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