view all people as our brothers and sisters and we add our personal belief that we favor full-rights-giving civil unions, and that it is the divine and eternally purposed concept of marriage that we are trying to protect.
Making a spiritual statement like this usually ends the debate. It doesn’t win the debate or convert or even interest people in our beliefs, but it raises the conversation to a level where at least people can agree to disagree. Whether someone is intrigued by the belief, or whether he or she thinks we are crazy, it’s hard to go back to a political argument after you’ve made a spiritual statement, and in the context of what we believe about the purpose and plan of mortality and eternity others can at best respect us, and at worst at least grasp why we have to try to protect traditional marriage.
The second paragraph is important and useful – Mormons oppose homosexuality because they are supernatural-gender-essentialists: they believe gender is spiritual, not just biological (never mind the socio-cultural, of course). That does factor into their homophobia because you can’t change genders; god willed that spirits be male and female, and they must be correspondingly masculine and feminine, or the whole Plan of Salvation falls apart. Okay. Got it.
But, and this is the important part, the leap of logic in paragraph three is apparently invisible to the Eyres. The Eyres say that their belief in supernatural-gender-essentialism justifies their opposition to same-sex marriage. That is a non sequitur, pending qualification. If they had said, “Our belief in supernatural-gender-essentialism precludes Mormons from performing marriages between same-sex couples in Mormon ceremonies,” I’d have no qualms with the statement (their still bigots, but it’s their religion and they can do what they want in their bigoted religion). But that’s not what they said. They said, “Our belief in supernatural-gender-essentialism forces us to prevent any same-sex couples of any religious/irreligious persuasion getting married.” How? That is a non sequitur. Just because the Eyre’s are bigots and the leadership of the LDS Church is bigoted, in thought and in practice, doesn’t mean they have to force their bigotry on the broader society. Ergo, the Eyres’s statement and claim falls flat.
If I met the Eyres and struck up a conversation with them; and if the topic of same-sex marriage came up; and if they used this “spiritual statement” to defend their bigotry; it would not end the debate with me. I’d tell them they belong to a bigoted religion, with a bigoted theology, and, even so, that does not mean they have to try to force their bigotry on people who don’t share their worldview.
if they used this spiritual statement to defend their bigotry; it would not end the debate with me. Id tell them they belong to a bigoted religion, with a bigoted theology, and, even so, that does not mean they have to try to force their bigotry on people who dont share their worldview.
Exactly! This is what I’m saying on the “Making Your Opponent’s Case” thread.
Mormonism is a bigoted religion, with a bigoted theology, and the fact that the religion attributes the bigotry to god and uses his bigotry as justification for human bigotry just makes it all more virulent.
It also makes the bigotry invisible to those who are guilty of it. Which is why you get people like Ms. Jack arguing that it’s nonsensical, pretzel logic to consider the ways in which relying on so-called “divine will” makes matters like these worse.
Is “bigot” one of those words that if you repeat it 15 times in the bathroom mirror with the lights turned off that it appears to you?
The assumption that’s built into the Eyres’s piece is “religion gets a free pass.” If you believe something because of your religion (and you’re otherwise a polite, respectable person), well, that’s OK then.
But why should that be? Why should bigotry get a free pass just because there’s some sort of theology behind it?
So, what determines these rights are beliefs?
Let’s see, so many possible ways to destroy the foundation of this argument:
1840s-beliefs that Mormonism is of the devil causing mass immigration to Mexico.
1890s-beliefs in “traditional” marriage keeping Utah from the possibility of statehood.
1970s-beliefs in racial equality leading to Proclamation #2
Religious interpretations of God for the purpose of governance have served minorities so well….
TT – good point. 😉
REDRUM, REDRUM, REDRUM!!!
Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice!!!
Bigotry, Bigotry, Bigotry!!!
Wooaahhh! Boyd Packer just appeared!
🙂
From reddit:
I thought Mormons believed that marriage was a sacred bond between a man and several women and that changed (just like in the bible) due to social and legal pressure – so it seems natural for it to change again due to social and legal pressure. Mormons pretend it is due to “praying” by the prophets, thus obscuring the source of the change.
The pattern being: More socially enlightened non-christians having to push christians to a more socially enlightened moral stance, with the christians kicking and screaming the whole time that the socially backwards, morally corrupt stance is confirmed and endorsed by the bible – slavery, segregation, gay rights, child rearing/corporal punishment, etc, etc. The Mormon pattern parallels this.
Andrew Sullivan, today, remarking on Jonathan Rauch’s piece in The Advocate, in which he suggests “dialing back the accusations of bigot and hater” :
If that doesn’t work for you (and I realize it might not), how about turning the homophobes’ own formulation back on them: Hate the bigotry, but love the bigot. 🙂
1. This is not a “spiritual” statement! A “spiritual” statement would involve some sort of ethical pronouncement or moral imperative, leaving the hearer with an uplifted sense of higher purpose, filled with a greater determination for self-betterment: eg., henceforth, I will stop stealing from my company; I vow not to be petty; I will volunteer to help the poor or the sick; I will treat my family with greater respect or love or dedication, etc.
2. This “spiritual statement” so called is actually one that is based on a profound misunderstanding and unabashed ignorance of Biology and Medicine. Claiming genders are “eternal” not only ignores scientific evidence suggesting strong biological determination on sexual orientation, but it also conveniently ignores Human Intersexual Syndromes (hermaphrodism, pseudohermaphrodism, etc.).
3. I don’t believe Mormons are any more bigoted than other special focus group. Evangelicals can be viewed as racist and anti-science; Atheists can be viewed as intolerant of religious people; Westerners are often viewed as disrespectful of the Global South; Americans are hispanophobes, etc. Tribal mentality is a left-over byproduct of human evolution, and it commonly fosters like-minded people opportunities for shunning unlike-minded people, making “bigotry” and “prejudice” inaccessible for the insider and obvious for the outsider.
Having said that, on the subject of Homosexuality, Mormons are on the wrong side (of everything: science, reason, morality, ethics, common sense, XXI century, etc.), and entrenching on this position does have the unfortunate side-effect of enthroning Mormons as a people and the LDS Church as an institution into the bitter and awkward seat of bigotry.
4. The LDS Church, and most Mormons, are suffering from homophobia, much like they suffered with racism a half-century ago. That they have managed to overcome century-old racism is not only indicative that most tribalism-induced prejudices can be overcome, that individuals cannot be judged with their larger groups, and that it is hopeful one day Mormons will learn to embrace their gay brothers and sisters eventually.
That’s pretty much true. Before the brethren made a big stink about gays, you could actually go into a BYU seminar and a substantial minority would defend gays.
Today, of course, that is no longer possible. But if the Saints were left to their own devices and wouldn’t feel compelled to follow the prophet, a lot more Mormons would be on the side of equality.
ATTN: MODERATORS ~ I respectfully request that you delete this portion of Holly’s comment #1:
You deleted my last reply to her on this matter on the other thread, and I played nice and let it go, but if she’s going to pick up again here, I’ll have no choice but to re-post the response you deleted.
Your call. If you comply with my request, feel free to delete this comment in its entirety.
Thanks, Ms. Jack. I will have to think about that.
In the meanwhile, feel free to engage Holly on why you disagree with her.
Prof, I like your essay. In the interest of persuasion, it might be better to refer to actions rather than people.
People do unacceptable things and ought to be accountable for it. But people also change.
Homophobes aren’t any more born than racists are born. If we look at the opinion research about attitudes regarding sexuality, there has been a tremendous sea change.
It’s not only a generational shift but millions of Americans have changed their mind. That even includes senior citizens. As grandchildren came out, their grandparents decided to trash the attitudes of their youth and support their loved ones.
And I have seen several retirees who came totally around within a couple of year. It was quite remarkable.
Of course, we can’t let bad behavior slide. Lets confront the behavior and challenge people to change.
In the meanwhile, feel free to engage Holly on why you disagree with her.
No thank you. A wise saying about the definition of insane comes to mind.
Ill have no choice but to re-post the response you deleted.
Actually, you will have a choice, Jack, and there’s no use pretending otherwise.
You could state your position in way that isn’t so objectionable that it gets deleted.
You and I disagree on this topic. I get to state why I think your view is short-sighted. You can reply.
It doesn’t mean you have no choice but to repost a comment that was previously deleted, so don’t act like it does.
Holly ~ You could state your position in way that isnt so objectionable that it gets deleted.
My comment was not deleted because it was objectionable. Please ask the moderators in private if you need further information about that.
I rescind my request for moderation in this thread. Please forget that I asked and let’s allow this thread to get back on-topic.
Holly’s #1 refers to an exchange that we had which starts here which had little to do with homosexuality. I invite anyone who wants to know what she’s talking about to read it themselves.
OK, I have carefully reread Holly’s statement five times. She mentions Ms. Jack in the third paragraph.
Although I am not entirely sure because it is unclear what noun the pronoun “it” refers to, Holly appears to say that Ms. Jack’s position relies on the ability of Mormonism to hide its bigotry.
Some might argue that this is insulting the LDS Church. But I don’t see how that can reasonably be construed to be an insult of Ms. Jack.
Holly and Ms. Jack,
I really, really dislike the idea of having to moderate comments on MSP. However, I can see why it might, at times, be necessary.
If the two of you call it quits here, we’ll just move on. Otherwise, I’m leaning towards deleting all of your comments on this thread as they are more of a distraction than a discussion of the original post.
Like I said, I’d rather not do that. So, make my job easy and let this go.
profxm ~ So, getting back on topic here, a couple of things:
– I agree that religious opposition to homosexuality is not a sufficient justification for political opposition to LGBT rights
– I agree that religions are not automatically safe from the charge of “bigotry” just because the allegedly bigoted beliefs are part of said religion’s essential distinctives
That said, I do question the usefulness of tossing the word “bigotry” around in this manner. A bigot is:
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
Mormons are of the opinion that homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle choice. How does that in and of itself make them intolerant of those who agree that homosexuality acceptable?
And in refusing to show tolerance for the LDS opinion on homosexuality, are you not showing this form of “bigotry” yourself?
I think “discrimination” is a better word to describe what’s going on here. But feel free to justify your definitions for me.
profxm ~ Getting us to call it quits and move on is precisely why I made the call for moderation on this thread in the first place.
Like I said earlier, I’ll let my request for moderation go if you like. But if you want to delete all of the Holly-MsJack comments here, I do not object in the slightest.
I’m not sure any bigots actually exist anywhere by that definition. I think it would be pretty hard to find someone who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. (After all, only a Sith deals in absolutes.)
I think this is a much better definition:
I think Mormons who follow the church’s political teachings on homosexuality do tend to be obstinately devoted to their opinions and prejudices on the matter, despite all the evidence that there is very little if any rational basis for such discrimination. Like the Eyres, they seem to unable (even in court) to do anything but keep repeating easily rebutted arguments and then perhaps fall back on their religion.
That said, maybe the term “bigotry” (like the term “racism”) has become so loaded that it can no longer be usefully applied to any but the most heinous bigots. So you may be right about its utility.
True. Also, I think SLK & Andrew Sullivan said it well @7, that loaded language makes it difficult to discuss the underlying issues calmly. See, I’ve already forgotten ProfXM’s points about Eyre’s non-sequitor logic…
profxm’s comment # 18 articulates why comments are ever moderated or deleted at BCC.
That’s interesting, John. Would you be interested in writing an essay about blog moderation? That would make for a fascinating discussion.
Actually, profxm’s comment #18 pretty much captures it from what I’ve observed at BCC.
Ms. Jack,
I agree with kuri that your definition is a bit strict. Remove the “utterly” and it works. Basically, a bigot is someone who is prejudiced and intolerant.
I can’t think of a better way to describe the LDS Church’s POSITION on homosexuality. Not only are they adhering quite stubbornly do a doctrine that is outdated, especially in light of scientific evidence, but they are so intolerant of homosexuality that they have gone out of their way to disenfranchise homosexuals. If that isn’t bigotry, I don’t know what is.
We’ve had the discussion before on MSP as to whether or not it is useful to call the LDS Church a “hate church”:
http://mainstreetplaza.com/?p=1841
That may be over the top, as they don’t think what they are doing is hateful (doesn’t change that it is, but I can tone down the rhetoric a little), but certainly the doctrine and policies are bigoted. Whether or not it is helpful to call them bigots, I don’t know. And, keep in mind, I’m not calling all Mormons bigots. I never said that. The doctrine of the church: bigoted. The policies: bigoted. The efforts to disenfranchise homosexuals: bigoted. Some members: bigoted. Some members: not bigoted.
So, maybe the question that should be asked: How is it helpful to not call the church bigoted when that is precisely what it is (“it” being the institution, not necessarily the members, though many of the members are as well)? Do we really think that it is going to keep the members away from discussing this issue if we call them bigots?
Here’s my thought: Call them bigots and let them try to defend themselves. The result: Exactly what the Eyre’s tried. They realize that they only sound more bigoted when they try to justify it. So, now they try to sidestep the issue and claim a doctrinal basis for their bigotry. All that does is make god a bigot and make them look even more bigoted. If we keep calling them on their awful attempts to justify their bigotry, maybe they’ll eventually give it up, own it, and possibly even change it.
But if we let it slide and say, “We’ll, they aren’t bigots, just their views are bigoted.” What have we accomplished? Sure, I can “love the bigot but hate the bigotry.” But my goal is to end the bigotry, not love bigots.
John F. — Yeah, I know it’s tricky. From my personal perspective, I don’t think you need to justify BCC’s policies (though, if you want to, thanks for being polite about it). I personally am sorry that so much mud got slung at BCC during our recent exchange. That’s fine if our two blog communities don’t want to be best friends, but if we can avoid having an active feud, that would be preferable.
Anyway, enough meta-discussion — I’m going to now read ProfXM’s new comment carefully and get back onto the main track of the discussion. 😉
But my goal is to end the bigotry, not love bigots.
A useful clarification. thanks for saying this.
Yes, and that is a greater sacrilege than anything critics of the Church could ever do.
Human beings have a tendency to project themselves onto the image of their god. So you have to be very careful that you do not project your vices and prejudices onto your god because that would sanctify and entrench sin and redefine sin as holy.
As Holly points out, it also makes it necessary to confront your god and your religion in the public square.
profxm –
I understand. But are the two mutually exclusive? (I don’t claim to have the answer for anyone other than myself, at least but I do think the question is worth posing.)
I think it can go either way, depending on each individual listener. Some will become more defensive and angry (and respond with the standard “I’m rubber and you’re glue,” defense), and others will probably introspect and think twice about whether the criticism is valid.
Of course, that doesn’t help when coming up with a general policy on whether/when to use the term…
SLK in SF –
I don’t think they are mutually exclusive. But, I have a preference. I’d rather love non-bigots than bigots. I’ll still love my family, despite their bigotry. But I’d rather they weren’t bigots.
