Kevin Hamilton's Post Prop-8 Letter

Many of you undoubtedly have seen this letter from Kevin Hamilton in light of Proposition 8 passing. Our church has sent out a statement basically saying "Hey, we were just exercising our right to vote and voice our opinions. What's your problem?"

Well.

Here's the letter and my responses to each point:

In the aftermath of the recent election, we may find ourselves oddly on the defensive regarding our support for the Yes on Proposition 8 cause. Our young people have been especially subject to mean spirited comments by high school friends and teachers. We have nothing to be ashamed of. We did nothing wrong. In fact, we did everything that a civic minded American can and should do. I have put together a few facts that help me to appreciate our position better. For example:

1. Mormons make up less than 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.

2. Mormon voters were less than 5% of the yes vote. If one estimates that 250,000 LDS are registered voters (the rest being children), then LDS voters made up 4.6% of the Yes vote and 2.4% of the total Proposition 8 vote.

And yet the members of our church donated nearly half the money to the cause.

People aren’t angry at us because we make up the majority of the people in California who voted yes – they’re angry because we bankrolled it. Money talks in politics, as we all know. You could say that without the LDS so greatly invested, this proposition would have lost.

3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) donated no money to the Yes on 8 campaign. Individual members of the Church were encouraged to support the Yes on 8 efforts and, exercising their constitutional right to free speech, donated whatever they felt like donating.

Actually the Church did, well within their legal limits (something like a little over $2000), but they did donate.

Encouraged? When the Prophet says jump, we ask how high. That's how it is. We follow the prophet or risk being unworthy of many, many blessings like going to the temple. Yes, some people understand the principle of praying to know for yourself, but most consider this a matter of belief vs. non belief.

Encouraged? Some people were called into their leader's offices and were asked specifically if they would be willing to give more.

Flyers were placed in the foyers of ward buildings. Sign up sheets were passed around. Announcements and discussions took up the majority of some class times. Donations were “encouraged” over the pulpit. Some people were strongly encouraged – bishops and leaders alike. I’m glad I wasn’t a leader. Makes me wonder if I would’ve been released from my calling.

That makes some wonder about the tax-exemption thing. I don't think it'll happen. I think the Church flirted with the line, but nothing will happen.

4. The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unofficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $32 million, making it the most expensive non-presidential election in the country.

And?

5. Advertising messages for the Yes on 8 campaign are based on case law and real-life situations. The No on 8 supporters have insisted that the Yes on 8 messaging is based on lies. Every Yes on 8 claim is supported.

And yet…not. I’ve got all sorts of evidence to the contrary. If they weren’t outright lies, they were half-truths meant to deceive and scare people. If you know law, you know loopholes, and that nothing is cut and dry. Context is everything. Look it up.

6. The majority of our friends and neighbors voted Yes on 8. Los Angeles County voted in favor of Yes on 8. Ventura County voted in favor of Yes on 8.

Not as many of our "friends and neighbors" voted as they did back in 2000. About nine percent less. That's a lot of people.

And uh, LA County was 50/50. 16,000 votes separated Yes from No. In a county of millions, that doesn’t hold much clout.

7. African Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8. Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8. This was interesting because the majority of these voters voted for President-elect Obama. No on 8 supporters had assumed that Obama voters would vote No on 8.

What does this mean? “It’s not our fault it passed! Go after the blacks! Go after the Hispanics! The Catholics! Just not us, we don’t deserve it!”

You voted for it. You called people, knocked on doors, gave up your life savings in some instances for it. So stand up for it. Be not ashamed. You expressed your right to an opinion, to a vote, to get others to vote - these people are expressing their right to be pissed off. As long as they're peaceful, who cares. And they do want to be peaceful about it - you just always have your idiots on either side.

8. The majority of Latino voters voted Yes on 8. Exit polls show that the majority of Latinos supported Yes on 8 and cited religious beliefs (assumed to be primarily Catholic).

See response to 7

9. The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims – all supported Yes on 8. It is estimated that there are 10 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants in California. Mormons were a tiny fraction of the population represented by Yes on 8 coalition members.

See response to 7.

10. Not all Mormons voted in favor of Proposition 8. Our faith accords that each person be allowed to choose for him or her self. Church leaders have asked members to treat other members with "civility, respect and love," despite their differing views.

And yet I’ve been chastised for going against the prophet, testimonies have been called into question, various idiots on some discussion boards have declared we should rip up our temple recommends, family and friends can’t really look me in the eye anymore, etc.

I don’t want to be told how to vote, what to think, what to do or I’ll be ex’d, lose my calling, etc. I don’t appreciate those regarding the proponents of 8 as the “moral majority.” I don’t like the Church calling those gay couples who want to marry “selfish.”

