Mormon Church Rebukes Pro Gay Marriage Commercial

Exciting week on the issue everyone. A new youtube commercial was launched on Halloween depicting 2 Mormon missionaries entering a lesbian couples home, taking their rings and ripping up their marriage certificate. Now, the LDS church has come out with an official response, stating “The Church has joined a broad-based coalition in defense of traditional marriage. While we feel this is important to all of society, we have always emphasized that respect be given to those who feel differently on this issue. It is unfortunate that some who oppose this proposition have not given the Church this same courtesy.”

Wow, where to start? Let me first say that I’m not a fan of the commercial. I thought it was over the top, and encouraging of stereotypes. However, the message is essentially correct, as what the church is attempting to accomplish is to take away the legally-given rights of homosexual couples, and deny them what they hold so dear to themselves.

I’ve stated before that I understand that the church has a very narrow-view of scripture, and believe that homosexuality is a sin. I also fully support their right to believe that, even if I disagree. But what they seem to fail to grasp is that attempting to politically or legally block others rights, they will never win over supporters. As a church, they want to gain members and “change” people from their “wicked lifestyles.” How will they do this if they are not practicing what they themselves preach? The church continually lauds love and respect for all those who are different from themselves, but when it comes down to it, they wish to deny others from making their own choices in life.

Separation of Church and State. It’s there for a reason. The church preaches that God will never force people to follow him. So why the change all of a sudden? Why is it that now all of a sudden God supposedly wants to change everything up and go with what the LDS church teaches is Satan’s plan? You MUST do what God wants!

I know I’ve posted about this several times before, but this issues scares me so much. I have great respect fot the Mormon church, and it’s humanitarian efforts. But this unprecedented move into politics in such direct contradiction with it’s own doctrine is frightening.

Advertisements

11 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Jeremy Nicoll on November 4, 2008 at 2:00 pm

    I’m a bit confused as to how you reach your conclusions here are the questions that I have for you:

    How is their interpretation of scriptures narrow? If by narrow you mean “take the scriptures to mean what they say they mean” then I guess that could be considered narrow minded. I’ve yet to find any scripture in the Bible or Book of Mormon that condones the practice of homosexuality. In fact, every scripture that talks about it condemns it harshly.

    It’s not just about gaining members. It’s about teaching and encouraging people to lead lifestyles that will ultimately make them happy in this life and the life to come. In my experience, pandering to what most people want is not conducive to this philosophy.

    It is my understanding that California currently affords all rights to domestic partnerships that it does to married couples. They can even wear rings if they want to. What the LDS church is basically saying is that government should not _sanction_ marriage between gay couples. There’s a difference here that most people are missing. Gay proponents in this case do not simply want the same rights, they want something this considered a civic sin to now be considered a virtue. This is what the church is against. People can still make their choices, but not everyone has to agree that they are right.

    Furthermore, in the US there is no such thing as separation between church and state – at least not in the sense brandied about by many atheists. All it means is that no church should directly control the government. The LDS church (and any other church for that matter) has a right by law to vocalize their opinions about issues that affect the well being of their members and the nation. Suppressing this right is a scary thing – suppress another’s voice by law and you may find that one day you are suppressed by the same.

    Reply

  2. Posted by ethingtoneric on November 4, 2008 at 2:17 pm

    In reply to Jeremy:

    The church itself has stated on several occassions that it would be immoral and unethical if it ever were to involve itself in the legal proceedings of a government. Now I understand that the church’s official stance is against gay marriage, and perhaps even against homosexuality in general. However, for any religion to impose it’s beliefs in a political fashion violates every purpose of a religion. At what point in any scripture does it encourage people to force their views on others? Doesn’t the LDS church teach that people are free to make their own choices? I was raised LDS and I cannot recall one scripture that said God wanted to FORCE people to do what he supposedly wants.

    Also, when I mentioned the narrow view the church has scripture. I was referencing what is becoming more commonly accepted as the meaning behind the word “abomination” that the scripture uses in reference to homosexuality. It is very widely accepted that this is a mistranslation from the original text, in the sense that the word does not today have the same meaning that it did in Christ’s time. A more accurate translation that would hold the same meaning would be “uncommon.” Also remember that the verse prior to that one says that eating shellfish is an abomination. So why is it that you get to pick and choose which one you follow and which one was just a local custom?