If I take the “love the bigot but hate the bigotry” approach, am I settling? Am I admitting defeat? Am I capitulating that I may never get them to see the error of their ways?
I’d rather fight to end the bigotry, even if it makes people uncomfortable.
I imagine we all demonstrate every day that it’s possible to fight to end bigotry and still love bigots, given that pretty much all of us have homophobes in our families, and we cherish them for various reasons. It may be that it’s only possible to actually end the bigotry while loving bigots. Or not. Hopefully one day we’ll succeed in ending it, and then we’ll know.
Where it gets really sticky is when people we love say, sometimes explicitly, “If you love me, you won’t call my leaders or my church bigoted.” Really? That’s the choice you’re giving me?
Sometimes, a little show of magnanimity on our part makes it easier to continue dialogue with those on the receiving end of our hard-earned wisdom.
Admittedly, I’m someone who has generally followed Sun Tzu’s advice: If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him.
But lately I’ve begun to wonder if Jane Goodall’s advice isn’t better-suited to our purposes here at MSP: Change happens by listening and then starting a dialogue with the people who are doing something you don’t believe is right.
In any case, I’ll fall back on Sun Tzu again and suggest that: To a surrounded enemy, you must leave a way of escape.
Otherwise, it never ends. To quote the master: There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare.
“profxms comment # 18 articulates why comments are ever moderated or deleted at BCC.
Seriously. That is so NOT our comment policy here. Threadjacks are not at all prohibited, so what’s with the threats of deleting comments?
On topic, I completely agree with Andrew Sullivan’s POV. And anyone’s who’s had to get things done in the real world of business must surely be aware of the pragmatic nature of the approach he espouses. Why dial up the heat and rhetoric if you can make your point in a way that will not alienate your target audience before you even get your message across? Makes no sense to me.
Besides, I don’t want to lump all opposition together as “bigotry” — it’s just not accurate and stops communication happening. We need less, not more, of this kind of rhetorical gauntlet throwing in American political discourse.
Chino — I totally dig the Goodall quote, and I am in agreement with her. If I didn’t follow her advice daily, I would suck at my job.
wry,
Like I said, I really hate playing “police-person” here. The problem with the comments was that they were a continuation of a fight from a different thread. AND, some of the comments on the previous thread were moderated out of existence because they did not meet our commenting policy.
So, you’re right that we don’t have a policy against threadjacks. I didn’t mean to give that impression. What I meant to say is something more along the lines of, “Those involved already had a chance to work this out. Threadjacking a new post to continue a battle that is already supposed to be over isn’t appropriate.”
Does that make sense? It wasn’t just the threadjacking, it was threadjacking to continue a fight that was already moderated on a different thread.
And, let me reiterate, I don’t want to play police-person. I’d just as soon let people comment however they’d like, so long as people are civil. One of the reasons I really like MSP is because we don’t censor. Anyone who CONTRIBUTES to the discussion is welcome. And comments that CONTRIBUTE to the discussion are welcome. And even threadjacking is okay, so long as it’s not to reignite a flame war.
As far as I know, the only people we’ve ever banned are spammers and particularly malicious trolls (we let most trolls go). We rarely delete comments, and usually they are spam or trolls. The first time they haven’t been was in the other thread. So, censoring is not something you’ll find here very often.
I suspect you’re quite good at your job, Wry. And from what little I’ve observed of john f. online, he’s probably no slouch. But, as much as I’m in a welcoming mood, my sense is that he’s asking us to accept a convenient false equivalence in lieu of a real explanation.
Wry — OK, back to the meta-discussion, because I want our actions to be totally transparent:
Adding to what ProfXM said, you’re right that deleting comments isn’t our policy in general. The deleted comments weren’t even exceptionally bad, compared to some stuff that has been posted here. It’s that it was an exceptional situation. The problem was just that it came after several days straight of out-of-control fighting. We’ve discussed this with both people who had their comments deleted, and made sure that they were OK with it.
I have censoring issues, which I know is a very subtle thing about me that may be hard to notice. 😉 Well, let’s just say authority issues in general, and that will be more accurate.
I do understand your point about continuing a battle from another thread — but it’s clear that Holly and Ms Jack are still keen to talk to (/past) each other about something, and it’s at least tangentially related to this thread. If they agree to be sorta civil, I think it’s fine if they continue. It certainly seems that there is something to be worked out about both their content AND their meta stuff. Might be a useful conversation, might just be a flame war (not that flames are somehow objectively identifiable), but I for one am fine if it continues and I might even become involved. I love a good heated debate.
But my authority issues extend to myself as well — meaning, I am not the boss of anyone, so my input is just input. And, I will promise to TRY and not turn every discussion into a debate about the commenting policy at MSP. 😀
IOW, carry on…
I’m sorry, I get sloppy and it doesn’t help at all…
I was only quoting john f. because he alluded to the deletion policy, but I was actually *responding* to profxm. And in my longer post just now, I was also responding to profxm.
I will try to be clearer about who I am responding to. I am hobbled by lack of html skills, frankly.
Wry @40 — right, but they both have their own blogs and have graciously offered to continue their duel there (if they choose to continue it), where they can moderate themselves. And they’re welcome to link to it so you can enjoy! 😀
I appreciate that there is an important discussion going on about the use of the term “bigot,” but I think that the idea that bigot is some neutral term that we can rationally apply if we can just find the proper definition does not quite get at its linguistic function. Speech does not simply describe, but produces the reality it seeks to describe. Sometimes it fails, and sometimes it doesn’t. Whether calling someone a bigot who says “we view all people as our brothers and sisters and we add our personal belief that we favor full-rights-giving civil unions,” succeeds or fails is not a question of accessing Truth, but of how name-calling functions to produce social divisions, to conveniently mark who is in and who is out, who is good and who is bad. I get that it is not 2005 anymore, and legally-equivalent civil unions are no longer considered by many to be an acceptable compromise, but framing the debate about who is a “bigot” in this current environment bears marks of a particular historical situation.
In my review of 8: The Mormon Proposition, I addressed some of the problems that I see in framing the discourse in this particular manner of dehumanizing oppositional voices. http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2010/04/review-8-the-mormon-proposition/
chanson, I trust your judgment, for reals. I don’t want to monday-morning quarterback this, and you shouldn’t let me (I can’t even find my MSP admin login now, after my GD computer crashed…gah). I don’t know the whole story, and if I did, I may or may not have agreed with the approach, but it doesn’t matter — your judgment is enough, because you have shown over the very long haul that you are rational and awesome. I am in general completely supportive and loyal when it comes to ALL the mods/permas (what are you called anyhow?) here, even though I’m often making a wee stink about something. If I didn’t trust you guys, I wouldn’t even bring this stuff up.
“If I didnt trust you guys, I wouldnt even bring this stuff up.”
MSP makes me say wacky shit.
To wit: my comments Nos. 35 and 36…how awesome is it that I threw a little stink bomb that likely got someone’s (possibly two someones!) back up, only to immediately follow that with a self-righteous stance on how we should seek to communicate not alienate.
MSP changes me. I’m a board girl and blogs intimidate me.
That’s probably the mistake I made on BCC.
Wry, actually I’m glad you asked about this because other people are probably confused about what happened as well.
Let me be clear: We are not ushering in a new policy of routinely deleting and banning. Absolutely not!!!