11. The Church did not violate the principal [sic] of separation of church and state. This principle is derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The phrase "separation of church and state", which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, although it has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court in recent years. The LDS Church is under no obligation to refrain from participating in the political process, to the extent permitted by law. U.S. election law is very clear that Churches may not endorse candidates, but may support issues. The Church as always been very careful on this matter and occasionally (not often) chooses to support causes that it feels to be of a moral nature.

Like Prohibition?

What about other causes of a moral nature?

You know what else grates me? A story on The View yesterday recounted about a boy with some problems who nobody wanted to adopt. Finally, a couple who specialized in working with kids like him stepped forward and put in papers to adopt him. His reaction? "Somebody wants me!"

It was a gay couple. You're going to tell me this is immoral and wrong? Tell that little boy that.

And can we quit implying that separation of church and state doesn't exist? No, the phrase verbatim doesn't exist in the Constitution, but the idea is absolutely there. We don't live in a theocracy, and I'd prefer to not live in one right now thankyouverymuch.

12. Supporters of Proposition 8 did exactly what the Constitution provides for all citizens: they exercised their First Amendment rights to speak out on an issue that concerned them, make contributions to a cause that they support, and then vote in the regular electoral process. For the most part, this seems to have been done in an open, fair, and civil way. Opponents of 8 have accused supporters of being bigots, liars, and worse. The fact is, we simply did what Americans do – we spoke up, we campaigned, and we voted.

They spoke out on an issue that concerned them? I know of a handful of people who wouldn’t have voted yes, donated, made phone calls, etc. if the Church hadn’t made an official plea for its members to do all it could to allow it to pass. Pretty sure there are many more.

And we’ve been just as awful to the No on 8 people, calling them selfish and abhorrent to God and that giving them the ability to marry would bring down society and the world as we know it. Yeah. They really should just have thicker skin than that.

Neither side was right in calling names. Don’t for a second think it was just the No side. We got in the mud, we got dirty, deal with it.

Hold your heads up high – you did a great job on this most important cause. We will have more opportunities in the future to participate in our democratic process. Let's remember the lessons learned and do an even better job next time.

These are my personal opinions and thoughts; any errors are mine and in no way reflect official Church policy or doctrine.

Thanks,
Kevin Hamilton

Thanks, Kev.

Share on Facebook

Doin' it Mormon Style

Yesterday on Feminist Mormon Housewives, an author posted a plea of sorts regarding her rather unfulfilling sex life and if sex is really all that important, anyway.

Uhm...yeah?

This is another one of those taboo subjects for various, perhaps more "strict" members of the church. Eric told me that one of his mission presidents confided that he and his wife, when on their honeymoon, tried having sex with their garments on. Since then, I've ran into one or two other comments regarding LDS couples attempting this and all I can do is, first, laugh like a hyena and second, wonder what the hell is wrong with our culture that we feel we can't even take garments off for sex.

I mean, y'all go swimming right?

Then there's the idea of lingerie. At one point even I caught myself saying this (I've changed quite a bit in the past five years), and I've had other friends say it as well:

"I don't see the point of lingerie, clothes are just going to come off anyway."

*deadpan*

Sexuality in LDS culture is an interesting thing. One of my best friends back in the day told me a guy - not a friend, not related, not even a friend of a friend - in their ward, upon learning she and her fiance were moving their wedding date up, quipped Can't wait to get into each other's pants, huh?

Creepy, right? Totally uncalled for, right?

But there's a sliver of truth in there, isn't there? Our culture, our God, demands celibacy of its unmarried - in our particular religion, we feel that demand more acutely than perhaps in other Christian denominations. French kissing is discouraged because of its inherent sensuality. Being alone with your girl or guy is discouraged because temptations abound. Spencer W. Kimball even said,

“What is miscalled the 'soul kiss' is an abomination and stirs passions to the eventual loss of virtue. Even if timely courtship justifies the kiss it should be a clean, decent, sexless one like the kiss between mother and son, or father and daughter." (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.281)

For context, he's talking about casual kisses "given out like pretzels," but I imagine he'd extend this counsel to any young couple - like he said "even if timely courtship justifies the kiss." No disrespect to President Kimball, but are you kidding me?

You get two people together who have a tension between them so thick you can cut through it, and this isn't going to be easy. Yes, you can fight the temptations by going on group dates, never being alone, kissing each other on the cheek, but holy hell! This is not only not easy, it's almost unrealistic. I don't care what era of time we're talking about - this was probably just as difficult in the 1850's, 1950's or today, and we've more couples marrying today for love and not because Dad wants to marry his daughters off and get rid of a couple cows in the process.

And so you have couples getting married ASAP.

Some of these couples know (as in, not faith: know) they are meant for each other. Beyond that, like for Eric and I, there's a commitment unmatched and unquestioned. We knew it from the beginning - and we weren't supposed to ever be alone or...anything?

