General Conference - Fall 2010

[KatieMCR]

Undoubtedly the church had specific interest in seeing prop 8 passed. And they did what they could, within their legal rights, to help it along. But you are up in the night if you think the mormons pushed prop 8 through. If the entire mormon population of CA voted for prop 8, which they didn't, it wouldn't even be on the radar. But I don't see anyone lambasting the minority voters who actually drove the referendum through.

The LDS church was responsible for Prop 8 being on the ballot to begin with. They used one of their front groups to get it on the ballot. They then contributed money from their own accounts, and told members to donate money. They even had to pay a fine due to their contributions to the campaign. They shouldn't be involved in politics in that way. Anyway that's really off the topic of the current controversy.

 

[Bronco70]

The LDS church was responsible for Prop 8 being on the ballot to begin with.

Undoubtedly the church had specific interest in seeing prop 8 passed. I said that before. Nobody is denying...

They even had to pay a fine due to their contributions to the campaign.

More correctly, they were fined for a minor procedural oversight in the filing of their paperwork. This is just another example of how you like to twist information to suit your agenda.

 

[G-O-A-T]

Nope. In that respect you are 100% completely correct.

But I'm not talking about gays being married by the church. I'm talking about a specific element of LDS doctrine that requires a chaste life. The church definition of chastity, to my understanding, is; complete fidelity to one's lawful spouse, and no sexual relations outside of such a legal marital relationship. Adherence to this and other principles is required to fully participate in the ordinances of LDS gospel.

So... if you have a gay couple who is abiding by every other church guideline, why should they be denied these ordinances? Therein lies the paradox. I've always understood (and I am completely open to the possibility that I am way off) that to the church homosexuality was, more or less, a subset of the Law of Chastity (see above).

I understand that to 99.9% of gay people, this is irrelevant and unimportant. But there is a handful who want to be full-on mormons, and be gay too. This is a potential loophole that leaves the possibility of legal action.

I honestly don't believe that any court in the U.S. would force (let alone even hear the case) the church to accept an individual as a member of the LDS, or any church. So, what I'm saying is, is that no matter how much a gay person wants to be a mormon... they can't force the church to allow them to be mormon. 1st amendment constitutional rights are the source of this belief.

It's like if you owned a business... the state can't come in and force you to hire someone (unless you are a state funded business)... or can't come to your house and make you be friends with some random guy. The church is a private entity and should be treated as such... and will regardless of state marriage laws.

Undoubtedly the church had specific interest in seeing prop 8 passed. And they did what they could, within their legal rights, to help it along. But you are up in the night if you think the mormons pushed prop 8 through. If the entire mormon population of CA voted for prop 8, which they didn't, it wouldn't even be on the radar. But I don't see anyone lambasting the minority voters who actually drove the referendum through.

No, mormons alone didn't get prop 8 passed, but didn't they get fined for their involvement with prop 8? I don't remember the details anymore, so I might be wrong... but I thought they paid for commercials supporting the passage of prop 8 also. That to me is getting far too involved with state law... it's one thing to ask individual members all vote a certain way, it's another to broadcast your propaganda to the general public.

As for the minority voters who drove the referendum through... they should be lambasted! But they aren't because they weren't the voice that everyone heard telling people to pass prop 8... that was the LDS church's role.

 

[KatieMCR]

Undoubtedly the church had specific interest in seeing prop 8 passed. I said that before. Nobody is denying...



More correctly, they were fined for a minor procedural oversight in the filing of their paperwork. This is just another example of how you like to twist information to suit your agenda.

I twisted nothing. What paperwork did they file incorrectly? Paperwork about their contributions to the Prop 8 campaign.

 

[KatieMCR]

No, mormons alone didn't get prop 8 passed, but didn't they get fined for their involvement with prop 8? I don't remember the details anymore, so I might be wrong... but I thought they paid for commercials supporting the passage of prop 8 also. That to me is getting far too involved with state law... it's one thing to ask individual members all vote a certain way, it's another to broadcast your propaganda to the general public.

As for the minority voters who drove the referendum through... they should be lambasted! But they aren't because they weren't the voice that everyone heard telling people to pass prop 8... that was the LDS church's role.

Here's a link to a news story about the fine: Link.

 

[Scat]

But I don't see anyone lambasting the minority voters who actually drove the referendum through.

This is a point that I see glossed over on a frequent basis. That blacks are overwhelmingly against gay marriage. I think I've seen polls that show upwards of 75% favor making it illegal. Mormons simply make for a more PC target.

I've also seen it mentioned that of all minority groups, blacks should best understand the plight of gays. They obviously don't. No matter what they do, they are black and that cannot be changed or even hidden. A gay person can, at the very least, hide their sexual activities and at most, never act on them while living a life with a wife and kids. I suspect that blacks find it offensive that gays have used a platform that puts their agenda on a equal level with that of blacks especially since gays can and always have been able to vote, go to public schools, sit at the front of the bus, mingle with anyone of another race, etc. Gays' entire "minority" status is based on nothing more than the sex of the person they are attracted to.

 

[unluckyseventeen]

Regardless of if it was legal or not, I don't think anybody can deny that a church contributing to a political fund at all is unethical considering politics couldn't come back and forcefully try to influence anything a church did without tremendous backlash.

Somebody pointed out how hypocritical people defending the church are because of the one-way relationship they think they should be granted, and I couldn't agree more.

Once again, a church shouldn't be sticking it's nose in the matters of modern politics and using their money and power to influence laws. They should be taking the high road and addressing issues within their church, or perhaps worrying more about making society better as a whole because of their presence.

So, the whole prop 8 thing is much more about ethics than laws. Just thought I'd clear up that technicality because I can see a pissing match coming on.

 

[Scat]

They even had to pay a fine due to their contributions to the campaign.

This is not true. They were fined for missing a deadline in filing a report of their donations. They were not fined simply based on donating.

According to the Fair Political Practices Commission’s Web site, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints “failed to timely report making late non-monetary contributions totaling $36,928.”

Here's another quote from a different source

https://unitedwestandky.com/2010/06/mormon-church-fined-in-connection-with-californias-prop-8/

The commission’s five appointed members are scheduled to consider the proposed settlement on Thursday. The investigation did not uncover evidence that the church failed to disclose any contributions but concluded that it failed to meet required deadlines for disclosing the value of 13 days of staff time devoted to the campaign.

There is a vast difference between your generic statement that the LDS church was fined for making donations vs. the LDS church was fined for missing a required deadline. HUGE difference.

To add, it wasn't even monetary in nature.

In a statement, the church claimed that all the contributions it made in support of Proposition 8, “were reported to the appropriate authorities in California.” But it admitted that in the last two weeks of the highly contested campaign, it “mistakenly overlooked the daily reporting requirement for non-monetary contributions,” which would include things like staff time.

 

[unluckyseventeen]

Gays' entire "minority" status is based on nothing more than the sex of the person they are attracted to.

Still seems just as petty as "what color is your skin". People hate others for some really stupid reasons. Ultimately, their choices (actually their involuntary physical/mental state) don't affect you in any of the slightest ways, so you should sit down and mind your own business.

 

[KatieMCR]

Regardless of how anyone wants to spin it, the fine was a result of their contributions to the Prop 8 campaign. The fine also confirmed reports that the LDS church had contributed its own money to the campaign, which were previously being denied. I was lambasted for suggesting the LDS church contributed their own money to the campaign on the old board.

 

[Bronco70]

I twisted nothing. What paperwork did they file incorrectly? Paperwork about their contributions to the Prop 8 campaign.

You omitted pertinent information to infer that the fines were a direct result of the contributions. But hey, why split hairs. Whatever lets you sleep at night.

 

[G-O-A-T]

No one was individually called out during Packer's speech. Immoral acts of impurity were.

