From the National Organization for Marriage (These people are dead serious. "I am afraid" Oh man.)
Gay people are so scary.
And Stephen Colbert's fantastic response:
You gotta love Colbert.
20 Years of FMH
2 months ago
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
I laughed so hard at this...
Steven Colbert is a genius! This is very funny. Still the ad it parodies is equally funny, because they're dead serious. I still have yet to have anyone explain to me how gay marriage will destroy the family.
I can't stop laughing!!! Thanks for sharing this.
...a Gaysreal...omg.
I'm a new reader of your blog and I find it very interesting and engaging. I've read some of your older posts and I see that you're a strong proponent of gay marriage. This is your right as an American. I see that you're passionate about the issue, and I have friends and colleagues that would agree with you.
But may I extend a word of caution. I see around me too many faithful Latter-day Saints that are falling into the same traps that the Nephites did in the Book of Mormon. The words of the prophets become tedious and offensive. The views of the world are logical, enticing and popular. Many of the Nephites eventually rejected the prophets, much to their detriment. The cycle continues today!
Now I don't mean to sound preachy or judgmental, though I'm sure I do. I don't believe you're a wicked Nephite. But we have been warned so many times about confusing good and evil! We have been warned by prophets of God about the horrible effects that society's sins will bring:
"We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."
The heavens are stirring. Be not deceived...
Emory:
You must be new.
"I see around me too many faithful Latter-day Saints that are falling into the same traps that the Nephites did in the Book of Mormon."
May I correct you on the "faithful" part.
Anyway. I'm soso glad you don't consider me an evil Nephite. And I appreciate your efforts to steer me back onto the straight and narrow
(hahahahaha! get it?)
but I'm not going there.
Our Prophets and Apostles of early days made even more incendiary declarations and quotes regarding interracial marriage and regarding the black man (one more post I've yet to post, but I'll be damned if I'm not encouraged now). Later the likes of Elder McConkie and others retracted their statements, saying they were working with "limited knowledge" and calling disbelievers in the new revelation to repent.
So.
Thanks but no thanks. I stand by the assertion that today's prophets are *wrong* on this issue. They can have whatever doctrine they want, but gay marriage will no more destroy society just as women voting didnt' destroy society and civil rights didn't destroy society.
Funny how every time a minority wants some rights, some effing equality, we all (the church included) scream how it will bring on the second coming.
And it hasn't.
I stand by my asssertion that the world is no more evil than it was two hundred, three hundred, four hundred years ago. Some even present persuasive arguments to say the world is less evil today.
(logic is not our enemy, btw. but it does seem to be an enemy of the church unless convenient)
Gay marriage is hardly a threat to society.I'll be glad when we all finally realize that.
Lisa,
Thanks for responding to my post.
Individual Mormon leaders have indeed made controversial statements that have later been repudiated. Since we as Latter-day Saints do not believe in inerrant prophets, this is not a concern (at least not like it would be in the Evangelical community). However, these statements have rarely, if ever, been classified as official doctrine, unlike The Family: A Proclamation to the World (a very current, relevant and inspired document). And as far as progressive movements within the Church go, Utah was the second state to grant suffrage to women, and LDS congregations were racially integrated long before our Protestant counterparts.
But all this is beside the point. Lisa, it is so dangerous to ignore or scoff at what the prophet of God reveals unto the Lord's people. To justify this based on the alleged mistakes of past leaders is a weak argument indeed. The scriptures are ripe with examples of what happens when the covenant people reject or compromise the Lord's commandments, as revealed through His prophet.
The real question then becomes whether or not Thomas S. Monson is a prophet of God. Are his counselors and fellow brethren inspired leaders called of Christ? Would they lead the Lord's Church astray?
It is my humble testimony they would not.
Emory, wow. At first I thought you were playing a part but I think you are actually being serious I'd give a counter-argument but it obviously wouldn't matter to you. You readily scoff at logic in favor of...what? Faith?
The Prophets have warned about many things that turned out to be current social norms...
Just addressing the topic of marriage, the Prophets have addressed the evils of monogamy while marrying girls as young as 12, and even marrying other men's wives (while they were married). A Prophet even decreed death as the penalty for inter-racial marriage.
But, I'm sure that is all still true and they weren't leading us astray...and I don't think that using past mistakes to question their current policies is a weak argument. If you set a doctrine that Prophets can never lead people astray and then they lead people astray...the next logical question is: How do I know when I can trust you? Oh but that's a logical question. And we as Mormons aren't supposed to believe in logic.
"He that cannot reason is a fool. He that will not is a bigot. He that dare not is a slave. ~Andrew Carnegie
T.J.,
Again, racist or bigoted statements made by individual Church leaders from the past were never official doctrine, unlike the Family Proclamation, an unprecedented declaration made by fifteen CURRENT prophets.
Polygamy is a different issue. I could defend the often over-exaggerated or false claims made about 'promiscuous' Church leaders, but it would be too much for this blog.
My final thoughts: who are we to pick and choose what the prophet says is true or false? Who are we to think we know better than the Lord? Since when did secular logic trump divine faith?
The Lord commands us to follow the counsel of His prophet. He has always commanded this, and the world has always mocked us for it. We can find a million reasons to justify our disdain for what he says, but pride never did the Saints much good, did it?
We have been warned in strong terms about the disintegration of the family and what effects it will have on our societies. Let's not ignore the Lord's words. And that's about all I have to say.
Thanks for letting me a part of your discussion!
Peace to all.
“It's not denial. I'm just selective about the reality I accept.” - Bill Watterson (Calvin & Hobbes).
It's what I love about TBM's. They have an answer for everything. Why were 40 year old's banging young teens in the name of the Lord...I have the answer.
Hey, whatever makes you happy, Emory, just keep doing it.
Just don't infringe upon others Constitutional rights in the same pursuit...no matter who tells you to discriminate. Not everything the Prophet says...or sends in a memo...is the will of the Lord.
You don't even need to use logic to figure that one out. Just simple historical observation.
Emory:
Listen, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Nothing you are saying isn't what I haven't heard a few times already. And I doubt I'm going to convince you otherwise. I will go as far as to say I don't necessarily want to.
When official prophets/apostles say things in official settings, it isn't beyond reason to consider those words, well, official.
And official things have been said in official settings. Ridiculous things. Maddening things.
As for cherry picking, the Church does it as well. As members, we are not to quote from such documents or books such as the Journal of Discourses or McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" because, obviously, we're too stupid to figure out what is doctrine and what is not.
(per the latter I'd just assume we ignore it all together. throw that baby out with the bathwater)
Regarding the Journal of Discourses though, the leadership of the church often quotes from the documents. The Church cherry picks as well.
We all do. It's part of being human.
And last I checked the Proclamation was not canonical scripture. I'm tempted to do my own post on this, but we'll see.
Earlier you said we do not believe in inerrant prophets. I contend that we do. I contend that we pay lots of lip service to the idea that we don't, but we act as if we do.
Again: official settings, official letterhead, official prophets/apostles.
I am tired of the tired argument "The Prophet Will Never Lead the Church Astray."
Here's what the OFFICIAL Sunday School manual says (of this year. D&C and Church History. Page 218)
"While serving in the Quorum of the Twelve, Elder Ezra Taft Benson taught, 'Keep your eyes on the Prophet, for the Lord will never permit his Prophet to lead this Church astray.'
"While serving as a counselor in the First Presidency, President Joseph F. Smith taught: "If [the President of the Church] should become unfaithful, God would remove him out of his place. I testify in the name of Israel's God that he will not suffer the head of the Church, whom he has chosen to stand at the head, to transgress his laws and apostatize; the moment he should take a course that would in time lead to it, God would take him away. Why? Because to suffer a wicked man to occupy that position would be to allow, as it were, the fountain to become corrupted, which is something he will never permit." (emphasis added)
Leaders in the past have said some horrific things. Brigham Young on numerous occasions called for the beheading of those who would engage in sexual intercourse (married or not) with someone of the African-American race. This was the Blood Atonement. But BY wasn't removed. Does this mean he was right, that we should've beheaded those people? That they were of the seed of Cain and needed to be segregated as to keep the Holy Priesthood on the Earth (because anyone with a drop of negro blood was exempt. i have documentation)?
No. And yet he wasn't "removed."
Other leaders, even until the 1960s said some atrocious things regarding interracial unions and black people. In official settings. And they were not removed. Does that make them right?
If you want to believe that every word out of the Prophet's mouth in official settings is inerrant, then that is your right. I've many friends who would agree with you.