    Reply

  3. Posted by Jeremy Nicoll on November 4, 2008 at 3:01 pm

    What “the church” has actually said is that it does not endorse specific candidates. They’ve actually changed this policy as in the early days, the church was quite a bit more active in the political scene – even endorsing candidates. There is no _doctrine_ in the church that says it’s wrong to get politically involved – it’s just a church policy to only get involved with issues that are felt to be important to the moral fabric of our societies.

    By passing any law, you are “forcing” a view on others. Should we not have laws then? We should all just be able to do whatever we want with no consequences? If you read the stories carefully of “Satan trying to force all others”, you’ll note that he does not actually _say_ that. What he says is that he will bring all people to heaven – that’s it. To me this implies one of two things: either he would force all people to do right (the common perception), or he would bring everyone back regardless of what they have done. The latter would simply remove the consequences of our actions (good for good, evil for evil) and thus destroy the whole point of having a choice in the first place. Seems to me that this is what you propose, that we should have no consequence for our actions.

    If you are going to reference specific scriptures, I would suggest actually giving the reference. There are, however, mentions of Mosaic law in the Old Testament that were “fulfilled” by Christ’s death – such as the sacrifices and such. Nowhere in the New Testament does Christ or any of his apostles say that “well, I guess homosexuality is now OK.” – in fact, it’s condemned in the New Testament as well.

    Speaking of References:
    Gen. 19: 1-11 (Lot protecting angels from the men of Sodom)
    Deut. 23: 17 (Decrying sodomy, part of which definition is homosexuality)
    Isa. 3: 9 Sin as sodom – and what sins did the Sodomites commit again?
    1 Cor. 6: 9-10 & 1 Timothy 1: 9-10 – Saying that “abusers of themselves with mankind” shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
    Jude 1:7 – also decrying “going after strange flesh” and fornication.

    You can talk about the misrepresentation of the word “abomination” – which I can’t argue with one way or the other. However, there are plenty of other scriptures that decry the practice quite plainly. To say that the LDS church does not follow it’s own beliefs in this case is a lie.

    Reply

  4. Posted by ethingtoneric on November 4, 2008 at 3:45 pm

    “The Church does not become involved in politics. We don’t favor any candidate. We don’t permit our buildings to be used for political purposes. We don’t favor any party.”

    – Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, Larry King Live, television program, Sept 8. 1998

    ______________________________________________________________
    Also, look at what Sodom and Gomorrah actually references. This is the problem with using the King James version, it’s not a very accurate translation (as the church admits, which is why Joseph Smith produced the “correct version”).

    Sodom and Gomorrah is actually a lesson on being inhospitable. One of the ancient Jewish tenants stated that if someone showed up at your house, you were obligated to take them in and entertain them (feed them and give them lodging etc..). The King of Sodom had passed a law canceling out the law of entertaining strangers, so when they heard that Lott was giving food and loding to the two strangers, they attempted to arrest them etc..

    This is one of the most commonly misinterpreted stories in the bible, and again goes back to mis-translations.

    Also please explain to me why God would want people to deny what is natural to them. Now before anyone says that it’s unnatural, please keep in mind that “homosexual relations are common in nature, including zebras, babboons, dolphins, sheep, buffalo, ducks, foxes, elephants, horses, gorillas, house cats, pigs, mice, rabbits, swans, and lions, to name a few.”

    Please remember that homosexuals have nothing wrong with them! And that’s not my opinion, that’s according to, “The American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, The American Psychoanalitic Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, and the National Association of Social Workers.” They have all said that sexual orientation is not a choice, and CANNOT be changed.

    “homosexual relations are common…” and “the american medical…” quotes courtesy of “For the Bible Tells Me So.”

    Reply

  5. Posted by Jeremy Nicoll on November 4, 2008 at 4:13 pm

    So you are basically saying people are going to burn in hell for being inhospitable? Wow, and some people say my beliefs are harsh.