In this case, there was no silent deletion. We contacted both participants in real time and apologized for doing it. This was an exceptional case — we were getting desperate to put out the flames because we’d never had a fight thread continue for such a long time. But we made sure that both participants understood the situation and were OK with it.
Chino, what do you think “social location” means, and why do you consider yours to be so mysteriously shrouded that someone who has been reading your posts for years would not be able to discern your self-representation?
I have no idea what your second sentence is even about. Can you clarify?
Please delete 48, and then 49. They ended up in the wrong thread…
I think TT did that on purpose to provoke a deletion. FOMENTER.
Thanks, profxm, for your response. I should admit here that I’ve had to cope with little bigotry from my own LDS family, which I know colors my thinking, and I know this has made me somewhat less bitter than many who’ve suffered at the hands of LDS, Inc. than have I. But for that very reason I can’t help but think that just as violence begets violence, so does unnecessary antagonism. Had I been on the receiving end of the kind of treatment some of my queer ex-Mo friends got from their families, I don’t doubt that I’d be bitter or dead.
That said, I agree that making people uncomfortable is essential. I just think there are different ways of accomplishing that. We need fighters as much as we need lovers; but we need to be smarter about how we engage in either activity. My two cents’ worth. 🙂
Oh, man! Now I can’t comply with TT’s request because it would make Wry’s funny not make any sense…
http://assets.knowyourmeme.com/i/1383/original/Admiral-Ackbar-trap.jpg
Ha! That’s some powerful jujitsu, TT. And, yes, this thread is a trap. Can we now exit with your
permissionblessing?Thanks!
I for one am glad there is no policy against threadjacks.
#21 Kuri & #26 Profxm ~ Thank you for your thoughtful responses. Here is a question for you.
Say that we have a Latter-day Saint who agrees with the church’s stance that homosexual relationships are wrong and never wants to see homosexual marriages offered in the temples. However, she is politically in favor of LGBT rights (including the right to the term “marriage“) and she treats her LGBT friends no differently than she treats anyone else. She might sometimes try to dissuade people from engaging in homosexual relationships because of her religious beliefs, but she recognizes that the only power she has in the matter is gentle persuasion.
Is this person a bigot?
Ms. Jack,
Good question. I think it’s fair to say that bigotry is a continuum, not an either/or dichotomy. I would see hypothetical female #56 as being much less bigoted than Boyd Packer. The fact that she agrees with the church’s position opposing homosexual relationships is very disturbing and I would want to know what her justification is for that. But I would also admire her efforts to empower LGBTQs, however limited they are.
As much as it pains me to say it, because I want so much to believe that I’m not, I think everyone has at least a little bigotry in them. I’m a sociologist and I talk about prejudice and discrimination all the time. I’m well aware of these issues. I’m also aware of who the targets of prejudice and discrimination are most likely to be. But I’m also fully aware of the fact that part of the reason why humans are so prejudicial has to be biological – it is a simple heuristic to determine who is a friend (those like me) and who is a foe (those who are not like me). So, despite my “enlightened” views on this, I find myself occasionally thinking prejudicial thoughts about various groups. However, I often catch myself (because of my training) and restructure those thoughts so I don’t fall prey to the fundamental attribution error or confirmation bias.
My point being – bigotry is a continuum. I would never call a black person a n*****, but some times I think that maybe there are elements of inner-city black culture that are problematic and contribute to some of the problems faced by inner-city blacks. Likewise, poor-rural whites have some cultural elements that cause them problems. Yes, most of the reason these groups are poor and impoverished are structural and external to their culture and community, but some of it is cultural. That isn’t popular to say, and seems somewhat prejudicial. But pointing out some negative elements of culture is a far cry from consider other humans inferior.
So, I’m perfectly fine with the idea that some people are more bigoted than others. Hypothetical female #56 is less bigoted than Boyd Packer. But she is not an advocate of gay rights.
So, is a she a bigot? Kind of. But, then, so am I… Kind of.
Jack,
I’d generally rather label the behavior or belief than the person. In the case of Sister Hypothetical, she doesn’t seem to believe that gay people and gay relationships are just as good as straight people and straight relationships. Not really. So I’d say yes, she has a little bigotry in her.
A person who might try to dissuade people from engaging in homosexual relationships because of her religious beliefs doesn’t actually treat her LGBT friends the same as she treats everyone else, and it’s sort of remarkable that she would claim she does.
Well guys, here is what I think:
You are just as bigoted towards core Mormon beliefs as you complain the Mormons are towards homosexual relationships. You do not treat the Mormons the same as you treat other people, because you try to dissuade them from believing that gay relationships are wrong.
You’re perfectly right to complain about Mormon political activism against gays, because they are using the government to discourage gay behavior, and you are not using the government to discourage them from being Mormon or believing that being gay is wrong. Fair complaint there.
But even if the Mormons ceased their political activism, you would still be here declaring that their beliefs about relationships are inferior to yours and worthy of contempt. You are not going to be happy with Mormon beliefs until they think exactly like you do on the subject of homosexuality. You are intolerantly devoted to your own opinions and prejudices. By the definition that Kuri offered on this thread, that is bigotry.
Now, it’s okay to be “bigoted” and “intolerant” about some things. I’m intolerant of slavery, child labor, most abortions, racism, and sexism. I do not believe those behaviors are good for the human race and I often have no problem disrespecting them (though in some cases, I believe keeping them legal in the name of freedom is the right thing to do). I do try to show compassion and respect for some of the people who engage (or, historically, have engaged) in those behaviors, because I believe that the reasons for endorsing them are complex and not an automatic sign of evil. If somebody told me that I was bigoted against those things, I would shrug and feel no guilt.
You ostensibly feel the same way about religions that teach that homosexual relationships are wrong. Fair enough.
But Mormons would probably say the same thing about their beliefs concerning homosexual relationships. They don’t believe that homosexual relationships are good for humanity and they feel no guilt in opposing them or being labeled “bigots” for opposing them. The only difference lies in where they appeal for that belief. They appeal to religion; you appeal to science. It’s not “which of you is a bigot,” it’s “whose bigotry is justifiable?”
For my own part? I don’t consider someone a bigot just because they think that my lifestyle choices are inferior, or they think that my religious beliefs are wrong. I don’t consider someone a bigot for respectfully trying to persuade me of their own position. I think profxm’s “everyone is a bigot to some extent” observation is very irenic, but I would rather have fewer people be bigots in exchange for a more potent application of the word. The only bigots I’m interested in acknowledging are the ones who use force—scornful ridicule or misrepresentation of what I believe, legal action against it, or physical violence—to try and stop me from believing what I do and being what I am. I’d rather live and let live.
That’s just me, and I don’t expect many here to agree with me.
I’m on my finals week and may not have time to return to this thread anytime soon. Thank you all for the thoughtful discussion.
Whether homosexual relationships are good or bad is ultimately an empirical question, Ms. Jack. We do not need to rely on beliefs to determine the effects of homosexuality. We can observe them with our senses.
What may constitute good or bad is more complicated but I am willing to accept Mormon ideas about that as long as they are specified in terms of causal relationships.
There is not much that Mormon authorities say about sexuality that can be sustained in light of the facts. I do not say that gleefully but find it sad because every time we subscribe to a falsehood, we are compromising our ability to understand the cosmos and our environment. Often this hurts us.
Ms. Jack,
In a sense, I agree with what you’re saying. Yes, I’m bigoted toward a Mormon belief (it’s really not that core, per the Articles of Faith), the belief that god makes everyone either “masculine male” or “feminine female”, in that I will not accept it or even tolerate it. I’m just as bigoted towards this belief as I am toward the belief that blacks are inferior to whites. And if that puts egg on my face, I’ll embrace it wholeheartedly.
Where I take issue with this, however, is in how you’re framing this. It’s kind of like you’re trying to say, “Well, you’re just as bigoted as Mormons are because you reject something about them and therefore reject them.” I don’t think that’s accurate. Yes, I reject a Mormon belief as being hateful. That’s true. But I don’t reject a core element of Mormon identity, like, say Mormon’s right to participate in temple ceremonies, and actively work to prevent them from doing so. And I don’t reject Mormons, just some of their more esoteric beliefs. I reject a completely non-falsifiable and intolerant belief made up in the 19th Century by a guy who claimed revelation from god (or if you want to go with Biblical prohibitions, some guy(s) a few thousand years ago who did the same thing and for which there is a stunning lack of evidence for their revelatory powers). Mormons reject an entire group of people based on a characteristic that is pretty core to their identity – their sexual orientation. And the preponderance of evidence suggests that sexual orientation is not chosen (and per Alan’s argument, even if it is chosen, it still shouldn’t be rejected). Mormons are choosing to believe in something that is hateful, resulting in the rejection of somewhere between 3% and 5% of the population. I’m choosing to reject a belief of Mormons that is based on nothing more than the often inchoate ramblings of Joseph Smith. Those are not the same thing.
True. And this is bad or immoral or unethical why? It’s not like I’m advocating that we lynch them. I’m treating them differently because they are bigots.
True. And this is bad or immoral or unethical why? They are inferior and contemptible beliefs.
Mostly true. Where the difference lies, which you seem not to be able to see, is that my opinion is not prejudicial. I’m also open to being persuaded otherwise. If it suddenly were revealed that homosexuality is exclusively a choice-based lifestyle; and if it were suddenly revealed that homosexuality is very, very harmful, both physically and mentally to those who engage in it; and if it were suddenly revealed that the mountains of evidence illustrating otherwise was all fraudulent, then I’d be open to reconsidering my position. If there was any apparent drawback to homosexuality, I would be open to changing my position. Why? Because I am, in fact, open-minded and skeptical. I am willing to examine evidence and change my views on homosexuality. The evidence says homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable, normal, sexual orientation with virtually no ill consequences (and the consequences that are negative are largely the result of social rejection and not the result of being homosexual). So, you’re equating my very reasoned, informed position on homosexuality with belief in 19th Century ramblings by a very ill-informed man who claimed to receive revelations. If, Ms. Jack, you want to call me “intolerantly devoted to your own opinions and prejudices,” I think you’re going to fail in that categorization. I’m quite open to persuasion. But where is the evidence to contradict the evidence science has brought to this question?
Sure. I’ll go with this. But if my rejection of their bigotry is based on evidence and their bigotry is based on no evidence, who is holding the prejudice here? What’s more, prejudice is:
I’m not “pre-judging” Mormons without evidence. I know what they believe and they don’t deny it. I’m judging them based exactly on what they believe. That isn’t prejudice. That isn’t even bigotry. I’m simply saying that I disagree with what Mormons think and find it contemptible. How is that prejudice?
Contrast that with the Mormon position on homosexuality? How many Mormons have read the scientific literature, talked with homosexuals, and really examined this issue and still remain bigots? My sense is very, very few. Thus, many Mormons are exhibiting prejudice – they have prejudged homosexuality without just grounds. So, once again, you’re claiming I’m prejudiced against Mormons (which, in reality, I’m not, given the definition of prejudice) and that Mormons are prejudiced against homosexuals (which, they are, given the definition of prejudice), and that the two are equivalent. I don’t buy it.
“Whether homosexual relationships are good or bad is ultimately an empirical question, Ms. Jack. We do not need to rely on beliefs to determine the effects of homosexuality. We can observe them with our senses.”
I think this is naive.
You simply assume that the scientific data is going to force the same conclusions for everyone. It isn’t. There’s never been a time in history where everyone drew the same moral and social conclusions from the same scientific data and I doubt there ever will be.
Science simply has nothing to say about normatives – in and of itself. It never says “should.” It is not a source of morality. You get that from somewhere else. Call it “god” or not if you wish. But you get normative meaning in the world from somewhere other than science.
Seth, I’m not sure I agree. I understand that many people say science cannot lead to morals or principles. But to assume there is no connection between the two is actually the naive position. Science can absolutely inform morals, and often does. The very issue we’re discussing – homosexuality – is a great example. Prior to the 1970s, homosexuality was considered a disorder by the scientific establishment. As science advanced and learned more about it, it ceased to be consider a disorder. Now, a disorder is not, technically, a moral judgment about a behavior or characteristic. It’s more an indication of whether or not it causes problems in people’s lives, which can be closely related to prevailing social norms.
Since science does not consider homosexuality a disorder, and since science sees virtually no negative consequences from homosexuality (almost all of the negative consequences are, as I pointed out earlier, the result of continued rejection of homosexuality), this clearly can inform one’s ethical position on homosexuality. Someone could continue to reject homosexuality despite the evidence outlined above, but they cannot do so based on the science. They have to do so in spite of the science. Science strongly leans one way on this point.
So, trying to claim there is a “wall” between science and morality is not accurate. There might be something more akin to a mole hill. And with homosexuality the science has basically flattened the mole hill to virtually nothing, making it very easy to derive an ethical position on homosexuality that is affirming.
Check this out. The Eyres have another post up that actually made me laugh out loud.
Pre-existence helps parenting
Not because of the title I confess that I’m still rather fond of the notion of a pre-existence but because of the risible (IMO) disconnect here:
If only more Mormon parents would honestly ask that question and honestly accept the answer. I don’t know the Eyres, but one has to wonder if they’ve considered what, to me, are some pretty startling implications in this piece.
One more snippet:
Sorry, Ms. Jack, but your contention that people are being bigoted towards your beliefs is a massive FAIL.
Here’s the difference: Gays don’t want to take away your right to practice your religion as you see fit. The cause for gay marriage is a secular one, not a religious one. You’ll still get to decide who joins your church and who you will marry. At the other end, the Mormons are reaching beyond religion into the secular world in their quest to deny gay marriage, one of the civil rights given in the USA.
So one belief (Mormons are bad!) has no real consequence since it causes you no real harm. The other belief (Mormons against gay marriage) DOES cause consequences because it denies civil rights.
Ease up on your persecution complex… giving everyone the same civil, secular rights does not impact your religious beliefs.
Kaileo, does this mean that you disagree with Kuri’s definition of bigotry?
In what way?
I don’t know the Eyres, either, but I do know that my own Mormon parents never once came close to discovering my secret superhero identity. And I remember how their apparent lack of discernment raised some serious questions about the Mormon paradigm that I managed to keep tucked away out-of-sight on the proverbial shelf alongside my Aquaman gear for years before gaining the courage to live honestly.
ETA: Above silly comment submitted in response to SLK in SF’s link.
I’ve seen Chino Blanco on Youtube forums, and my parents also had no clue. They especially had no clue about the anguish I was going thru as my orientation clashed with my religion. And when they did find out (my brother outed me a Christmas) they decided to ignore science and trust in their religion. They took it even farther… they disowned me. That was 10 years ago. I’m fine now, but I share this because too often we forget that real lives are involved here. This really impacts me and many other REAL people.
Clinging to antiquated beliefs (one man, one woman) says that I can’t have the happiness that marriage brings. It also tells me that Mormons and their supporters think I’m less than them… that I don’t deserve the same protections and benefits that they do. They think I’m not good enough… plain and simple.
They can say until they’re blue in the face that they’re not anti-gay…. but it still feels that they are.
Kaileo,
In #58 Kuri indicated that considering someone inferior for their lifestyle choices (or maybe even beliefs?) counted as bigotry in some degree or other. But you seem to define it differently as requiring someone to actually cause real-world changes to the targeted group before it counts as “bigotry” per se.
Does bigotry really require harmful action before it can be considered bigotry? Or is a mere mindset sufficient to qualify?
By the way, nice blog. I’ve always liked interior home design since high school, though I’m not all that great at it.
Seth,
That’s pure extrapolation on your part. I didn’t make any such generalization.
Kaileo,
Just FYI, Jack isn’t Mormon. (Not even Jack Mormon.) She’s Protestant.
Thanks for the blog compliment, Seth. I love doing design… something I surpressed when I was a Mormon, because it was “too gay”.
I suppose there is truth to the “bigotry in your heart” idea, but I’m a practical man. I’m not going to worry about it until it’s a problem… til there’s a tangible issue.
Kuri, thanks for letting me know about Ms. Jack. She has quite the interest in Mormonism, no?
Now who can tell me how to get my photo up in the profile box? Can’t find the link anywhere!
IIRC, I set up my WordPress avatar at gravatar.com …
Kuri, I re-read your comment several times before I summarized it. If you want to clarify, feel free.
Jack has a Mormon husband, so even though she’s pretty firm in her own Evangelical faith, she’s kinda stuck with the “Mormon problem.”
I’ve talked with her about this, and both of us have our misgivings about the pro-Prop 8 thing (to greater or lesser extents). We just tend to get turned off by the incoherent rage that seems to surround the issue. And neither do we appreciate our core faiths being defined by a transitory political issue.
At least I don’t. Perhaps Jack has a different take. But I’m not entirely certain she’ll be back for this particular discussion, so you may have to settle for my explanation.
Seth,
I discussed a specific scenario and made no generalizations at all in my comment. I’m not really sure why or how you decided to turn that into a general statement defining bigotry on my behalf.
Seemed like a useful enough discussion point. What other reason would I need?
I take it you disagree with point made in the summary?
I’m sure then that you can understand how people were turned off by the incoherent hysterical fear surrounding the issue: “scary scary threat to traditional families…. scary scary threat to the constitution…. scary scary cause of armageddon”
I’m also sure you can understand that people do not appreciate having what they consider a part of their core identity dismissed as a “transitory political issue.”
And I’m also sure that you’ll inform the brethren that you were unhappy with their insistence on spending so much of the church’s collective resources on a “transitory political issue,” since after all it was the church who picked the fight. It’s not like anyone sat around saying, “Hey, how can we get the LDS church to come out frothing at the mouth about something, and thus sink its approval rating? I know, let’s bait it on the issue of gay marriage!”
That is correct.
Holly, thanks for that! You’re right! Nothing hurts more than to have people dismiss something SO integral to my life as a “transitory political issue”! The reality is that Prop 8 and related issues like DADT (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) are not just about marriage or military service, but whether my fellow citizens are going to allow me to be treated fairly, and to have the same rights they do. Most gays I know look at this period of time as our own civil rights movement, just like the black movement of the 1960’s.
“Transitory political issue”?? Really? Gotta say, Seth, that was a pretty thoughtless remark of yours.
No Kaileo, it was a premeditated remark.
I’ve got bigger worries on my mind than whether gays get their rights formalized under the “marriage” label, or whether they get them under other forms of the law.
The ongoing problem of the poor, the stability of world politics, the defining theological paradigms for the 21st century, the exploitative structure of our national commercial and financial system.
Honestly, I think gays are – on the whole – being persecuted by Bank of America and Wells Fargo far more than they ever will be by the LDS Church. I’ve actually filed bankruptcy for several gay couples and individuals in the last few years, so this isn’t a hypothetical question for me.
When you say things like that, what I hear is, “I really don’t care about gays”. It’s a common response that I hear, especially from heterosexual religious people. It’s more of the same… we gays are certainly used to that kind of attitude.
You get turned off by the “rage”… ever wonder where that rage comes from? No wonder your “core beliefs” get defined by a “transitory political issue”… you bring it on yourself.
Premeditated remark, huh? Ever considered that you might be part of the problem?
It’s precisely because I care so much about things like hunger, poverty, violence against women, sex trafficking of children etc that I want to see the LGBT granted the same rights as everyone else NOW. Not only is the right thing to do, but it would be really, really easy if the bigots and homophobes like John McCain and the LDS corporate church would just get out of the way. And then the vast resources of time, money and energy currently being expended by people on all sides of this issue could be turned to problems that have proven more intractable.
So it’s not just rage and fear mongering that is incoherent–it’s also arrogant dismissals like Seth R’s, which is not only nonsensical but indefensible even in the terms in which he frames it. And that’s why not only his religion but his personal ethics are so thoroughly tainted by his reaction to a political issue that should be far more transitory than the leaders of his church will let it be.
I care about gays as much as I care about anyone. It’s just that I’ve got my own social causes that I’m passionate about – that impact everyone in my community, and not just one group.
I don’t view Prop 8 as half as serious a blow to the gay community as many here do. California was already offering the same rights to gays as heterosexuals under other laws. Not all rights necessarily, but certainly most of them. Prop 8 was a setback – not a disaster. That’s part of my reason for not appreciating the tone of many here (which, by the way, I’ll be the first to admit is light years better than the borderline psychotic blathering going on over at places like Queerty or the Huffington Post). But that’s only part of the reason. Part of the other reason is I just don’t see much point in losing your cool in general. It gets in the way of getting actual results.
I thought Prop 8 was misguided. I opposed it. I’ll still oppose it as unfair. You can read my post opposing it the August before the election here:
http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=813&cpage=1
I’ve been trying to promote a viable compromise position since day one. I want gays to have the same rights. But don’t ask me to join your little rage party. Not interested.
It seems to me if you guys were being sensible about this, you’d be willing to accept your allies where you can find them. But if you want, you can continue with the anger approach. Maybe if you continue with it long enough, you’ll figure out why the pro gay marriage side LOST in California, despite superiority in funding, political positioning, and momentum.
The fact that you’re willing to sit here and “take it out on me” (one of the few Mormons who’s actually been trying to bridge gaps here) – demonstrates to me that you care more about your resentment, than you do about getting equal rights for gays.
I know I’m little miss “civil dialog” around here, but I actually disagree with your statement. I think that important issues often require multiple approaches. Civil dialog is absolutely critical, and yet there’s also a time and a place for getting angry. See Greta Christina’s piece on this.
Absolutely. That’s part of the reason we’re having this discussion.
Seth, you know very well that we appreciate your coming here to engage us in discussion. You also know people are going to disagree with your position here, passionately. It doesn’t mean we’re persecuting you. Are you objecting to Kaleo’s question about whether you’re part of the problem?
As far as Holly calling your position arrogant is concerned, you chose to make vague accusations of “incoherent rage” over a “transitory political issue,” and people are reacting to that choice of terminology, not attacking you personally.
Seth, I sincerely and wholeheartedly appreciate your opposition to Prop 8 and your support of equal rights for everyone. I really, really do.
That said, regarding the rage that you despise… have you ever wondered WHERE the rage comes from? Or is it irrelevant to you? Does the rage exist in a vacuum, or could there possibly be a fairly valid reason behind it?
Yes, I know that it’s not a practical way to approach things… but the rage that was expressed after Prop 8 (with the exception of the few lawbreakers), along with the dissappointment and hurt, was completely valid.
Kaileo, I’m interested in results and getting things done. The question of whether someone’s anger is “valid” or justified, or whatever is only of interest to me insofar as it impacts the desired results.
Chanson, interesting article. But it would be more compelling if the gay side actually had a “good cop.”
Who’s the “good cop?”
And I think something is being missed here. As far as I can tell there is a subtle split going on in the leadership of the LDS Church and it’s attitudes toward homosexuality. I would think that gay activists would be well-advised to take advantage of that fracture – rather than doing their best to seal it back up into a united hostile front by trying to generalize the debate into how much Mormonism or the LDS Church sucks in general.
What the gay community is doing right now kind of reminds me of what George Bush Jr. did with his “Axis of Evil” speech. He hijacked Korean peace talks, undermined the moderate Khatami in Iran – paving the way for a reactionary backlash, and squandered the sympathy that we already had from our European and other allies after the September 11 disaster.
Lashing out often feels good – but it has its consequences. In this case, a hardening of the opposing faction.
She answered that question in her article:
Also note:
Sure, but that’s a pretty complex strategy you’re recommending, especially considering how many gay activists knew zero about the LDS Church before the Prop. 8 fiasco.
“is only of interest to me insofar as it impacts the desired results.”
So the answer is: no, you don’t care. But you know, being too practical about something can backfire. People need to be heard.
Lashing out? You really think that the protests after the vote qualifies as lashing out? C’mon, it’s simply good old-fashioned democracy. But most Mormons do seem to have a well-honed persecution complex, so perhaps that’s why they felt that way. And since I feel that I deserve to be heard, then I must needs listen as to why Mormons feel persecuted.
I’d be interested to know what this “subtle shift” is, that you feel is happening. Boyd Packer seemed to extinguish any hope of that this last conference.
That said, the Mormon church is unlikely to be the main focus of national gay activist groups… they may be wealthy, but the Mormons are otherwise a very small church… only 0.20% of the world’s pop is Mormon, and even in the US, it’s less than 2%.
Furthermore, Seth, you said, “What the gay community is doing right now kind of reminds me of what George Bush Jr. did with his Axis of Evil speech.”
I’m sorry, but I find that comparison pretty extreme and not realistic. What specific things are the “gay community” doing that would warrant such a comparison?
And you know what? Demonizing the Mormon church HAS worked for the gay community. Support of gay marriage in California is now at the reverse percentages… 50% support it vs. 45% opposed. The thing is, most Mormons tend to think that the gay community should somehow be making nice with them (“the gays are lashing out at us!”), when in fact, the church makes a GREAT villain!
Sad, but true.
(I will add that, it’s not hard to demonize the Mormon church… being opposed to equal rights is a pretty rotten thing to do. The Mormons pretty much do their own demonizing.)
Actually Boyd K. Packer’s speech was a good example of how this shift is occurring. What people don’t know about that incident is that it’s standard practice for Apostles and other speakers to look over their talks the day after General Conference concludes and make any changes they want to make. In Packer’s case – he softened the language.
Now, I know gay protesters like to claim credit for that – but their planned protests occurred well after the standard revision period. So Packer’s revisions would have occurred in absence of any protester activity.
And we’re talking about the apostle with the biggest reputation for conservatism among the Twelve. And even he is softening the rhetoric. Not a huge change in the text – I know – but it seems to indicate even larger shifts in opinion within the quorum.
That ought to be encouraging – if everyone wasn’t so busy making up insults about him, perhaps they might have noticed.
Kaileo, if you want to talk about results – we need to be clear which results we are talking about. Are you talking about the campaign to make gay marriage happen in California? Or are you talking about trying to influence the LDS Church’s stance and make life better for gays living in a Mormon context? I was talking about the latter – something I consider much more important than Prop 8 (the legal impact of which has been rather exaggerated in my opinion).
Chanson, that article didn’t point to anyone in the gay community playing good cop with the LDS Church. As far as I was aware, the Human Rights Campaign is not in contact with the LDS Church. So I think my question remains.
Seth — I brought up her article as an explanation of the principle that civil dialog isn’t the only strategy (and that the existence of angry activists doesn’t necessarily undermine the efforts of those who seek compromise and understanding).
Regarding who’s the “good cop” negotiating with the LDS church: I understand that groups such as Equality Utah have attempted to negotiate with LDS leaders, inasmuch as LDS leaders will grant them an audience. (Somebody who knows more about the specifics of gay organizing in Utah can correct me and/or give details.)
One thing to remember is that the LDS leaders don’t have to negotiate with the moderates. The CoJCoL-dS is not a public/democratic institution that is required to listen to people. And without the angry agitation in the public sphere, the brethren would probably still be telling themselves that they can safely just ignore any moderate, civil organizers who come knocking on their door.
I want to agree with Seth on something!!!
I agree 100%. I’m all about finding allies. I think where this thread is bickering is in whether or not it’s okay to call Mormonism (the religion) “bigoted”, and Mormons who oppose same-sex marriage rights “bigots”. I don’t think Seth is a bigot (in this regard; as I mentioned earlier, I think we’re probably all at least a little bigoted). And I see Seth as something of an ally.
But, and here’s the problem, Seth doesn’t want us, those outside the religion who are critical of its work to disempower homosexuals, to call his religion “bigoted” because it is still his religion and he’s not bigoted. I’ve tried to be very careful in my language in this thread and not say that all Mormons are bigoted in this regard. Seth is an example of one who is not (and I know others).
But the leaders of the institution are bigots. And the policies of the institution are bigoted. So, while I see Seth as an ally on this position (though, perhaps, one not doing as much as he could as I’d love to see him withhold tithing or make some other stand against the religion until it changes its position), I have a hard time agreeing to his terms. The institution and its leadership are bigots, despite some of the members not being bigots. So long as the leadership continues the way it has, they will be met with contempt on my end.
Oh, and Seth, do you really think Packer edited his own talk? Or do you think the bureaucrats who run the Church and the PR department swooped in on him and “forced” the changes? My guess is more the latter than the former.
I don’t think withholding my tithing would change much, and it would actually put me in less of a position to do anything (not that I’m pretending to be some dynamo of insider influence or anything). Besides, I have no problem contributing to the LDS fund for church buildings, overhead, and even shopping mall projects. Contributions from the actual LDS Church were pretty minimal on the Prop 8 issue (mostly just paying for plane tickets and such – though it did rather irk me that the LDS Church wasn’t more forthcoming about it). So I wouldn’t feel like my tithing was really being used on stuff like this.
To be honest, if I really wanted to protest with funds, I’d probably reduce the “Tithing” amount on my donation slip and contribute the funds to the Perpetual Education Fund, Missionary Fund, Temple Fund, or Humanitarian Aid instead. But anyway….
Other than that, I’m willing to leave the issue be with profxm’s take. Not much I want to take issue with.
To answer your question though – I do think it was actually Pres. Packer himself who made the changes. I base this on the information I heard about how review of the talks by the speaker the next day is standard procedure. It fits well with my experience of the LDS Church. And I also just don’t see the other members of the Quorum of the Twelve having enough clout to “pressure” Pres. Packer into anything like this. He’s a pretty established and unpressurable guy. His staff might have suggested some changes and he agreed to them – in which case, that’s really just as good as Pres. Packer himself making the changes. As an executive, your office staff speak with your voice, and it’s all your responsibility anyway. So that basically amounts to him making the changes himself.
I think hints of some sinister LDS “shadow bureaucracy” swooping in and telling an apostle what to do smell of fresh baked conspiracy theory.
But since neither of us have a way to check, I guess it really just boils down to your speculations vs. mine. I think my scenario is more likely, obviously.
I think this line from chanson @ 95 really cuts to the chase. While I agree that there is a fracture on the topic (I heard from someone who knows someone who said that God Loveth His Children was a very difficult pamphlet for the Quorum to put together, for instance!)…nevertheless, movement is largely internal. Change will likely occur from concerted outside effort making Mormonism out of touch with its surrounding culture as much as, if not more than, finding allies within the Church and grassroots politics within the Church. That’s just my opinion, though.
Seth, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to imagine a younger person Packer trusts suggesting to change the language, and Packer acquiescing. The man is nearly 90 years old; it’s actually more difficult for me to imagine him not listening to other people on minor details, even if he’s stubborn.
In which case Alan – that demonstrates exactly the kind of attitude shift in President Packer that I was talking about.
Huh. I have a hard accepting that someone who dismisses a cause as a transitory political issue he doesn’t have time to care about is really much of an ally in that cause. He might not be a flat-out enemy, but the snotty insistence that it’s just not really a big deal, coupled with a demand that the movement take his comfort so thoroughly into consideration, makes him an impediment rather than an ally.
It’s very foolish to ignore the importance of collectively losing one’s cool, to many social movements and especially to the gay rights movement, which started, after all, with the Stonewall Riots, not the Stonewall peace march. The riots worked, when nothing else had.
I’m not demanding anything of you Holly.
You are perfectly free to self-destruct online in the name of therapy as much as you like.
Seth@101 — that is dangerously close to being a personal attack. Holly, also, you make a valid point, but it’s not helpful to call Seth’s comments “snotty insistence”. You can see where that leads…
Chanson, has Holly even once on this blog EVER been accused of a “personal attack?”
@ 103: Srsly? Good grief. Your 101 was mean and rude and contributed nothing.
Chino, you are right about one thing – I have been escalating my own rhetoric here and I probably need to cool it a few notches.
Kaileo, I’ve been taking a practical approach (whether it is practical is still in debate). And I realize that it hasn’t exactly been sensitive or validating of the hurt people are feeling. What you went through with your family stinks. I have no reservations in saying that. I even mentioned it yesterday while I was tallying up tithing donation (I’m currently financial clerk) with a member of my bishopric. I mentioned your story of being booted from the house and he agreed with me that that was waay out of line. I’m sure many other Mormons would agree – but many might not. Many might agree with the disown-the-gay-son approach. And that’s a real problem with our culture that needs to be fixed.
But just to explain (not justify) my position – part of the reason I take a somewhat callous approach in online debate is precisely because I care quite a bit about people, and am very sensitive to their discomfort. I was always running out of the room as a kid during scenes in movies where characters ended up in socially awkward situations, and I still can’t watch socially awkward scenes from even stuff like… Back to the Future, for instance. I empathize too much with the characters on the screen, and I end up having to leave.
But as a result, I’ve often been pretty easy to manipulate by others through appeal to emotion – in real life. I’ve been burned by it on several occasions too.
This has, over the years, made me really touchy about emotional manipulation. For instance, nothing I see on TV (including sex, violence, and even payday loan commercials) pisses me off even half as much as those ridiculously teary-faced close-ups they do on the evening news of someone who had a tragedy. It feels like a violation of the person on the screen, and it is a total assault on my senses. I hate it. And I realize the emotional appeal is obscuring other issues as well.
I hated the “Mormon Proposition” movie trailer for this very reason. It was such a shameless, emotion-laden attempt at manipulation, I felt honestly a little dirty after watching it (and the dirty feeling had nothing to do with being part of the Mormon-church).
In short, I feel like a lot of people out there are trying to manipulate a quick response through stories of suicides, teary confessionals, and such. And that the objective facts are being concealed. I don’t like being pushed around. I don’t like being manipulated. And the more people up the ante on the emotions homefront, the more I feel like they are trying to pull a fast one on me.
Kind of like a girl I knew as a youth in our stake who would get up to bear her testimony and “manufacture” a bunch of tears so that we would all think she was “spiritual.” I didn’t like being emotionally manipulated by “faithful” people, and I certainly don’t care for it from the DAMU either.
This is why when everyone is breaking out the high-pitched emotional rhetoric, I always go “shields at maximum” so to speak. I even went into this mode the day after September 11, actually. All the foaming at the mouth patriotism and ballads frankly disturbed me. I got just a bit cynical in response (ask my mom – she was pretty pissed at me at the time). But my worries about the rally-around-America-fest were also pretty legitimate, and many of them were born out in the ensuing years.
So Kaileo, it’s not that I don’t care. It’s that I don’t let myself care too much. Because I know people are trying to take advantage of me and others. And I happen to be susceptible to it.
And incidentally, you have been very gracious in this conversation. So thank you.
What “objective facts” are you looking for, Seth? And if they were presented to you, how do you know you wouldn’t dismiss them with a turn of phrase? Certainly, I think individuals suicides are amplified by the gay establishment to support the cause. I’ll be the first to point this out. There’s a politics to it. But what tends to happen in conservative communities is if someone committed suicide and their suicide note talks about homosexuality, but the person was known to have depression or be bipolar, then the family and community blames it on the mental illness and dismisses the question of homosexuality. They say: “Oh, but this homosexual over here hasn’t committed suicide; they’re happy enough and have less mental illness, so therefore it was the mental illness and not the homosexuality.” So, even if an “objective fact” was demonstrated — which, to me, came in the words of the suicide note — people still refuse to face it.
What amazes me is how the gay activists complain about freedom of expression but they always condemn and label those who have another beliefs, what a bunch of hypos…So far I haven’t read a good response without using the terms bigot, homophobic, etc. Be creative…don’t be narrow minded…
What amazes me is how the conservative religious activists complain about how their religious rights are being violated, but they think nothing of violating the civil rights of gays.
Gay complain about freedom of expression? Since when? Sounds like a straw man argument there. So much for the “hypo” claim.
And as far as the terms “bigot” or “homophobic” are concerned, if the shoe fits, then a fabulous gay fashion designer is certainly going to put that shoe on you! (LOL) The question that religious should be asking themselves is, “What behavior or words of mine would cause them to call me a bigot? What can I learn from that?”
Hello SweetPea! I’d love to hear your thoughts on the kinship between LDS and the Roman Catholic Church. The Eyres have done a few speaking engagements that have been sponsored by the Catholic Church. Plus, the two churches seem to be showing a unified front against gay marriage and gay adoption. Or have you already touched on this topic and I missed it??
Loved the article! Especially the Justifying Bigotry = Bigotry ^10 .. lol!
Tyff
Richard and Linda dont realize that they probably have a member of their own family who is gay and will NEVER tell them because they know what they think about the whole idea. So keep giving talks about how wrong it is to be gay R +L! You are destroying the self worth of someone very dear to you. All because you do not choose the road of UNCONDITIONAL love and acceptance. The moment you open your yapper to talk about Gods law or spiritual law you are NOT loving and accepting your loved one UNCONDITIONALLY. The sad part is by the time they figure this out their loved one will probably be dead. (From suicide) This is usually when mormons realize what they were doing was slowing erasing that person from life. Typical oblivious mormons. Their religion is more important than loving the individual.