it's mutual night, let's pass out anti gay marriage leaflets

[_Dr. Shades]

This is an easy one. Many Mormons on these boards like to claim how much diversity of thought there is amongst LDS, and how much freedom there was to believe differently from the crowd. But on this issue, there is no room whatsoever for disagreement. The party line is "Yes on 102", and if you disagree with that, either you don't have faith, you don't support the Prophets, or you shut the hell up.

You know that and I know that, so it's time to make them aware of it, too.

This is exactly the kind of "when the Brethren speak, the thinking has been done" type of thing that the Internet Mormons have been denying happens within the church for years.

All the more reason to back them into a corner on it. Ammunition.

[_asbestosman]

When the brethren speak, the debate is over, but the thinking can still continue.

When the judge makes a ruling, the trial is over, but there may yet be things to discuss about the trial.

[_Yoda]

Sethbag, I think the BIG mis-step here is that the leaders failed to inform legal guardians of what the youth were participating in IN WRITING.

That is something I would definitely bring to the Bishop's attention. The lack of providing proper written parental consent was clearly neglectful, and could have led to a downright dangerous situation.

The Bishop definitely needs to be aware of the lack of communication that occurred.

It wasn't enough to just announce something like that verbally.

I think that if you focus on the safety issue as a concerned parent, you will have a better chance of getting the results you are looking for, and deserve.

Whoever is over the Mutual program screwed up big time with this.

[_Sethbag]

First, MG, at the risk of appearing overly pedantic, I just need to point out that in the case of this activity with my daughter and the local ward, it was about Arizona Prop 102, not California Prop 8, but in general the two propositions have the same aims and similar wording, and the two could be talked about essentially interchangeably, so I will respond to some of your post in that context.

Or that the simple act of defining marriage as being between a man and a woman shows intolerance towards gays that choose to live together?

Yes. The wording of Props 8 and 102 are purposefully exclusive, designed specifically to prevent homosexuals from legally ratifying their unions under state marriage law. The religious rhetoric on this issue is explicit that the justification for this exclusion is moral approbation of homosexuality and the fulfillment of God's will that homosexuals' relationships not legally obtain "family" status.

And in the case of California's Prop 8, since thousands of gay couples have already been legally married under the current laws of California, this represents a situation where people are attempting to pass a constitutional amendment that must have the effect of voiding existing marriages. Gays in California currently have the right to marry, and an attempt is being made to take away this right. In Arizona, gay marriage is currently not legal, and the AZ proposition is an attempt to "head the gays off at the pass", as it were.

In other words's, don't you think that the average person voting for Prop. 8 would have a very difficult time seeing their decision as being hateful and/or intolerant?

I think that the average bigoted or hateful person, whatever the nature of their hatred or bigotry, has a very hard time recognizing themselves as bigoted or hateful. As human beings we are very good at inventing justifications for the things we believe, and at convincing ourselves to believe these justifications. At the risk of invoking Godwin on myself, one might well ask whether the average Nazi would have had a very difficult time seeing their decision to send the Jews to the gas chambers as being hateful and intolerant. I'd dare say most of the highest-level Nazis probably not have recognized this about themselves, confident as they were in the justness of their beliefs.

In the same vein, do you believe Brigham Young would have had a hard time recognizing his hatred and bigotry against blacks?

We all have problems in this area. I'm trying to force myself to be intensely introspective and to be honest with myself about my ideas, with mixed success. I think I've managed to drive away many, possibly most, but probably not all of my prejudices. I think deep down I'm still afraid of the Chinese, for example. And the Scientologists, as a body, are simply untakeable. I also find it hard to suppress my disdain for the strictest sort of Molly Mormons and Peter Priesthoods. I hope that over time, and with serious introspection, my prejudices in all areas will be lifted in all areas where they haven't been so far.

[_rcrocket]

I'm kind of upset about the whole charade. I'm upset that they roped the youth into this most dubious activity in the first place, and I'm upset that they tried to get plausible deniability for the Church's involvement by cancelling Mutual and then planning this "voluntary" youth activity in its place and time slot.

I haven't had a chance to call up the bishop and speak with him about this. I've told him in the past that I have no objection to my daughter's participation in church activities, but I will tell him that if shenanigans like this happen again, I may very well have to reevaluate my stance on this.

Have I mentioned before to you my belief that your posts evidence a willingness to be bullied?

[_Yoda]

Bob, in your professional opinion, do you think there was some legal mis-step here in the Mutual leaders not sending home a permission form for the kids to sign?

[_Sethbag]

I'm kind of upset about the whole charade. I'm upset that they roped the youth into this most dubious activity in the first place, and I'm upset that they tried to get plausible deniability for the Church's involvement by cancelling Mutual and then planning this "voluntary" youth activity in its place and time slot.

I haven't had a chance to call up the bishop and speak with him about this. I've told him in the past that I have no objection to my daughter's participation in church activities, but I will tell him that if shenanigans like this happen again, I may very well have to reevaluate my stance on this.

Have I mentioned before to you my belief that your posts evidence a willingness to be bullied?

I don't recall your having done so, but I'm genuinely interested in both what you mean by this, and why you think that. If you wouldn't mind explaining yourself, I'd appreciate that.

[_rcrocket]

Just noting for future reference that I think this is the second time I have made this kind of comment about your posts -- mincing handwringing is how I would characterize your OP. Dr. Laura, whom I dislike, would tell you to stand up for yourself and to quit being a doormat.

[_Gadianton]

Well, I think it's telling that the church leaders did not ask parental permission for this activity. Note that school field trips -- at least in CA -- require the parents to sign each one off. Even in San Fransisco.

Since Seth specifically asked for input as I normally wouldn't want to butt in on an issue like this. I wouldn't punish my daughter on this kind of behavior by taking the car away or something. As misguided as I think the typical reasoning for 8 is, I think she is entitled to be pro 8 and voice her opinion on it if she wants to. If she's otherwise a "good kid", doing ok in school, staying out of legal trouble and stuff like that, I'd pick my battles. The world overall is a very bad place, she could be in much worse circumstances and doing much worse, and risky, things.

[_Dr. Shades]

Dr. Laura, whom I dislike, would tell you to stand up for yourself and to quit being a doormat.

By going and confronting the leaders, that's precisely what he did.

How did you miss that part?