    Your interpretation makes no sense. Do you know the meaning of the word “know” in this sense? It means to have intercourse with. Why else would Lot offer to send his daughters out (which I admit is a rather twisted thing to do, I’m not defending Lot). You twist the scriptures to mean whatever you want them to mean. If you indeed accept the Bible as truth, then what does it matter what men say? However, you only use the parts of the Bible to seemingly support what you want to believe and try to convince others to shut up.

    I do not subscribe to the idea that men are victim to their own feelings. My own personal experience has taught me otherwise – even in many matters when so called experts (psychologists, doctors, etc) told me that I could not change.

    As I said before, the choice to refrain from most political activity is a policy, not a doctrine. Joseph Smith even had aspirations to run for president before he was murdered. The church has just as much of a right to voice their opinions on political issues as any other organization or person. Talk about trying to take away people’s rights….

    As for the church “admitting” that it’s not the best version – that is also false. It is used because it is believed to be a good translation, but still incorrect in parts which is why parts were “retranslated.” So what version are we to go off of? The new age versions that water down the message to mean whatever the “translators” felt comfortable with? You still have not addressed other scriptures that condemn it outright. If you don’t feel that the Bible is right, come out and say it. I can respect that much more than someone who twists meanings to win an argument. Claiming mis-translation any time that you don’t like something is mindless.

    Murder is natural, so is stealing. Little children take candy from the store because they don’t “know better” until they are hopefully taught by their parents otherwise. Animals kill each other all the time in nature! _We_ don’t even want everyone to behave completely naturally with no regard to laws. I hope this explanation is enough to dispel the idea of doing things only because we feel like them (or “naturally”).

    1 Cor. 2: 14 – “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

    Reply

  6. Posted by ethingtoneric on November 4, 2008 at 4:23 pm

    I don’t claim to believe in the bible. My point in referencing it is that technically (if you believe that you should use the most accurate translations of texts) the main scriptures of your religion don’t ever condemn homosexuality 🙂 And any church should no better than to force their own beliefs on others, andn to go even further by publicly donating such a large sum, and then use Bishops and Stake Presidents to encourage their own members to donate extra money to the cause, and spen up to 20 hours per week calling California. Sounds like a political party to me…. (see “follow up thoughts on Mormon church v. California Prop 8” at ethingtoneric.wordpress.com)

    Reply

  7. Posted by dbundy on November 7, 2008 at 10:49 pm

    What needs to be said, but seldom is, has to do with the homosexual sex act itself. It’s perverted. It is an abomination, but few are ready to acknowledge it.

    This is the real reason why the LDS Christians oppose SSM, and why non-LDS Christians oppose it, or should oppose it. God has forbidden man to lie with man, because it perverts the purpose of sex and marriage.

    When Mormons teach their children about marriage, it’s in the context of a bond and relationship that will never end, passing through death, standing before the judgment seat of God, rising in the resurrection, and dwelling with the billions of families that will inhabit the earth for a thousand years, preparing for its coming transformation into a celestial abode, when the old earth and the old heavens shall pass away, as a new earth and a new heavens replace them.

    In that day, the former earth and the former heavens will not be remembered, or come to mind. However, this great hope and glorious vision of the future is forever lost to those who, for whatever reason, reject the path that leads to their part in it.

    Yet, that is their business, and they have the God-given right to choose what they will believe, or will not believe.

    Nevertheless, it would be foolish to think that the Mormons don’t understand how their children will have to withstand the persuasion of those who will come among them saying, “Believe it not!”

    They will be cajoled, prodded, brow beaten, scorned and even persecuted for their faith in the sanctity of marriage. They will be urged to reject it as folly, to look upon it narrowly and consider it as a foolish and a vain hope, in a thousand subtle, and some not so subtle, ways, and, alas, many will surely succumb, choosing to believe it not.

    Do you think, then, that the Mormons don’t have the right, indeed the duty, to defend their position, for their children’s sake? Should they not be expected to seek to firmly establish the holiness of marriage in the minds of the people, striving to circumscribe and minimize, in every legal and ethical manner possible, the power and influence of those whose persuasion in the schools, in the media, and in the halls of the state, is, and ever will be, exerted to deny it, to the utmost of their ability?

    Institutionalizing perversion, officially calling good evil and evil good, allows it to be taught in public schools, written into public laws, accepted as the community standard, and treated as a publicly sanctified norm, to which no opposition can be brooked.

    Clearly, we must oppose such a move, and resist those who seek to establish it, for whatever reason, or face the consequences, when we are fully ripened in our iniquity, like the cities of the plain.

    Reply

  8. Posted by ethingtoneric on November 7, 2008 at 11:57 pm

    Dear Mr. Bundy;

    And what is the Church doing but brow-beating and scorning others who are trying to express their beliefs? I will not waste time pointing out the obvious flaws in your scriptural arguments, (for instance have you ever eaten shrimp? Because that’s an abomination too) or pointing our well-known translation issues.
    However, I completely support the Church’s right to take it’s anti-gay and anti-gay marriage stance, within it’s religious tenants. But what does that have to do with llegal opposing other’s rights? The church also once taught it’s own version of non-traditional marriage, and that people of color could not hold the priesthood or worship in the temple. People need to open their eyes and realize that we do not live in a theocracy, and “Freedom of Religion” also means Freedom FROM Religion. I’m sorry but there is not a valid, non-religious reason to hold back another’s civil rights.

    Reply

  9. Posted by dbundy on November 8, 2008 at 4:56 pm

    I’m not saying there is a “a valid, non-religious reason to hold back another’s civil rights.” I’m saying there is a valid religious reason for preventing the institutionalization of sexual perversion.

    You can argue that homosexuality is not sexual perversion, and convince many, but not through the power of logic.

    I agree that freedom of religion includes freedom from religion, but religious motives for the establishment of societal norms do not enforce religion on the non-religious members of that society, even though it may proscribe their behavior.

    When the decisions of society are a matter of judgment, the wisdom of the decision may have little to do with fair and equal treatment of its members. Hence, the prohibition of SSM, to protect society’s interest in the procreation of families, may infringe on the license of homosexuals to legitimize the practice of their perversion, but it doesn’t mean that the right to the license is guaranteed under the constitution and is being violated.

    A free society can decide that its interest lies in the denial of citizenship, or in the issuance of a passport, or a visa, or a marriage certificate, until such requirements as it deems necessary are fulfilled, without infringing on the civil liberties of individuals who disagree with the character of those requirements.

    In this case, the requirements for a marriage certificate, which have been established in California, are that the couple be capable of procreation. If a man or a woman want to participate in procreation in some other way, raising the offspring as would a married couple, society may still take a dim view of such arrangements on grounds that it is unsustainable in the long term, on some other grounds, but in any case, it cannot be argued that the civil rights of those not meeting the specified requirements are violated.

    What the Mormon church did was argue for the requirements of the license, not for the denial of inalienable rights of homosexuals.

    Reply

  10. In this case, the requirements for a marriage certificate, which have been established in California, are that the couple be capable of procreation.

    Wow, did you misread it! Proposition 8 contains no requirement that marriage shall be open only to a man capable of producing fertile sperm and who has not had a vasectomy or any other sterilisation, with a woman capable of producing fertile eggs, obviously still pre-menopausal, and who has not had a tubal ligation or any other sterilisation. You really need to read the text of the Proposition before you make such wild claims.

    Reply

  11. Posted by LaMarr on December 27, 2009 at 9:48 am

    Christ himself would be thrown out of any”christian” college in the United States. NEWS FLASH, HE WAS GAY!

    First off he took men from there families and said, “Come Follow Me.”

    He slept with 12 men, we also know that he was a sound sleeper because they had to wake him when the boat was rocking. (Hey 12 healthy men together, GO FIGURE.)

    He ungirded himself and washed there feet. (can you say foot fetish?)

    His beloved layed on his breast.

    In Matthew he recommends cutting your nuts off for the kingdom of GOD. (do you see a comet to Kolob?)

    When Christ died, his boyfriends, didn’t go forth in love, but rather reverted to there own traditions of the Pharasies.

    How dare those MORONS claim to be christian without loving boyfriends?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: