Ben Crowder

Do you really think your church acted out of love then? From where I stand it sure looks like hate.

And spreading rumors and lies is not what I would call honorable. Have you no shame?

I was talking to my roommate about this tonight, actually. She’s from California and her family is pretty nervous right now because of some anti-latter-day-saint sentiments. Her 16-year old sister was almost assaulted on the street for holding a “Yes Prop 8″ sign. (A policeman stopped the guy before he did any real damage, but he said HORRIBLE things to her, threatening her with all sorts of awful things.)

Obviously the people who are still threatening LDS people in California are a minority, but that they are out there is a certainty.

P.S. – As a law student I’m appalled that the officers refused to press charges against any of the rioters, although I’m grateful they at least put up a line to protect the temple. Still…that the church had to CLOSE down 2 temples because violent protesters made it too dangerous? It sickens me that was necessary in our “free” country. Anyway, I won’t go off on all the legal problems here…but I do agree with you Ben. It’s a problem.

Do you really think your church acted out of love then?

I sure do. Individual members of the Church, imperfect as we are, have surely fallen short of that noble goal on many occassions. But in every letter I’ve read and every video clip I’ve watched, the Church and its leaders have definitely exemplified a spirit of love, compassion, and—yes, it’s true—tolerance.

From where I stand it sure looks like hate.

Saying no to somebody’s request is hateful, then?

And spreading rumors and lies is not what I would call honorable.

Ah yes, the “rumors and lies” argument. Funny how both sides of any political issue or campaign can get away with saying that, isn’t it?

How quick both sides are to demonize the other. God will judge whether the Mormons we hateful in their campaign to ban gay marriage, but I think we need to understand why the other side is as angry as they are.

If we reserve the right to devote church time to preaching against gay marriage (as they copiously did in CA), using official Church lists and platforms to contact members and persuade them (in the name of God) to vote yes on a political act, and even used tithing records to pressure members into donating a specific amount of money so that a fund-raising goal for a ward or stake could be met, where do we get off for calling rights-activists “low” for using donations lists to find their targets as well? Democracy is a double-edged sword; either you support it or you don’t.

Ben, I join with you in condemning the police officer for expressing such hateful sentiment as wishing the destruction of the temple. The semantic of “hate” are fuzzy at best, however. For example:
Elder Oaks was quoted as saying (with regards to how to deal with your own homosexual children) “Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”” (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction)

Although some might think that this is a totally normal way to react, others have pointed out to me that this is a less effective method of parenting and might even be construed as “hate” towards your own children. Despite my sins, my parents have never shown me that they were ashamed of me, not willing to introduce me to their friends. Did you parents disassociate themselves from you while you were going through a rebellious phase during your teenage years? Were they afraid that walking with you in public might be seen as a public, tacit approval of your sins? Am I expecting too much from parents that they love their children (even at the risk of being seen to tolerate) despite the gravity of their sins? Although they wouldn’t approve of any acts that might put me into such a situation, I am 99% sure that my parents would come to my arraignment, were I ever arrested and charged with an offense.

To make a long statement short, feel free to rage against hatred, ugliness, and sin, but never, ever assume or even assert that you (or your church) is any better. Any instances of hatred, intolerance, or bigotry shown by individual members (including the apostles, should they have acted out of less-than-perfect motives) are not of God.

mojoey, I am truly sorry if hatred has been shown towards you. For what it’s worth, I did not support the Church’s stance on Proposition 8. I do hope, however, that you do not judge the Church as a whole, its membership, or its better angels as being necessarily evil because it has committed what you deem to be an act of hatred.

Sorry to write a novel; I am just trying to raise the level of dialog to something beyond finger-pointing and sarcasm (and dogmatic support of all things LDS).

Thanks so much for posting this, Ben.

Can I just say “ditto” to everything Daine said. Daine, thank you for inserting some calm and rational thinking into this discussion. I also think it is important that neither side demonizes the other and that both sides should be held equally accountable for their actions. I condemn any violence, period. BTW, I am still waiting to hear about an *actual* report of violence.

As a college student in California, I had the opportunity to go to 2 forums to discuss Prop 8. The majority of the students and faculty tended to oppose it, and from my perspective it seemed to come down to two major disconnects:
- Are homosexuals the only group effected?
- Is marriage just about a relationship between two people?

Those opposing Prop 8 would essentially say “Yes” to both of those, whereas I said “No.” Starting from some common ground, most people agree that men are different from women. A relationship between a man and a woman is then bringing together two “opposite”, complimentary individuals, and a relationship between two men or two women is bringing together two like individuals. These two types of relationships are fundamentally different. That difference has significance. A heterosexual relationship —before things like in vitro fertilization and changes in the way adoption works— is the relationship with the potential to have a family with children. Marriage binds that relationship, which is fundamentally tied to that potential family. The degradation of the American family is well documented across disciplines, social scientists, psychologists, etc… Those opposed to Prop 8 often reminded me that heterosexuals often divorce, don’t have children, or treat their children poorly. Are these arguments that should sway us as a society to redefine marriage, and therefore the family? It is my belief that defining marriage as a relationship between any two adults removes the familial context from the word, and in the long run would result in a society that does not associate the need to marry with the act of procreation (already happening). The short term effects were the shocking ones seen in the commercials, such as the potential impact on education (which at some level is legitimate, despite the hyperbole), but the long term effects that impact all society are those that I described before. It is not a civil rights debate. Marriage is not like an individual’s freedom to speech or right to bear arms. It is a specific type of relationship with specific criteria. If you not heterosexual, but want the same legal benefits that marriage provides with your partner, a civil union provides that. Apparently there are some 12 legal differences between marriage and civil unions. I’d love to know what those are, and instead see someone propose legislation to improve the protection under a civil union rather than trying to remove the family-centered concept of marriage from society.

mojoey: I’m sorry, but our definitions of “love” and “hate” must be opposite, because everything I’ve seen (as Connor said) has shown the Church and its members to be anything but full of hate. The Proposition 8 campaign has never been anti-gay — it’s always been pro-family. In fact, the Church issued a statement explaining just that:

Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the Church were and are simply wrong. The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians. Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.

As for rumors and lies, would you mind expounding? Merely saying “rumors and lies” is just a little ineffective. Give us something concrete and not these abstract clichés, please.

Kitten: It’s not just in California — a pro-homosexual group in Michigan has completely embarrassed itself by going wild in an attack on a Christian church. As for the legal aspect of things, what we’re finding is that many of the pro-gay groups are willing to go to any length to promote their agenda, even in some cases crossing the lines that keep society from descending into chaos.

Connor: Well said.

Daine: Looks like you’ve downed the gay agenda lock, stock, and barrel. Firstly, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Church making a political stance and asking its members (not forcing, mind you) to vote in favor of Prop 8. (Do you have any hard evidence to back the tithing records claim, by the way?) And the Church asking its members to support a pro-family bill is miles away from gay rights activists calling up donors’ bosses and telling them their employees are bigots. Can’t you see it? They’re not the same thing. At all.

Secondly, if you’re going to quote Elder Oaks, please don’t take his words out of context. Here’s the whole story:

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At what point does showing that love cross the line into inadvertently endorsing behavior? If the son says, ‘Well, if you love me, can I bring my partner to our home to visit? Can we come for holidays?’ How do you balance that against, for example, concern for other children in the home?’

ELDER OAKS: That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer.

I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”

There are so many different circumstances, it’s impossible to give one answer that fits all.

Quoting only a small portion of his words and twisting them to mean something different does not do much to establish your credibility, I’m afraid. All Elder Oaks was saying was that in some cases — most likely extreme cases, if the gay couple is overtly flamboyant and flagrant in their homosexuality — that sort of behavior might not be acceptable in a family home. If I have a son who wants to come sodomize my other children, I’m sorry, but I am not going to allow him into home. (Yes, it’s an extreme case. And that’s what Elder Oaks was saying.) Don’t take an edge case and make it seem like he was talking about a one-size-fits-all response. That’s dishonest.

Your statement about not thinking I or the Church are any better leaves me a little dumbfounded, because almost all of the evidence shows that Prop 8 protesters are indeed raging with hatred, and that Prop 8 supporters are anything but. (I do agree, however, that any individual Prop 8 supporters who do burst out in hatred are in the wrong. I just haven’t seen that at all.) This is not dogmatic support of all things LDS, but from your comments it appears that you tend towards dogmatic support of the Prop 8 protesters, and I’m not seeing much more than finger-pointing, either.

Amy: Thanks. :)

Ali: Calm and rational thinking?! Anyway, we’re not demonizing the gay community for wanting their rights. If there’s any demonization at all, it’s because of gay groups who are not peacefully protesting, but who are vandalizing our churches and being profane and downright out of line. (Like the group throwing condoms around in that Michigan church, linked to earlier in this comment.) It’s their behavior that we’re condemning. Much of the behavior we’re hearing accounts of is practically rabid, far beyond societal norms for protests. And just for the record, there are many different forms of violence, several of which I have seen accounts of. (Primarily vandalism of church buildings and cars.)

Jim: Thanks for your comments, and I agree. :)

Ben,

First off, please don’t tell me what I believe. You might think that it “Looks like [I]’ve downed the gay agenda lock, stock, and barrel,” I don’t tell you what you believe, please don’t make assumptions about me or what you think I believe. If you’d like to, you’re free to read in my blog at theburrow2chicagodrift.blogspot.com. I have written a few posts about my positions on Prop 8 and the Church, but you don’t know me any better than I know you (probably less so, since I’m the blog-stalker here), and I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t insinuate that I’m some brainwashed propagandist. As with all blogs, you’re welcome to ask me to leave or just block my comments if you don’t like what I’ve said. I don’t abuse you or make assumptions about where you get your opinions from, and I expect that you give me that same courtesy.

Second off, I was not being “dishonest” by only quoting part of the Oaks interview (I included the link for a reason). I suppose I could have given an exegesis of the whole interview, but such would have been long and irrelevant. Perhaps on my own blog I will, but not just as a commenter on yours.

Next, who is taking a fringe case here? I didn’t give any hyperbole when citing Oaks, just the exact scenario that Oaks gave (it was a quote, keep in mind), of parents who would be embarrassed to introduce their gay son or daughter to their friends. Additionally,.I merely pointed out that others have pointed out to me that THEY see that as hatred. I don’t think I should be demonized for asserting that empathy is possible here. I fear. Again, I would ask you to focus on my arguments if you’re going to respond, delete them if you feel that they are manipulative, or point out how I am being dishonest, rather than just smearing me with a label.

And finally, I was trying to delicately point out that sins have been committed on both sides of this action. I don’t really want to post my anecdotes here, because I don’t feel that it would be appropriate to do our dirty laundry in public, but if you’d like to send me an e-mail, I’d be glad to forward my friend’s e-mails to you so that you can have personal, first-hand testimonies, rather than my rehashings.

The comment about dogmatic support was meant for Connor, and was in poor taste. I’m sorry.

It’s true that I’m a “finger-pointing” here, but I am trying to do it fairly. You are trying to claim that “[you] just haven’t seen [outbursts of hatred from Mormons] at all” so I ask you, have you been looking? If you’re going to make a claim based on preponderance of evidence, you should at least be willing to see sins wherever they occur. I’ll just link you to one example, agree with you that any violence or hatred is not of God, and stop wasting so much room on your blog.
http://www.latimes.com/video/?slug=la-me-protest7-2008nov07-vid

Ben: sorry I was defining vandalism as harm to property, and violence as physical harm to people. Both are unacceptable, but IMO violence is worse. I saw a news report of some large young mormons yelling profanity and tearing down signs. One protester had her nose bashed, supposedly as a result of their confrontation. Out of the whole incident, only the injured individual, to me, represents a case of actual violence. I’d be interested to hear about similar cases from the pro-gay side if you have any links.

To demonize means to portray as wicked or threatening, and I feel that Mormon leadership did that Prop 8′s opponents. Their huge vocal and financial campaign to ban gay marriage was legal (probably just barely, from what I’ve seen of the IRS tax code) but I found it vastly hateful and devastating to fellow Americans. Obviously we will disagree on that. I’m just trying to emphasize why Daine and I feel that BOTH sides have behaved poorly.