You ask about my testimony in President Monson. I prayed about Prop 8. I spent months agonizing over it (especially after that stupid letter). AGONIZED.
Then came the day where I decided, after much prayer and meditation, that I would vote no. The peace and relief that came was unbelievable. I've only felt that way few times in my life after prayer.
So I ask you this: When the Spirit of God tells you something and the Prophet says another, which do you trust? Which do you choose to follow?
And let's not forget, they (and many many others. not just LDS) used scripture to back up their claims on the African-American people and the policy (I believe it was policy) to ban them from the Priesthood and, by extention, the highest degree of heaven.
The real question then becomes whether or not Thomas S. Monson is a prophet of God. Are his counselors and fellow brethren inspired leaders called of Christ? Would they lead the Lord's Church astray?Nope.
The real question is whether Thomas S. Monson, prophet of God, was inspired when he signed the letter that was read over the pulpit encouraging members in California to support Prop 8.
I'm late to the discussion, and Lisa and others have already made the arguments and chances are nothing anyone says is going to change your mind anyway, so there's probably no point in my going any further, but I wanted to add my voice, as someone with a testimony of the Gospel and of the Restoration and of the Keys of the Priesthood who also happens to believe that our leaders are misguided in their current political efforts.
I originally read your blog before you had the actual commercial, so I thought the Colbert one was funny but kind of confusing. It was way funnier to watch after watching the original. I can’t believe how serious those people are, it’s actually kind of scary (the attitude of the ad, not the gay marriage).
I appreciate how eloquently you are able to defend your stance. I can tell you have spent a lot of time pondering these issues and I thank you for that. I am not very good at articulating my thoughts so I love reading your posts because it helps me to learn how I can explain my thinking better. Thanks for sharing these videos!
lol.
I love the "may or may not be" sponsorship at the end of Colbert's version.
scott: another good way to phrase the question, thanks.
shannon j: ah, you flatter me. thank you :)
hypatia: that was my favorite as well. just a last minute SLAM, and perhaps too true.
"However, these statements have rarely, if ever, been classified as official doctrine, unlike The Family: A Proclamation to the World (a very current, relevant and inspired document)."
Emory,
It was also OFFICIAL DOCTRINE that blacks were denied the Priesthood. Bruce R. McConkie said blacks were denied the priesthood because they “were less valiant” in the pre-existence and because they were “descendants of Cain” (which ironically flies in the face of the church's own first article of faith "We believe a man will be punished for his own sins.").
Brigham Young said even worse:
“..Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” - JoD: vol.10 p. 110: (March 8, 1863)
Note the words, "this will always be so." That doesn't sound like “opinion,” and using words like "death on the spot" also sounds rather damning. Do you think, that if you were in the church when Brigham said this, and using your current logic, you would believe these words wholeheartedly? Wouldn't you simply believe the prophet at his word instead of questioning him? Is it not the same today? Especially when it concerns EQUAL rights of fellow Americans?
In fact, I think you should read how vehemently opposed the church leaders were to interracial marriage because blacks and whites couldn't marry in the temple.
An Apostle at BYU gave an “enlightening” talk regarding race and the church, it's called "Race Problems as They Affect the Church" by Mark E. Petersen (http://www.scribd.com/doc/7769535/Mark-E-Petersons-Racist-BYU-Talk).
Read that, and see how much room for “debate” there was when it came to equal rights for African Americans. Also, Mark E. Petersen made a lot of arguments using a lot of apocalyptic logic remarkably similar to logic a lot of Mormons today are using concerning gays getting married. But wouldn't you, if you were listening to that talk (and again, using your current logic regarding following modern prophets) when it was given at BYU, then leave the devotional whole heartedly believing the words the Apostle of the Lord had said? Without questioning it one little bit?
And why is it so horrible to let to loving people get married and enjoy the same rights we heterosexuals do? How does it destroy MY family if a gay couple down the street chooses to exercise their AGENCY and make a life long commitment to each other recognized by the law?
It was DOCTRINE, that blacks couldn't receive the priesthood until 1978, when the church received “revelation” that changed all that. Also, consider the fact that even recently, the church has changed its position regarding homosexuality as a “choice.” What “revelations” will come tomorrow, when it is no longer acceptable behavior to persecute others by denying them the same rights as everyone else?
As to whether or not it was "doctrine" all the things related to blacks, it depends on who you ask. President McKay called it a "policy." One that I absolutely reject, of course.
We often mistakingly apply the title of "doctrine" to certain things and that becomes very misleading. For instance, many assume that talks in general conference are "official doctrine." Or when the prophet writes something in the Engisn. In reality, there is very little "official doctrine" in the Church.
I like this guide, ironically it comes from apologetics (FAIR), but I think it shows just how mistaken we are when we assume that everything that is released by the First Presidency -- whether it be the Prop 8 letter or even the Proclamation on the Family -- is "official doctrine."
So, to say that "it was also OFFICIAL DOCTRINE that blacks were denied the Priesthood" is as misleading as all those who want us to believe that it was just that. It was a policy that many assumed was doctrine -- just like the Church's current policy on gays. IMO, revelations are sometimes needed to shake human beings out of their gross errors -- such as the case with the priesthood ban -- and not necessarily because it was a doctrine. I expect it will be similar with homosexuals in the future, though not at the pace I'd like to see. I don't believe for a second that the priesthood policy was inspired or doctrine by any means. I do perhaps believe that God withheld the revelation to overturn it because he didn't feel we were truly ready to finally dump the errant policy because of the prevalent racism througout all the ranks in the Church.
Doctrines don't really change. Policies have, do, and will continue to do so. The tough part is distinguishing between the two. Even leaders in high positions frequently mistakingly use the terms "doctrine" and "policy" synonymously.
Faithful Dissident- I understand where you're coming from... and thank you for clarifying the difference between doctrine and policy, so let me try to explain and correct myself using the correct terminology.
Doctrine means a "belief or a tenet of a faith." A doctrine that has changed is that blacks were descended from Cain or that dark skin shows unfaithfulness (see the BOM). I mean, that's not at all a policy, it's not stating a rule of how the church should run its affairs, it's a stated religious belief (or doctrine).
Policies also tend to be based on doctrine, so the policy that would be based on the doctrine that African Americans are "cursed" would be that they can't have the priesthood.
You see, the racist "policy" the church once had wasn't built on nothing, it was a direct result and child of the "doctrine" (religious belief) that dark skin is a curse and that "cain's descendants" couldn't have the fullness of the gospel.
Yep, still here. Haven't fumbled my way to hell as you know disbelievers will go to. Great video comparison. LOL.
"A doctrine that has changed is that blacks were descended from Cain or that dark skin shows unfaithfulness (see the BOM). I mean, that's not at all a policy, it's not stating a rule of how the church should run its affairs, it's a stated religious belief (or doctrine)."I would argue, though, that all that nonsense about being black or dark-skinned was never doctrine in the first place. Yes, many people have tried to argue that it was doctrine. Even more have assumed that it was doctrine. After all, Bruce R. McConkie published his wild personal opinions under the title Mormon Doctrine. (He got some flack for it from some of the Quorum of the Twelve and they didn't want him to publish it, but he did. Personally, I think he should have been disciplined for it.) What it all was, IMO, was simply a misinterpretation that led to unbridled speculation, which resulted in a ridiculous policy which, sadly, many (including high-ranking leaders) falsely assumed was an unchanging official doctrine.
And sometimes things that were once regarded as "doctrine" get downgraded to "false doctrine" or "theory" or speculation, such as the Adam-God theory, which Brigham Young insisted was doctrine in his day.
So, obviously, even the highest officials in the Church get confused or pigheaded about "doctrine" vs. "interpretation" or "policy," which signifies all the more why it's so important for every member to sincerely follow his/her own personal revelation. I think this is the case in the homosexuality question. Those of us who believe that there will be a place for homosexual couples in the Church in the future are often scoffed at. After all, it's pretty unimaginable now, isn't it? We may be right or we may be wrong. Only time will tell, but I think there are many sincere, faithful members of the Church out there who have received personal confirmation that there will be changes. It was that way with the blacks and although I can't guarantee it, I personally believe we've only begun to scratch the surface on whatever plan God has for homosexuals.
FD has this one pretty much spot on, IMHO.
The funny (sad?) thing is that the Colbert ad is only slightly more absurd than the original. They both look like parodies.
I'm enjoying your blog (this is philomytha from NOM, btw) though I'm sorry you're going through so much frustration and heartache. Prop 8 was a huge crisis for me... Up until then I was okay with faking it for the sake of a quiet life. Now I'm a lot more conflicted.
Post a Comment