OK, for the sake of argument, lets say that he said all people who believed in different celestial kingdoms (Mormons) were impure and unnatural... can you imagine that scenario?

Packer also talked about looking at porno is a sin and is bad. How does that make people feel that look at porn? Probably bad, unless they don't believe in the church and its teachings. Does knowing that people may feel bad keep Packer from delivering his message? No. Does it mean it was a speech that was going to lead to hate towards those that look at porn? No.

Jesus Christ taught us to be "perfect" even as to him. Since no one in the world is perfect, do you think Jesus was teaching something that's going to lead to hate? I mean, he pretty much called everyone out on something that can't be accomplished, right? People feel bad all the time because they "sin" or aren't "perfect", but Jesus wasn't a hateful speaker. Same thing with Packer and his speech.

Can you refer me to any instances of bullying / beatings / murders that originated out of an individuals love of porn / smoking / drinking? Didn't think so. How about homosexuality?

Here is the problem with your analogy: You are comparing a sin - viewing porn - which a majority (or very large minority) of people commit to a sin - homosexuality - which a small minority of the population commits. Looking at porn is an extremely accepted sin in which little to no negative connotation in shed on the individual sinner. On the other hand, homosexuality is something that very few people can personally understand... and hence, historically very unacceptable.

Packer called out an insular group of people (who have had a history of hate crimes committed against them) and called them impure and unnatural... maybe it wasn't hate driven, but it sure was irresponsible and stupid.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Katie and whoever else, lay off the Prop 8 fine thing. It's rather moot and just weakens the valid points raised by yourselves and mine.

 

[KatieMCR]

Katie and whoever else, lay off the Prop 8 fine thing. It's rather moot and just weakens the valid points raised by yourselves and mine.

I agree, and will cease talking about it in this thread.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Archie/Beanclown/franklin/Bronco70, do you believe that sexual orientation is a choice and can be changed?

 

[Bronco70]

Archie/Beanclown/franklin/Bronco70, do you believe that sexual orientation is a choice and can be changed?

For the record, NUMBERICA, I have never argued for the LDS church's position. I have argued that they have the right to a position. I have not argued for or against homosexuality. I do not oppose gay rights or gay marriage (I have mentioned this repeatedly, but it is usually not acknowledged.) But I understand why my church holds the position they do, and have tried to explain it, to the best of my understanding. I have even specifically explained to KatieMCR that I have nothing against who she is, or her endeavor to be true to herself or her cause. I don't oppose the protests that followed BKP's talk. I feel like everyone has the same right to voice their opinion, be they gay or religious. But since I am not "all in", I am inevitably lumped with those who specifically oppose the gay agenda.

In answer to your question, honestly, I don't feel like I have enough information to correctly say. I've read of evidence for both sides. But I don't really have an opinion on it. Gay is gay, and ultimately, we're all humans.

 

[KatieMCR]

Well the church has released a statement on why the changes were made to the transcript.

UPDATE: LateFriday evening, Scott Trotter, LDS Church spokesman, released thefollowing statement regarding the edits made in Elder Packer's talk:


“TheMonday following every General Conference, each speaker has theopportunity to make any edits necessary to clarify differences betweenwhat was written and what was delivered or to clarify the speaker’sintent. President Packer has simply clarified his intent. As we havesaid repeatedly, the Church’s position on marriage and family is clearand consistent. It is based on respect and love for all of God’schildren.”

Link

 

[TroutBum]

Well the church has released a statement on why the changes were made to the transcript.

Sometimes it feels good to be right.


(which is always for me)

 

[C l u t c H 385]

Why are you still here?

I could say the same to you.

 

[Archie Moses]

Archie/Beanclown/franklin/Bronco70, do you believe that sexual orientation is a choice and can be changed?

I don't think it's a choice. Attraction comes naturally and not by choice. I also think there are some factors that contribute to homosexuality. I think anything can be changed, but I also think it's highly unlikely and illogical to expect gay people to change their sexual orientation.