Time magazine article on backlash vs. LDS in CA ....

[_Rollo Tomasi]

This may have already been posted here, but if not ... below is the link to an article in the recent Time magazine entitled "The Church and Gay Marriage: Are Mormons Misunderstood?" The article primarily deals with the backlash experienced by LDS members in CA due to LDS support for Prop. H8. Link to the full article is here:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... -1,00.html

.

.

.

....

[_Dwight Frye]

From the article:

The LDS abstained from same-sex-marriage battles in Iowa and New England. But avoiding a California rematch may be tougher. Notre Dame's Campbell says, "If it appeared that the church sat out next time because it was criticized this time, there might be a credibility question." But given a national trend toward supporting gay marriage, he asks, "Does the church want the public to identify it primarily as a political body opposing an issue that comes back again and again?"

What do you think? The Church goes back in swinging at the risk of more backlash, or sits it out at the risk of its credibility?

[_Sethbag]

A lot of Mormons have "invested" in the anti-gay marriage cause, to the tune of millions of dollars in donations. If they give up now, they're watching their investment burn to the ground.

Or do you suppose the feeling of being persecuted is enough bang for their buck?

I know, it's a hard call. We'll see.

[_BishopRic]

It's definitely been a polarizer -- with Steve Young's wife and Marie Osmond coming out supporting their gay family members, it's bound to create some backlash within the church -- something it's not really accustomed to.

Of course it's all speculation, but I see the possibility of the church just taking the hit on this one and chalking it up to Satan working overtime in these latter days!

[_Rollo Tomasi]

From the article:

The LDS abstained from same-sex-marriage battles in Iowa and New England. But avoiding a California rematch may be tougher. Notre Dame's Campbell says, "If it appeared that the church sat out next time because it was criticized this time, there might be a credibility question." But given a national trend toward supporting gay marriage, he asks, "Does the church want the public to identify it primarily as a political body opposing an issue that comes back again and again?"

What do you think? The Church goes back in swinging at the risk of more backlash, or sits it out at the risk of its credibility?

I always thought the Church's 'picking and choosing' among states in which to battle the 'scourge' of gay marriage smacked of political, rather than inspired, motives. If God was really so against gay civil marriage, as the Brethren seem to claim, then why would He direct the battle only to California, while staying out of the fray in Iowa and states in the East? Of course, we all know God had nothing to do with the Brethren's choosing to make a last stand in CA (while staying silent in the other states) and that the choice was purely political (i.e., the Church had a chance to win in CA due to the large number of members, etc.).

[_Gazelam]

Take away regard for the seventh commandment, and behold the current celebration of sex, the secular religion, with its own liturgy of lust and supporting music. Its theology focuses on self, its hereafter is now. Its chief ritual is sensation - though the irony is that it finally desensitizes its obsessed adherents, who become "past feeling" (Ephesians 4:19; Moroni 9:20)

[_bcspace]

If God was really so against gay civil marriage, as the Brethren seem to claim, then why would He direct the battle only to California, while staying out of the fray in Iowa and states in the East?

I don't think God is going to prevent the downhill slide of society. But He will provide examples that could change society if enough people see and accept it. If not, it becomes an opportunity to shine a light for all those who may, to come out of Babylon.

I sense that it is also accomplishing the righteous purpose of pruning the vineyard; culling the leftwing out of the Church.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I don't think God is going to prevent the downhill slide of society. But He will provide examples that could change society if enough people see and accept it. If not, it becomes an opportunity to shine a light for all those who may, to come out of Babylon.

I sense that it is also accomplishing the righteous purpose of pruning the vineyard; culling the leftwing out of the Church.

I disagree. If God were really that upset with gay civil marriage, then He wouldn't be so selective -- the Church would fight it all over the country (which would be consistent with God's directing the Brethren to join the fight for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage a couple of years ago). Let's face it -- God is NOT involved in this fight. It is purely man-made.

[_Morrissey]

I don't think God is going to prevent the downhill slide of society. But He will provide examples that could change society if enough people see and accept it. If not, it becomes an opportunity to shine a light for all those who may, to come out of Babylon.

I sense that it is also accomplishing the righteous purpose of pruning the vineyard; culling the leftwing out of the Church.

I disagree. If God were really that upset with gay civil marriage, then He wouldn't be so selective -- the Church would fight it all over the country (which would be consistent with God's directing the Brethren to join the fight for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage a couple of years ago). Let's face it -- God is NOT involved in this fight. It is purely man-made.

Out of curiosity, has God ever fought against some form of iniquity and eventually won? When same-sex marriage becomes commonplace within US (and Western) society, will it be because God was not powerful enough to fight it and win? Or will it be because God gave up (maybe God has an enduring to the end deficit)? Or will it be because God did not use all the weapons in his arsenal? (He could, like he did to Book of Mormon inhabitants, drown us all in the depths of the sea or cause mountains to bury us, or burn us with fire--his favorite ways to dispatch those who commit the grievous sin of choosing for themselves what is right and wrong and not kowtowing to God's elect on earth.) What does this imply about the impotence of God where it comes fighting against iniquity? I mean, for a guy who's supposedly all-powerful, he certainly turns out to be a weanie an awful lot of the time.

[_John Larsen]

Take away regard for the seventh commandment, and behold the current celebration of sex, the secular religion, with its own liturgy of lust and supporting music. Its theology focuses on self, its hereafter is now. Its chief ritual is sensation - though the irony is that it finally desensitizes its obsessed adherents, who become "past feeling" (Ephesians 4:19; Moroni 9:20)

The last sentence is complete nonsense. First of all, he offers no proof, even anecdotal that it happens. If people whose obsession is to obtain feeling and they become past feeling, why would they want to pursue that course anymore? Indeed, is that the object of the religious ilk? Let's take something like lust, if by indulging one's lust, ultimately one moves beyond lust, that would seem a good thing. In contrast, he offers that we don't want to desensitize that. What they want is a group, forever pining in a sensitive state, never able to indulge and never able to move beyond the desire. What is the advantage to staying sensitize to lust and supporting music?