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.