I'm going to refrain from some of my more radical rationalizations, but yes we did marry in the temple and no we didn't have to lie to our stake president or bishop to do it. We knew our boundaries, we knew where we wanted to go, so we went about things according to what would keep us on that path.

The For the Strength of Youth pamphlet is meant for single adults as much as it is meant for the youth. But, when you find "the one" you should be alone with him/her. You should kiss - and no, not like you kiss your mom or dad. That's a little creepy.

Can it get sketchy and tricky? Yeah. Should you flirt with the line? Well, fun as it is, probably not, at least not if you want to marry in the temple.

But what of after marriage? What of those couples who pretty much keep it monotonous and boring and - shudder - scheduled. The couples who keep their garments on. The couple who just doesn't ever try anything new.

That's dangerous. From what I've noticed, LDS tend to react to the staunch (sorry, righteous or not, those're pretty staunch) standards in one of two ways:

They remain staunch.
They go insane from all that pent up frustration.

Get two of these people together and you've got some serious issues. Get two of these people together, and you've probably one reason why pornography is a problem for not just everyone, but for those in our church.

You can only stifle people so much. Sex is not bad. Yes, it is sacred and a divine power (at least in the procreation department) and should be treated as such but that doesn't mean it's...mechanical, you know?

It's passion, it's love, it's security, it's safety, it's connection.

And yes, there are couples, mostly brides, I've learned about who are so indoctrinated into the idea that sex is bad they can't bring themselves to finally let go on the night of their wedding.

Does this sound wrong to anyone else? I hope so.

And yeah, I said bad. No, that's not necessarily the vocabulary our leaders use, but the translation is nevertheless easy enough to make.

Get out the damn lingerie, get some massage oil, etc. Realize these things aren't bad. Realize it's okay to do some things - really. If something weirds you out, then by all means don't do it, but at least give it consideration. Sometimes we think things are weird because we think they're wrong.

Well, not everything is wrong. "Normal" does not always mean wrong. Normal, in the context of a good marriage, can mean some pretty cool things that we might think is icky. It's not. I promise.

Victoria's Secret is your friend.

I mean, there's being uncomfortable with doing something and then there's just not doing it because we think it'll be weird. Get over that. Talk with your friends to realize people are doing stuff, talk with your husband/wife (even your boyfriend/girlfriend), and understand that while we may be LDS and have higher standards, we are still human and God gave us some pretty cool things. Get to know each other. Know yourself and what you like. Experiment a bit. TALK to each other.

As far as the single crowd goes, much as people might need reminders of how to avoid digging themselves into a hole of temptation they can't navigate themselves out of, they need to also know it's amazing and, most of all, okay. There needs to be a respect, but not an abhorrence. We don't need to be prudes to be righteous.

If we think otherwise, our marriages are doomed to become robotic and emotionless. Sure, you may never get a divorce and you may actually love your partner, but if there's no passion...then you may as well be married to your mom or dad.

No more girls allowed!

It's not often I find the courage to bring up controversial subjects.

No, really.

I'm not entirely sure I have brought up "controversial" subjects yet. Yes, the gay marriage thing. Whatever. I'm over it. It's something people are angry over, targeting the church over (after all, we were vocal. what? we can exercise our freedom of speech in the democratic process but dissenters can't? as long as the protests at the temple are peaceful, i say they deserve at least our respect to their feelings to allow them to have their say)

Anyway. This one does make me nervous, but I think it deserves some discussion. We'll see what other people think, yeah?

A comment string a few entries back brought up the P word. I don't really know how, but I know I'm the one who brought it up.

C'mon. You know what I'm talking about. It's like Peanut Butter and Jelly. Mormons and...

Polygamy, right.

This is kinda a "hush hush" topic. Some consider it "sacred." Some, I think most, don't know how to talk about it.

I mean, how do you talk about this?

"God commanded it."

Yeah, you know...truth or not, that just doesn't cut it for outsiders. It doesn't really cut it for some insiders to be honest. It might work for the zealous, passionate new member, but if something were to happen - say, hubby cheated or something - she might feel differently about sharing her husband, even if God commanded it.

I've been around some women who joke it off. "I'd love to have more wives. I could delegate some of the stuff I have to do."

Some rationalize it. "I'd have to give permission, right?"

"Abraham was asked to do something unthinkable as a test of his faith. This is no different."

Uhm, if we're going by history...I don't know about permission. It's nice to think so, but Emma didn't give permission; she wasn't even aware of many of Joseph's wives.

And yeah it kinda is different from Abraham.

First, I would never ever question Abraham's faith. That said, I can't believe he was like "Kill my kid for you? Can I do it now?"

Unless God caught him on one of "those" days. Any parent knows what I mean. It's like after the morning I had. My four year old son gets up before we do anymore. Generally he just watches cartoons and might make breakfast for the other two (he's surprisingly clean about it), but this morning he decided to clean out the fireplace, still hot with embers.

Or the time I found him dipping a paper cup into a toilet bowl full of crap.

If God caught Abraham on one of these days, perhaps Abraham would've jumped at the idea. "I was hoping you'd say I could! Do I have to get him on an altar, or would the tent do?"

But seriously now. If Abraham was human and loved his child, his only son - and I think that's a safe assumption - and if this is supposed to allude to the difficulty and the emotional turmoil and yes, utter importance, with regarding Heavenly Father and Christ, than...yeah. I imagine he fought and cried and anguished over this.

But he went to the altar. We can assume the resignation was sincere. Despite everything he'd been told, he was going to kill his kid for God. That's not faith. That's knowledge.

But here's where the parallel ends, I think: God stopped him.

God never stopped Joseph Smith from taking on other wives. And as far as Emma goes, when she was able to reconcile herself to the idea, it was only temporary. She couldn't handle it and kicked those women out. Joseph had to practice this in hiding for the most part. Emma never taught her and Joseph's sons about it. To this day, the RLDS Church (which her sons founded) denies Joseph ever practiced polygamy.

Any woman...scratch that. There are people who willingly practice this. I don't imagine there are many, if any, LDS women who could and feel good about it. I couldn't. That would very well be the straw that breaks this girl's back. It's weak as it is.

I know, I know, I know. I've read D&C 132. Often. I know this is a Celestial doctrine. I know if I can't accept it I'm unworthy to be in His presence. At least that's what I've heard, and it really rubs my fur the wrong way. Really? Everything could hinge on that? Eh.

I know God knows my heart. He can't possibly...I just couldn't. I empathize so much with some of our more feminist sisters. For God to come and command my husband to take on another wife, sleep with her, have babies with her...

No wonder some women feel like nothing in this Church, like second-class. I totally get it. You might say "well, we don't practice it now," but we do. Spiritually. When my mom came with our family to the Sacramento, California temple open house, the tour guide brought up the subject. I'll never forget my mom turning to me and saying, "So, if you died, Eric could get married here and still be married to you?"

My heart plummeted. I didn't want to lie, so I didn't, but I did at least give voice to my disapproval. I wouldn't want it.

(just as a quick side note: yes, I know. I've found the most chivalrous men in this church. My husband treats me like a queen and I'm unbelievably blessed for it.)

I have great difficulty understanding and accepting doctrine that I can only see serving to beat down women, and don't you dare try to tell me this wouldn't beat down women. You'd better have some serious backup if you're going to do that. Even if I had faith enough to follow, I would be among the most unhappy people ever. It's breaking my heart now to even think of ever having to live such a doctrine, let alone accept it. I'd want to know why. I think I'd deserve and have some right to know why. If that's prideful, so be it. I'd want to know. I'd even be as bold as to demand it. I think a lot of you would, too, and if our God is as loving as we teach, He'd understand.

I dare any one of you women to honestly and sincerely imagine the situation and then tell me you would have the faith. Maybe some of you would. I doubt it, though. I love my husband. We have some crazy outofthisworld connection. Some might find the story of how we met and how we "knew" unbelievable. The fact is I love him, and I'm okay with being selfish about him. Even after I die, I wouldn't want him taking anyone else on.

He's mine, and I'm his. It's the most exclusive of relationships. If my relationship, if my marriage is as sacred as we've been screaming and waving signs around for, then, I'm sorry: no more girls allowed. You can say that nullifies my testimony. I say it's ridiculous to assume Joseph had to be right on absolutely everything in order for the entire gospel to be true. That's a lot to put on one man. There have been, from what I understand, a few things we've changed through the years. As a reader of mine cited in his entry today,

1 Corinthians 13:8-10

8 ...but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

Hm.

Yes, I know this is "different," but one cannot shoot me down because I struggle with such a touchy doctrine. It's trickier than people want to make it. We want to not think about it. It's easier to not think about it. It's easier to say it happened because the ratio of men to women was less than desirable. It's easier to say it happened because older women needed care for, or that God wanted to "raise seed unto him."

The fact is we don't really know. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't know. We can guess to make ourselves feel better about it (because, really, is there anyone in the Church who would welcome this with open, unflinching arms? I hope not), but we don't know.

And I hatehatehate that it is so central to our doctrine. Central enough that the heighth of my salvation depends upon my "acceptance" of it. Well, accepting the doctrine means that you would do it if asked. Even if you really believe you could do it, how would you feel? About your husband, about your wife, about God...about yourself?

There's really no other way to put it. I know exactly how I'd feel.

I'd feel like shit.

You?

Titles...don't matter?

First of all, I know it's no huge number, but to all those who have decided to "follow" my blog: THANK YOU. It really means a lot. :D

Secondly, I'm bringing out the horse again. I know he looks rather bruised, bloodied, and just beat up (and frankly I'm surprised PETA isn't knocking down my door), but...

There's something that's bothered me, and I'm curious for other thoughts.

An online friend of mine mentioned there's no date for this particular interview between PR and Elders Oaks and Wickham, but the fact that it remains still on the official Church site implies that its held as doctrine. Because the interview is familiar, I wonder if it came out around 2000 when Proposition 22 came on the ballots. That feels slightly narcissistic of me to say, of course California isn't the end-all-be-all of the subject, but even 2004's Proposition 3 in Utah didn't garner this much coverage (Prop 3 called for civil unions in Utah - apparently the Church strongly fought against its passing. Needless to say, it didn't pass).

There have been signs of a "softening" if you will to the subject of same-sex partnerships being legally recognized and solemnized by the government.

First, there's this tidbit here. You can find the entire interview here:

"ELDER OAKS: Another point to be made about this is made in a question. If a couple who are cohabiting, happy, and committed to one another want to have their relationship called a marriage, why do they want that? Considering what they say they have, why do they want to add to it the legal status of marriage that has been honored and experienced for thousands of years? What is it that is desired by those who advocate same-gender marriage? If that could be articulated on some basis other than discrimination, which is not a very good argument, it would be easier to answer the question that you have asked, and I think it would reveal the soundness of what we’ve already heard."

Why do they want that - because marriage is a much more powerful word with a much more powerful meaning than is "domestic partnership" or "civil union" - and, if things get escalated to a federal level, than they want marriage because then they can have all the benefits allocated to anyone else who is married.

"There are certain indicia of marriage — certain legal and social consequences and certain legitimacy — which if given to some relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman tend to degrade if not destroy the institution that’s been honored over so many thousands of years.

As opposed to the likes of Britney Spears or "open" marriages (which, if I'm correct, is legal in some states), etc?

"In addition, if people want to legalize a particular relationship, we need to be careful if that kind of relationship has been disapproved for millennia. Suddenly there’s a call to legalize it so they can feel better about themselves. That argument proves a little too much. Suppose a person is making a living in some illegal behavior, but feels uneasy about it. (He may be a professional thief or he may be selling a service that is illegal, or whatever it may be.) Do we go out and legalize his behavior because he’s being discriminated against in his occupational choices or because he doesn’t feel well about what he’s doing and he wants a ‘feel good’ example, or he wants his behavior legitimized in the eyes of society or his family? I think the answer is that we do not legalize behavior for those reasons unless they are very persuasive reasons brought forward to make a change in the current situation."

I don't know that the relationship has been disapproved so much as...well, lets be honest. Straight people find gay sex icky. A gay couple tends to look odd to our eyes, and this is probably due more to our not seeing it so often. It's also disapproved because various churches find it abominable (some more than others) and we tend to hate that which is different.

I really don't like how so many tend to compare homosexuality with criminal acts or diseases. I do believe there are some people out there partaking in homosexual acts when they are not, necessarily, homosexual; there are some experimenting, some who can choose (like one commenter said: these are the bisexual members of our society). And forget that, there's no universal consensus that homosexuality is a sin or "immoral." Stealing, murder, rape, etc. It's pretty well recognized those aren't okay - mostly because they infringe upon the rights of others. I know we like to think this will infringe upon our rights, but they thought the same thing about legalizing interracial marriage, too.

But, lets not forget that there are the people who the thought of a heterosexual relationship causes them to wince, the idea to them is icky, it's just not even a smidgen of who they are or what they can imagine. Being heterosexual to them is like most of us imaginging being homosexual. This is 100% who they are sexually. If we are going to demand so much sacrifice of them, we need to give them the respect they deserve in their sacrifice. We aren't.

They can't even hold hands with someone, kiss, that sort of thing. None of that. This isn't a matter of marriage to our church as it is a demand of complete celibacy.

"PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Would you extend the same argument against same-gender marriage to civil unions or some kind of benefits short of marriage?

"ELDER WICKMAN: One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be married. What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman. The First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself concerning any specific right. It really doesn’t matter what you call it. If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, “That is not right. That’s not appropriate.”

And here, folks, is the kicker for me. We could do as so many have offered to make all unions "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" and leave it to the churches to bless or deny as they will as "marriages" but this statement implies the Church would fight that just as hard. This states that Proposition 8 wasn't merely a matter of definition of marriage, but the rights and all involved in marriage.

I like to think my marriage would be a marriage without those rights. I would have married Eric if we would have lost rights. It's just not a huge deal to me. But our government gives rights to married couples because marriage brings stability and security to our most fundamental unit: the family.

And, as we know, families come in various packages. A lot of children live with their grandparents. A lot live with just their mom or dad. Some live with aunts, some live with their friends' parents.

Oh noes! Are we going to have to introduce legislation to ensure the definition of "family" now, too?

This bothers me. I wish it didn't, and I'd love nothing more than to be proven wrong on this, that this is just some outdated thing and we've gone beyond this, but it's still on the official site. It's packaged with all the other stuff Proposition 8 related.

Just interesting.

It's the end of the world as Dr. James Dobson knows it

We apparently are not alone in having a prophet.

Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family also seems to have a bit of clairvoyant talent - or at least a time travel machine. This sixteen page letter, itemizing every Obama repercussion from talk radio to child pornography was written (or will be written?) in 2012 by "A Christian."

Now, it's a little late now, and for that I apologize. If only more voters would have been made privy to this letter prior to voting for Barack Obama, we would be spared so many awful things. So far, the predictions have come true. Senator Obama is now President-elect Obama, after all.

First, understand that a vote for Barack Obama means a new far-left democratic majority in the U.S. Supreme Court. The three conservative justices left are going to be called "originalists" because, unlike liberals, they adhere to the original meaning of the Constitution. These "originalists" argued, in vain far too many times it seems, that their job as Justices is to interpret the Constitution, not come up with heretical new laws. That's the job of the heretical liberal Congress.

So, if you ever wondered how the world would come to a crashing end, Dr. James Dobson and Co. would like to enlighten you:

1. The most far reaching transformation of American society came from the Supreme Court’s stunning affirmation, in early 2010, that homosexual ‘marriage’ was a “constitutional right that had to be respected by all 50 states because laws barring same-sex ‘marriage’ violated the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution…This was a blatant example of creating law by the court, for homosexual ‘marriage’ was mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, nor would any of the authors have imagined that same-sex ‘marriage’ could be derived from their words.

Huh. I didn't know marriage was mentioned at all in the Constitution.

2. The Boy Scouts no longer exist as an organization. They chose to disband rather than be forced to obey the Supreme Court decision that they would have to hire homosexual scoutmasters and allow them to sleep in tents with young boys.

Forced to seek out homosexual scoutmasters. I can just imagine any interview that may go on:

"So. Are you gay?"

"Duh, of course."

"Hired."

"So, what are you doing Friday night?"

Come on! This would ask that a person NOT discriminate based on sexual orientation - which, sorry, should be the case.

And besides all of that, why is it okay to imply a homosexual man would try to get it on with "young boys"? Are we really intent to perpetuate this myth that all gay men are pedophiles?

Wow.

I mean, I get it. You wouldn't allow a grown man to sleep in a tent with young girls. You'd have the adults (all of them) sleep in...that's right, different tents. Not necessarily for the protection of the kids so much as for the protection of the adults as well. Easy enough. Moving on.

3. Elementary schools now include compulsory training in varieties of gender identity in Grade 1, including the goodness of homosexuality as one personal choice.

I still don’t get this. Should we instead continue to pretend homosexuality doesn’t exist? The schools, and I know this because my husband is going through the end process of becoming a teacher in California, understand how important it is to be a safe place.

Not talking about it in the schools won’t help. The schools need to help children understand and respect people, and you should too. Now, I don’t know that we’re going to have a conversation like this going on, but I mean, “A Christian” from the future seems to think it's likely, so I guess we can’t totally rule it out:

“Here’s Jack and Jill. They have ‘traditional’ sex.

“Here’s Dan and Dean. They have really cool ‘gay’ sex. It’s pretty awesome, actually. You should try it sometime. Here are some pictures!”

No.

This is more about respecting different people. And uh, if you live in California, you do have the right to opt your child out of comprehensive sex education. If your state doesn't allow it, you can work to have that changed. America is pretty cool that way.

4. The Freedom of Choice Act also reversed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, so infants can be killed outright just seconds before they would be born.

I think this is a nod to the "present" vote Obama gave as a Senator - uhm, yeah. Like he said, it was already law that you couldn't do it, and he didn't want to compromise Roe v. Wade. Me thinks Focus on the Family shot itself in the foot here.

And really, does anyone really believe this will happen? Anyone?

...
You might be surprised to read what will happen regarding Iraq, Russia, Iran, and Israel (Tel Aviv gets bombed, apparently. Huh)
...

5. Euthanasia is becoming more and more common.

Because Obama decided to introduce Universal Healthcare, after all, and it really sucks. Old people are thought more and more to have a duty to go home and die. I'll bet this news would thrill Dr. Kevorkian who could just set up practice specifically for speeding up the process.

6. Gas costs more than $7 per gallon, and many Democrats openly applaud this, since high prices reduce oil consumption and thus reduce carbon dioxide output.

I realize I'm not a registered Democrat, but as a liberal leaning heretic, I'm all for $7 a gallon gas. I was getting a little too excited - if you know what I mean - the day we paid $4.70 for a gallon of gas here in California - so close to $5 a gallon! SO CLOSE!

7. As a result, all radio stations have to provide equal time to contrasting views for every political or policy-related program they broadcast by talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity…and broadcasters like Dr. James Dobson. Every conservative talk show is followed by an instant rebuttal to the program by a liberal ‘watchdog’ group. Many listeners gave up in frustration, advertising (and donation) revenues dropped dramatically…Conservative talk radio, for all intents and purposes, was shut down by the end of 2010.

We're going to force conservative talk radio out of business for...offering the other side? I hate it when that happens.

Now, I know some of you might be waiting to hear about how electing Obama will lead to legalization of child pornography. It is not on the .pdf version of the document, but it is on this document. Why it's gone on the other version, I don't know. But it's worth reading. I really hope this isn't what people think.

8. In addition, law enforcement officials can no longer stop the distribution of child pornography, after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the such distribution violated freedom of speech and interstate commerce laws.

Yeah. I don't get this one either. Maybe it was deleted in the .pdf document because it's just so ridiculous. At least I hope so.


Of course, the letter concedes,

Christians share a lot of the blame. In 2008, many evangelicals thought Senator Obama was an opportunity for ‘change,’ and they voted for him. They did not realize Obama’s far-Left agenda would take away many of our freedoms, perhaps permanently (it is unlikely the Supreme Court can be changed for perhaps 30 years. Christians did not realize that by electing Barack Obama – rated the most liberal U.S. senator in 2007 – they would allow the law, in the hands of a liberal Congress and Supreme Court, to become a great instrument of oppression.

But, I mean, Dr. James Dobson wouldn't really want the Supreme Court majority to belong to ultra-conservative right wing Republicans, would he?

Would he?

As a last note, I'd like to offer this quote from Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian, regarding the 1800 election between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams:

"The other side - the Adam's people - said [Jefferson] was a 'howling atheist'...they said if he won, that rape and incest and murder would be taught in schools. Finally this Connecticut newspaper apologized in 1993."

Everyone's a prophet.

Projecting Racism

I've gotta wonder.

The more I hear people spew their diatribes about how those who voted for Barack Obama voted purely, or at least mostly, because he is black the more I want to ask why it's such a point of focus for so many.

Seriously. I swallow a scream down about every time.

People! Stop listening to John McCain, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh (to think I used to listen to that man), and Karl freaking Rove. If you honestly believe Fox News is "fair and balanced," I've got a couple bridges to sell you. To nowhere.

When I was investigating the church, a common quip was "You don't go to a Chevy dealer to find out about Ford."

The same applies anywhere else. You don't go to radical conservatives to find out about Barack Obama. It transcends stupidity, to be honest.

I really wish people would afford Obama's supporters with a bit more intelligence and discretion than "you voted for him 'cause he's black." I also appreciated Limbaugh's lovely summation of Colin Powell's endorsement: "It's all about race!"

Gee, thanks, Rush. And everyone else who echoed his sentiments.

It makes me wonder who, exactly, is thinking a little too much about race.

Hmm?

I have followed Obama for two years. I considered voting for McCain until he allowed someone to stick a hand up his butt and a tie a couple strings on his extremities.

It has nothing to do with gender or race, but rather quality of character, ideas, courage, and dignity. Toward the end, McCain proved to me he had nothing on Obama. Nothing.

Just for the record, I've had it with people saying they're scared of Obama. Should I reverse the race card and insist they're scared because he's black? Would that be fair? Absolutely not.

But I will suggest that perhaps some of it, if not all of it, has more to do with ignorance. As a busy people, we're prone to believe anything we hear and not do the research to back it up. We look at white men in suits and ties and assume they're conservative. We hear one, a former prisoner of war, say that his opponent is a closet socialist, and people agree because it sounds good, sounds right (damn liberals!), and it comes from...wait. A politician.

Since when did we trust what politicians say, again?

Look inside yourself and ask why you voted McCain if you did. Was it because he's Republican? White? A war hero? Old? Because your parents did, your church did?

For most of us, this isn't about race. I know for some it absolutely is, just like there were people who would've voted for Hilary just because she's a woman. People want history to happen in their lifetime. It's understandable, but hardly the best reason.

Just remember, there are people who voted for John McCain because he was the white guy. It's safe, it feels good, etc.

I just happen to believe there's more racism from those who cry "racist!" than people want to recognize. Just like sexism. How many of you are honestly scared a little of Muslims? Mexicans? Gay people?

This is a rhetorical question, but I think it's an important one. I think it's only human to have some kind of -ism within you. I do. The first thing to do is recognize it so you can fight it. Remember that God loves everyone, black and white, bond and free, male and female. Sometimes people decry ideas and people with zeal because they are trying to distract from their own prejudices.

