The Mormon Proposition

Source: Salon.com, November 18, 2008

A TV commercial by opponents of Proposition 8 highlights the Mormon role in promoting the measure.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (also known as the LDS or Mormon Church) is facing a public backlash following its heavy-handed support of Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriages in California, notes progressive PR pro Michael Fox. "For many years," he notes, "the LDS Church has been an active force in the anti-gay movement, most notably in regard to its sponsorship of the Boy Scouts of America, but these activities have mostly been below the media radar and opposition has been directed at the Scouts, not the LDS Church itself. ... Now that will change." A leaked internal memo shows how top church leaders egged on rank-and-file Mormons to donate more than $20 million to support Proposition 8, while members in Utah made political phone calls to Californians on behalf of the measure. In response, Fox says, "Gay and lesbian groups and their allies will challenge the Mormons everywhere, no doubt tapping into pre-existing anti-Mormon prejudice. ... And the Prop 8 boycott, if sustained, can have a serious impact on businesses owned by Mormons, such as the Marriott hotel chain, on the careers of LDS members, and even on the economy of the State of Utah."

Comments

Mind Your Own Business

I have never been able to understand the mindset of those who push their beliefs down the throats of others. From telling people who to love and marry, to telling people how to worship, to policing what people eat and telling them what to weigh, MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS! If you were working on yourselves, you would not have time to obsess on what other people are doing! And those "heart warming" family public service nags by the Mormons annoy me too. While overtly they are just promoting family time, they are subtly paving the way for more moralizing.

Submitted by Pani113 on November 20, 2008 - 10:13am.

Whose belief, whose throat?

Those opposed to same-sex marriage (or even civil unions) claim its proponents are shoving their beliefs down their throats, while supporters say opponents are shoving their beliefs down theirs. So there appears to be a gaping, unmet need for legal definitions that distinguish with unequivocal epistemological rigor between beliefs and throats.

In the meantime, if the state has a God-given mandate to uphold the sanctity of one sacrament, to wit matrimony, it must surely have no lesser duty to uphold the sanctity of all sacraments. The most urgent case is that of baptism. Traditionally, baptism has always been performed on the living, but now it appears that the Mormon church is making a mockery of traditional baptism by ghoulishly "baptizing" dead people:

http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/mormon/baptism/

The Mormons say that they are not forcing their baptism on anyone, since "...each deceased soul has the personal choice to accept or reject it. There is nothing in Mormonism that states that the person who is being baptized by proxy must accept this ordinance; he or she is simply given the opportunity to choose."

Well, each party to a same-sex marriage is given the opportunity to choose as well, but that does not make same-sex marriage any more acceptable to the Mormon church. So simple logic dictates that if same-sex marriage violates and degrades the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman, then "baptism" of the dead, even with the consent of the deceased soul, violates and degrades the sanctity of traditional and holy baptism of the living. The state must not permit this travesty to continue, or it will surely lead to terrible consequences for all of society!

Submitted by Mutternich on November 20, 2008 - 12:58pm.

Baptism for the living is the tradition?

You have presented an Interesting argument. I would, however, like to point out one fallacy in your statement. You say, "Traditionally, baptism has always been performed on the living,.."

I can only assume that you are speaking of Christian baptism, as I know of no other form or type of baptism. Now, as far as your use of the word "traditionally" I can only wonder as to how far back into history you are looking. I think it's safest to say that we can gain the most accuracy into what Christ intended with baptism by looking at the Bible, specifically the New Testament. In the new testament are many references to baptism, including one which you may be interested in, 1 Corinthians 15:29 (King James), which reads:

"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"

Clearly "traditional" baptism includes baptism for the dead as well as the living, as both forms existed in the church that Christ founded. So I would argue that baptism for the dead does not "violate and degrade the sanctity of traditional and holy baptism of the living." IMO

Submitted by Anonymous on March 5, 2009 - 12:04am.

I suppose I should have expected

some such pedantic response. The whole point of my frankly (and I thought obviously) sarcastic comment was that "sanctity," in the sense of the word that churches use, is a preposterous conceit that the state shouldn't be in the business of propping up.

If some church teaches that it's accomplishing some divinely sanctioned purpose by posthumously baptizing dead people, fine. It has no business usurping the machinery of the state to dictate who may or may not marry in the civil order.

Submitted by Mutternich on March 5, 2009 - 3:45pm.

anti-Mormon propaganda

I read the "about us" for the Center for Media and Democracy after having read the comments here on the "Mormon Proposition" and think your goal of "investigating and exposing public relations spin and propaganda" ought to start with your own machinery. You claim that Mormon participation in the electoral process was "heavy handed." How is the Mormon Church opposing something it considers to be hostile to its teachings, "heavy handed?" Is free speech only theoretical?

When the Mormon Church is sued for millions of dollars because homosexual Scout leaders abused Scouts, isn't it prudent to make sure such behavior isn't facilitated further? Is it "anti-gay" to avoid future lawsuits?

The reference to a "leaked internal memo" sounds nefarious except for the fact that the memo was read in every LDS congregation in America and posted on its official web site.

The commercial you claim "highlights the Mormon role" in promoting Proposition 8 is absolutely dishonest. It portrays Mormon missionaries as invading the home of a lesbian couple, searching their home and destroying property--actions that factually mirror the fascist actions of anti-Mormon protesters who have invaded churches and destroyed property after having lost a legal *democratic* election.

Just what part of democracy are you supporting by posting such blatantly dishonest and anti-democratic propaganda?

Submitted by friuliveneto on November 20, 2008 - 4:36pm.

Speaking of heavyhandedness...

When the Mormon Church is sued for millions of dollars because homosexual Scout leaders abused Scouts, isn't it prudent to make sure such behavior isn't facilitated further? Is it "anti-gay" to avoid future lawsuits?

Tarring all homosexuals with the brush of pedophilia -- I'd call that pretty heavy handed.

I think I know what the Mormon leadership's problem is: they look around at, for example, the Episcopal church, and they see a bishop who's openly gay and a chief bishop who's a woman and the Episcopal church in schism because of it, and they imagine what could happen to their own rigid, male-privileged, authoritarian rule if tolerance spread too far.

You'd think in view of their own harrowing history Mormons would have learned to respect the rights of others to liberty and pursuit of happiness in a pluralistic, all-embracing society, but apparently not. The commercial makes that point aptly, IMO.

Submitted by Mutternich on November 20, 2008 - 9:19pm.