Dane: ~sigh~. We’re obviously speaking past each other and so it seems kind of pointless to continue. Let me put it differently: how do you reconcile your stance on this with your testimony? (Incidentally, why are you so hesitant to give evidence of what the pro-8 side has done wrong? Hiding it isn’t going to help anything — I’m not afraid of the truth. If our side has done wrong, then we ought to own up to it. But in all honesty the only thing I’ve heard or seen so far is those guys tearing the signs down and getting into the fight. And I only take issue with their profanity and the fight — tearing the signs down was quite fine as far as I’m concerned, since they never should have been on the temple gates in the first place.)

Ali: Of course violence is worse than vandalism. If you feel that Mormon leadership demonized Prop 8′s opponents, well, I’m not sure which Mormon leadership you’re listening to. Everything I got (and I’m in a stake presidency so I was privy to a lot of what the local leadership was getting from above) was about protecting families — not about demonizing gays. And what’s this about the IRS tax code? The donations were all from individual members, so it has nothing to do with the tax code.

Sorry if this stresses you out, but I’d like to respond. The LDS church knows full well that “An IRC section 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.” Leadership made their position clear, but made sure it was members doing “unaffiliated” organization and legwork, and donating out of their own (taxed) income. They were careful to stay legal, as they always are. As a post-member, I remember well how much influence the leadership has over the followers, so I apologize if I wrongly equated the two in my previous comment.

Regarding the first issue, that’s what I mean. By saying that prop 8 protects families, the implication is that not passing it would be potentially harmful to families. Would you disagree that this was implied? From my perspective, it was a scare tactic and a demonization of those who were against the prop. If you think that gay marriage really would hurt families, so you won’t see it as demonization, you’ll see it as “truth.” Which is why we would disagree there.

There’s an article out in the NY Times saying that Mormons tipped the balance of the election. So, whether it is deserved or not, you’re going to have a lot of people going “thanks a lot Mormons, for denying a bunch of families full legal recognition, and making sure a whole group of people becomes second-class citizens in CA.” I’m tying to explain why gays feel targeted by the LDS right now. They don’t understand it when people say “oh we’re not trying to hurt gays, we’re just trying to make sure they can’t get married.” To them, such a statement is upsetting and outrageous. They say, “separate is not equal.”

The vote was not about rights. It was about the definition of the term ‘marriage.’ They didn’t vote on any rights.

The Church did not force anyone to do anything. To paint a picture of overzealous goal seekers pestering members on their rolls to give money is disingenuous, misleading, and quasi ad hominem.

The Church is not at risk for its tax exemption to be revoked. The Church is allowed to have a say. The Church is allowed to ask its members to vote. The Church does not endorse a political party nor affiliate itself one way or another.

The NY Times gives us too much credit. How many Mormons are there in CA, and how wide was the margin that the vote passed by?

We’re not trying to say they can’t get married. In a roundabout way we’re trying to protect our right to perform marriages as we see fit. eHarmony was recently forced to allow a homosexual man to search for his matches. A private entity that doesn’t offer essential services was forced by litigation to change the way they conduct business.

Please. The Church isn’t demonizing anyone. This was a state sanctioned vote and the Church voted. The Church is innocent in these matters.

“The vote was not about rights. It was about the definition of the term ‘marriage.’ They didn’t vote on any rights.”

Before the vote, homosexuals had the right to get married. After the vote, they did not.

“To paint a picture of overzealous goal seekers pestering members on their rolls to give money is disingenuous, misleading, and quasi ad hominem.”

From my POV, it’s a fairly accurate portrayal, if you think of the overzealous goal seekers being the volunteers, not the leadership, and pestering anyone in their call bank, not just other Mormons.

“We’re not trying to say they can’t get married.”

Um…yes you are.

“A private entity that doesn’t offer essential services was forced by litigation to change the way they conduct business.”

This is a good point which explains some of the underlying fears that were driving the LDS involvement. History shows that as society grows more tolerant of certain minority groups, discriminators of those groups are held to greater accountability. I see it as a good trend.

“The Church is innocent in these matters.”

Maybe it is impossible for you to understand why gays don’t see it that way.