If this hits home, and I imagine it should with most people, then we need to work on that.


http://www.barackobama.com/

Wheat and Tares and Gay People

This has been an interesting test for the members of the church I believe. It has shown in a great respect who has faith in the prophet of the Lord and a personal testimony of the truth of the church and who does not. I believe it is impossible for anyone to understand the full implications of what may have happened if 8 was put down. Hopefully we will never know, for when the Lord speaks through his servant the Prophet, it's serious and the consequence of not heeding that council is always serious. I believe there was prophecy fulfilled with the reaction of some of the members of the church. The Lord is separating the wheat from the tares.

-- Deseret News reader comments: LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8

How nice of this person - and so many others - to think so.

I wonder if the faithful felt the same way about the Prohibition
About Civil Rights
About Blacks and the Priesthood.

Just gotta wonder.

I can't help but think that those people might represent more of the "tares" than some of those who voted against Prop 8.

Tares: The word denotes darnel grass, a poisonous weed, which, until it comes into ear, is similar in appearance to wheat.

In other words, a person who isn't who they say or pretend to be. They look like wheat, but they aren't.

Might I enlighten you to the fact that those against the Church often like to regard members as tares? We resemble Christians, but in the end we're really the anti-Christ.

Yeah.

I have to admit - this crap really picks at my conscience. I resent that. It picks even more when people throw the "the guilty taketh the truth to be hard" scripture at me.

You don't know what I've gone through.

Am I a tare? Seriously? A person who lives according to what her gut tells her - a gut that, so far, hasn't misled her?

Yes, I'm angry about a few things with the Church. I've had some experiences in past years to make me question a few things. I put the Church and some of its members on such a high pedestal, thinking they were perfect and could do no wrong. I've made this mistake with people before. Every single time, that person or thing proves itself to be fallible and, depending on the heighth I gave it, it has fallen. Hard.

You think the Church is perfect? I say it's not.

You think your leaders are perfect? They're not.

I say the second you put anything on a pedestal is the second you tempt it to prove to you it is not worthy of it.

When I investigated the Church nine years ago, I was told only to pray about everything I was learning, and I would know the truth of it for myself.

Does baptism nullify this concept? You might think so the way some people act. So many are quick to accept any calling that comes their way without thought. I've received callings before I didn't feel were absolutely necessary. That doesn't mean you should turn them down, you should absolutely check your motives in saying no, but lightning doesn't always strike. It's good to serve.

It's better to be sane while serving.

I turned one down a few years ago. I was brand new in the ward in a brand new city, alone all of the time with three little ones in a small apartment, and was swiftly called to the nursery. I was about to have a mental breakdown over constantly being alone with my own kids six days a week, and now the nursery?

But he's the bishop, right? He should know. He's prayed about it. He receives revelation...right?

Not always. In this case I'm certain he acted as a human being heading a ward desperate for a new nursery worker. Here comes a young mom who knows kids - why the hell not?

Some callings are not given in the spirit of revelation.

After some serious struggle, a talk with a husband who thought at the time you always accept callings, and an emotional breakdown, I told my bishop no. It was empowering. That was a revelation.

Yes, there are times when we should have a blind faith in our leaders and just do. It's like if my kids were about to cross a busy street. They may not see it or understand it, but they need to stop the minute I yell STOP!

But where is growth and confidence and true understanding if it does not come from within? Otherwise we are merely robots, without brains, and perhaps after a while, even without hearts. We do what we are told and only what we are told without question.

That sounds like a really awful existence to me. It's a safe one, to be sure, but if we don't give thought to anything, then what is that faith? It's nothing.

I don't know why Prop 8 is such an issue for me. I think some of it is due to how much of an issue the Church and its members have made it. It's the realization that lies were perpetuated in its name. Prejudices were not shut down. Nobody worked to de-mystify things. All we did was put in our life savings (yes, one family put in $50,000) to work against homosexual couples who just wanted to marry. It was the realization that the Church worked against Prohibition and many in the Church were against the "negro" movement for civil rights.

Do I think I could be wrong here in my vote? Absolutely. But I have to live with myself. I already know of at least one person who voted "yes" and is now kicking themselves for it. Why are they doing that? They followed the prophet, right? Right. But they didn't believe it.

Remember, faith is the belief in things not seen, as we so often love to quote.

I am not a tare. I am who I say I am. I didn't pretend to vote yes and then voted no. I'm not pretending to be something I'm not. At least I'm trying my best to not be. And I hate that I feel I must defend myself.

Enough with the judgements. Those who insist they are wheat and then go home and spread lies and hatred through their words or lack thereof are not who they say they are. People who have no problem getting up on their own pedestals are the ones who will eventually fall.

A little humility, please? Less judgment upon those you do not know - even those you do know? While in the end it is the person's decision on what they do, your self-righteous rhetoric only serves to push people away.

So just shut up already.