Sunday in Outer Blogness: Opposition Edition!

Sunday in Outer Blogness

What’s up with those who voted “opposed” in conference? Maybe this interview will help explain it. One person who participated (in spirit) described some reasons:

My main issue is that the church needs to have a way for the average member to bring up an issue without being demonized. He said there is a way. Bishop first. Then Stake President. I countered with “But my issues are treatment of LGBT people and no financial transparency and gender inequality issues. How can you help with that?” I also mentioned that what if you are having a personal issue with your stake president and want to speak to his file leader. He said yes I could speak to the area authority. He called him Brother Call. But I don’t know this man nor how I would get in touch with him. Or even if I could. Point made.

The hearing over BYU’s accreditation took place, and the participants recorded it and transcribed it, with commentary. I fear this may be the last we hear of this challenge, but I hope I’m wrong.

We have some fascinating research this week: Corbin Volluz documented the tactics the CoJCoL-dS used to erase Brigham Young’s “Adam-God” doctrine. Nearing Kolob investigated on General Authorities not keeping journals, and why. Ziff tabulated references to the 10 commandments in conference, and Mormonism 101 provided some statistical analysis of LDS attrition.

In other church watch, not everyone is happy with the church turning baptism into bridal prep class for little girls (plus the relentless focus on shoulders). But taking this week’s cake would be the amicus brief (featuring Josh and Lolly Weed, who weren’t happy about their inclusion) arguing against same-sex marriage because it demeans mixed-orientation marriage:

Striking down man-woman marriage laws on the basis of constitutional discrimination would thus send a message to the same-sex attracted that there is only one choice for them, that man-woman marriage is unattainable, that they are acting against their nature for desiring it, and that pursuing it will be dangerous for them, their spouses, and their children.

Weirdly they may have a point about it degrading MoMs, in the sense that MoMs used to be held as superior to same-sex unions. Recognizing same-sex marriage being simply marriage brings the MoMs down to equal footing, and apparently they don’t want to be there.

Dennis Potter made an interesting argument against the new religious liberty laws:

Religious people often abdicate their individual responsibility for their own beliefs: “I reject gay marriage because I am a Mormon.” Yet, there are Mormons that don’t reject gay marriage (indeed, there’s a whole Mormon tradition that is quite progressive). So, don’t tell me that you believe these things because you are a Mormon (or a Christian)! You interpret your tradition in that way because you have accepted anti-gay beliefs. Your homophobia causes your interpretation of your tradition and not the other way around. And this is why it is hard to take you seriously when you tell me that this is a matter of “religious” liberty.

In Mormon culture, does passive-aggressivity beget sarcasm?

In other areas of geek interest, there’s talk of challenging Scientology’s tax-exempt status — here’s the Mormon connection. There’s a controversy brewing in the Hugo Awards: some sad puppies don’t like how diverse Sci-Fi has become (in both authors and topics) and would prefer to keep getting more of the familiar old school stories.

In scripture study, we have more crazy commandments, a Book of Mormon prophet who contradicts othe BoM stories, and, well, Jesus can’t seem to keep his own teachings consistent.

In personal stories, we have a tale of leaving the FLDS, the best “standards night” ever, the challenge of comforting the bereaved when you don’t believe, discovering what happens when you come out as a doubter to your ward, moving, and enjoying San Francisco.

In LDS books, Mormon Heretic gave us a preview of Dan Vogel’s new research on the original anti-Mormon book. Meg Stout likes this book on Joseph Smith’s polygamy because it offers another theory of JS not sleeping with his wives.

And let’s close with some fun! A new mishie video game and a persecution museum!!

Sorry about the lateness of this SiOB: I got a little too caught up with Minecrafting, as you may imagine. 😉

3 thoughts on “Sunday in Outer Blogness: Opposition Edition!

  1. Striking down man-woman marriage laws on the basis of constitutional discrimination would thus send a message to the same-sex attracted that there is only one choice for them, that man-woman marriage is unattainable, that they are acting against their nature for desiring it, and that pursuing it will be dangerous for them, their spouses, and their children.

    For goodness’ sake. I really hope the Supreme Court justices will explode these ridiculous arguments, because it’s been a long time coming, and the Church doesn’t seem to know how to think outside its box.

    The gay rights movement hasn’t been about anyone necessarily satisfying intimacy through the same gender, or about “natures” that would compel one to do so, but rather about everyone having the freedom to do so if they choose, and to live in a world in which that choice is morally accepted.

    Because the Church helps create a world where that choice is not morally accepted, and people do not have such freedom, (due to a badly thought out notion that people have “heterosexual souls”) it’s easy to see why some Mormon lawyers would see a MoM couple like the Weeds and just assume they don’t support marriage equality.

    If anything, the amicus brief demonstrates the failure of LDS lawyers to be able to put forth an internally consistent “Mormon” argument, since some of the very Mormons they cite don’t agree with it.

    Recognizing same-sex marriage being simply marriage

    Hehe, I’m gonna call it “gay marriage” for some time still. I’m okay (and would rather be) not normal.

  2. With the logical arguments gone, all that’s left are the pathos-based ones… e.g., an appeal to a feeling of civilizational demise, etc, which unfortunately correlates well with the Church’s “Latter Days” dogma. *sigh*

  3. And then, the insanity came to pass:

    Legal Same-Sex Marriage Murders Unborn Babies, Conservatives Tell Supreme Court

    A group of scholars along with Heritage Foundation supported anti-gay religious activists are telling the U.S. Supreme Court that legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to 900,000 abortions […] because more unmarried women will lead to more pregnancies in unmarried women.

    One respondent says, the “logic is about as obvious as if they had alleged that raising the minimum wage would increase the frequency of hurricanes. If anything, you’d think that more same-sex marriages would mean more adoptions.”

    What’d I tell ya, all that’s left is an appeal to a feeling of civilizational demise. :p

    (The core of this slippery slope argument is that same-sex marriage contributes to a decrease in “real” marriage, resulting in more out of wedlock pregnancies, resulting in more abortions.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *