It’s time for the Mormons to endorse ENDA

I’ve always been skeptical of the Mormons, in part based on the details of their faith, but mostly because on their visceral hatred of gays.  Nonetheless, the Mormons could wipe the slate clean by endorsing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill to outlaw anti-gay and anti-trans job discrimination at the federal level.

As a Christian who comes from a branch of Christianity that’s been around for two thousand years, I’ve always been somewhat suspicious of the new kids on the block who only discovered their faith in the past few centuries.  (Not that I fully believe that any faith has the keys to the Kingdom, as it were.)

But when I discovered that the Mormons were viciously anti-gay, with an almost evangelical fervor to their anti-gay advocacy – with a penchant for flaunting their homophobia – my opinion of the Church of Latter Day Saints headed decidedly south.

The Mormons have spent 20 years and millions of dollars bashing gays


Mormons via Shutterstock

For the past twenty years, the Mormons have spent tens of millions of dollars, in state after state, trying to impose their anti-gay zealotry on states far outside of their native Utah.  It started in Nebraska and Alaska way back in the 1990s.  But most famously, the Mormons made their mark in California, the Mormons are given single-handed credit for making Proposition 8, the repeal of gay marriage in that state, possible in 2008.

So it’s understandable why gay Americans, and our allies, even putting aside the Christianity argument, have a problem with Mormons.  Quite simply: We have a problem with Mormons because they have a problem with us.

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

Mormon alliance with the far-right was wrong from the beginning

I never understood why the Mormons chose, so long ago, to throw their hat in the religious right ring of hate.  The Mormon leadership, for whatever reason, felt that saddling up to the religious right was the best way to guarantee their inclusion, and acceptance, in American society at large.  I’d argue that it was the worst decision they ever made. And I suspect they’ve begun to realize the same.

The Mormons aren’t unlike the Jews, in many ways.  They’re a small religious minority with a history of being oppressed, who then oppress back, often proactively, in an understandable, albeit heavy-handed, effort to guarantee they’re continued existence.  But unlike America’s Jews, most of whom have sided with liberalism, the Mormons went Republican, and even worse, evangelical.

And here’s the problem.  When you’re a minority that makes your bed with a political party, and a religious movement, that has serious problems accepting minorities, you’re never going to be welcome, ever.  Yes, the Republicans and the evangelicals will be happy to use Mormon money to push their anti-plural goals, but when push comes to shove, they don’t like you, they don’t respect you, and they’re waiting for the day to send you back to where you belong, which isn’t at their side.

The Jewish analogy again is relevant.  Evangelicals LOVE Jews and Israel.  But not because they actually love Jews and Israel.  The only reason evangelicals are such fans of Jews and Israel is because evangelicals need Jews and Israel… to die… in order for Christ to come back in the Second Coming.

That’s right, Christ will return and two-thirds of the world’s Jews will go up in flames.  That’s what the Bible says.  And evangelicals know that if the Arabs, or whomever, are permitted to push the Jews into the proverbially sea, and if it happens too soon, then there will be no Israel left that can then be destroyed (again) in order to usher the comeback of the Lord.

So, evangelicals quite literally love Jews to death. And the Mormons aren’t far behind.

Evangelicals will never accept Mormons as equals, liberals will


Mormon via Shutterstock

The Republican/evangelical embrace of the Mormons isn’t any prettier.  Let’s face it: Who do you think has a bigger problem accepting Mormonism as legit: evangelical Republicans or liberals?  Evangelicals don’t even accept Catholics as legit – they think Catholics worship Satan and that the Virgin Mary is a “whore.”  And that’s a quote.  So if they think Catholics aren’t Christians, what do you think evangelicals really think about Mormons?

Liberals on the other hand, while not terribly religious, don’t terribly care if you are.  To be liberal is to embrace diversity, be it black, white, straight, gay, male, female, Latino, Jewish, or whatever. I think the Mormons made a huge tactical mistake hitching their wagon to a load of intolerant bigots who, in the end, don’t like the Mormons any more than they like gays or blacks. 

It’s time for the Mormons to endorse ENDA

So back to ENDA.  The Mormons could take a huge step towards burying the hatchet – or more accurately, removing the hatchet from the backs of gays – by publicly endorsing a federal ENDA.

It’s not like there isn’t a precedent.  GOP Senator Orrin Hatch, who is a Mormon from Utah, just yesterday voted for ENDA in a vote before a key Senate committee.  Hatch’s conservative and Mormon credentials are unquestioned.  And he provides other Mormons, in Congress and in Salt Lake City, with the necessary cover to publicly endorse ENDA.

And the Mormons haven’t already begun to inch in this direction.  Soon after Prop 8 was passed, the anti-Mormon backlash began.  It was so fast and so furious that it quickly became apparent to the Mormon leadership that Prop 8 had become a “PR fiasco” for them.  In the ensuing years, the Mormons even launched a $6 million ad campaign to try to rectify the damage.  To no avail.

In part, the PR offensive didn’t work because the Mormons simply refused to let up on the hate.  In 2009, the Mormons joined a push to kill civil unions in Illinois. In 2012, the Mormons joined the religious right in funding hate in Africa. And in 2013, the Mormons signed on to a viciously anti-gay religious right brief to the Supreme Court supporting Prop 8. It’s difficult to be forgiven when the sinner continues the sin.

But there have been some signs of hope.  Mormon-founded Marriott corporation now supports the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  The Mormons also stayed quiet when the Boy Scouts announced their decision to permit gay scouts.  Many thought the Mormons might break with the Boy Scouts over the decision, yet the Mormons did not, thus showing their tacit approval of the new pro-gay policy.

And finally, and most importantly, the Mormons endorsed a Salt Lake City gay and transgender non-discrimination ordinance that was, in essence, a mini-ENDA for Salt Lake City.  If it’s good enough for Salt Lake City – and ideologically compatible with LDS doctrine – then why isn’t it good enough for America?

What the Mormons have found over the past few years is that being pro-equality is not inimical to their faith.  On the contrary.  As numerous religions have already come to realize, if Jesus was anything, it wasn’t intolerant.

It’s not going to be easy for the Mormons to move away from the dark-side of Christianity and American politics.  Change never is.  But you’d think a people who are historically used to being stepped on would understand the dilemma posed by pro-actively stepping on others. It’s far more Christian to make common cause with the downtrodden, than to join their oppressors.

It’s time for the church of Latter Day Saints do the Christian thing and endorse ENDA.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

277 Responses to “It’s time for the Mormons to endorse ENDA”

  1. NedFlaherty says:

    Daniel Ortner:

    Anti-miscegenation laws outlaw marriage between races; one-man-one-woman marriage laws outlaw marriage between same genders. Both outlaw marriage on a basis that is unconstitutional because it is driven purely by animus and fills no government purpose.

    You wrote — incorrectly — that “No one is suggesting laws criminalizing gay unions.” That is incorrect. Anti-gay hobbyists and lobbyists still propose criminalization of LGBT people, both in America and abroad.

    Your observation that “There are no laws stopping a gay couple from living together, loving each other, and getting recognition in a church that acknowledges gay unions” is true, but it is wholly irrelevant to this discussion.

    The problems that remain are: (a) inability of same-gender couples to obtain a marriage license in all 52 American jurisdictions (50 states + District of Columbia + Commonwealth of Puerto Rico); and (b) inability of same-gender couples to freely transfer their marriage license and marriage status among all 52 jurisdictions the same way that every other married couple does. Only 14 states issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples, and only 14 states respect such licenses issued by other states. Gross inequality still exists nationwide.

    You assume — incorrectly — that same-gender couples can marry in a church, and then “have a civil union with every single right that a straight married couple would have.” You’re wrong. They can’t. The federal government issues 1,138 marriage-related rights/responsibilities, none of which are available to anyone in a civil union or in a domestic partnership; those rights are available only to a couple with a full, legal marriage.

    You assume — incorrectly — that “one can oppose gay marriage and not be anti-gay or homophobic.” That’s untrue. Everyone who opposes equal human rights for LGBT individuals, couples, and their children is anti-LGBT, and everyone who is anti-LGBT is expressing a phobia (irrational fear). It was already proven in multiple state and federal court cases that there is no harm to anyone caused by the marriage of an LGBT couple, so any fear of that is irrational.

    Your argument that “marriage between a man and a women (sic) is special” is a religious superstition, but has no basis in scientific fact, because (a) both same-gender couples and mixed-gender couples often have no children; and (b) both same-gender couples and mixed-gender couples also have and raise children via prior marriage, fertilization, surrogacy, foster care, and/or adoption. Every valid, peer-reviewed, scientific study comparing the results of child-rearing between same-gender and mixed-gender couples have found no statistical difference.

    Multiple court cases have proven that banning same-gender marriage has no societal or governmental benefit, and that allowing same-gender marriage benefits society and government in the same ways as mixed-gender marriage.

    Neither you nor anyone else is allowed to argue in a court of law that your deity did something, or anything (including creating or defining marriage), because neither you nor anyone else has any proof that your deity did anything, or that your deity had a specific motive, or that your deity even exists.

    All your assumptions about “special-ness” and “enshrining/defending” are merely immature expressions of nationalism, religiosity, ethnocentricity, and hetero-supremacy. Those are not valid legal bases on which to argue anything. If “special-ness” were a valid legal concept, then same-gender couples also could claim oodles of unique “special-ness” themselves. But it’s not even a legitimate legal point, and so no LGBT attorney ever makes the mistake of trying to argue it.

  2. Daniel Ortner says:


    You make some valid points, but I think your comparison between gay marriage
    and interracial marriage is especially overblown… Loving v Virginia was a case striking down a law that criminalizes marriage between people of different races.
    The couple involved faced jailed time just for living together and loving each other. That is absolutely wrong. That is also far from the case for gay couples. No one is suggesting laws criminalizing gay unions. There are no laws stopping a gay couple from living together, loving each other, and getting recognition in a church that acknowledges gay unions. In a state that today has civil unions, since DOMA is no longer around, a gay couple could ‘marry’ in a church and have a civil union with every single right that a straight married couple would have. That’s why one can oppose gay marriage and not be anti-gay or homophobic…

    What it ultimately is about is how society defines and prioritizes marriage. Marriage between a man and a women is special and therefore deserves special protection and recognition. It is a bond that society needs to ensure stability, and that the next generation is raised in stable loving homes. It is also what god has defined as the ideal. What many are fighting for is for society to continue to acknowledge that there is something special about marriage. It’s not about denying rights, but about enshrining something truly special and defending it.

  3. NedFlaherty says:

    To the anonymous LindaSDF:

    You write — incorrectly — that “marriage is a religious thing, not a legal thing.”

    You are wrong. On both counts.

    A wedding is a religious ceremony. A marriage conveys a legal status. That legal status has changed in every century since it was first invented. Marriage wasn’t created by any deity; it is a man-made classification used by governments for political and social purposes.

    Civil unions and domestic partnerships were already proven, in state and federal courts, to be 2nd-class status, i.e., back-of-the-bus, “separate-but-equal” citizenship, which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in multiple cases, from 1950 through 1967.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that legally married couples, same-gender or mixed-gender, are all entitled to the same federal marriage-related benefits. Civil unions and domestic partnerships deprive couples of all federal marriage-related benefits, and thus are unconstitutional because they serve no public purpose.

    Consequently: civil union and domestic partnership will be discontinued as unconstitutional, and full marriage equality will gradually extend to every American state. Mormons, Catholics, and others who prefer theocracies will have to either accept everyone else’s religious liberty, or else move to a theocratic nation like Iran, and take their chances there.

  4. NedFlaherty says:

    To the anonymous Foozlefop:
    Yes, BeccaM has a wife.
    Her wife is probably also her best friend, but first and foremost, they are both each others’ wives.
    Because they are spouses.
    Because California and U.S. law both defined them as such.
    Because state and federal lawsuits both defined them as such.
    Because our common cultures adopted the definitions that they are just as married as any other couple, and to each other, and as wives.
    Because that’s how a democratic republic works.
    If you reject all that, then take your faith-based superstitions and move to a theocracy like Iran, where one religion is the law, and everyone outside it is an outlaw.

  5. NedFlaherty says:

    To the anonymous Foozlefop:
    Yes, tithing money did support Proposition 8. At the campaign’s peak ferociousness, nearly 100 full-time Mormon church employees were working on the campaign in LDS offices. Their regular salaries, as always, were funded with tithed dollars. The Proposition 8 donations all went into California to pay for local campaign expenses.
    So, yes, every Mormon tither, even if he didn’t realize it, supported California’s Proposition 8, as well as equivalent campaigns in many other states.
    And you’re still supporting such oppression today.

  6. NedFlaherty says:

    To the anonymous Xanderoth:

    You make the same mistake with Mormons that you probably also make with Roman Catholics: failing to realize that the clergy and the church-goers are two vastly different groups.

    Perhaps Mormon temple-goers, like Roman Catholic church-goers, are gradually beginning to acknowledge the human rights to which all LGBT people, couples, and families are entitled. But Mormon clergy, like Roman Catholic clergy, remain as bigoted, uneducated, unscientific, undemocratic, inhumane, and stuck in the Bronze Age as ever.

    Both clergy groups view LGBT people as defective, doomed, demonic, incurable sinners.

    It’s centuries of faith-based bigotry that cause LGBT people to have no more patience left. How many centuries would you be willing to wait for the same human rights that everyone else takes for granted?

  7. NedFlaherty says:

    Anonymous Jim:

    You write — incorrectly — that “Mormons do not have a visceral hatred of gays” and that “Mormons are not viciously anti-gay.”

    You’re wrong. They do have that hatred, and they are that anti-gay.

    The hatred was memorialized in church documents, which are now public records, over the last 2 decades of Mormon campaigns created to oppress LGBT people, couples, and families worldwide. The simplest example is the Mormon bigotry which says that one-man-one-woman couples are holy, but lesbian, gay, and bisexual couples are profane, and all of society has to bow to Mormon doctrine, which the church writes into civil constitutions affecting all of society (not just Mormons). That is hatred, and it is both visceral and vicious.

    You write — again incorrectly — that “Boy Scouts do not have a new pro-gay policy.” You are wrong. They do. In May 2013, the BSA voted to stop expelling boys who admit that they are (or might be) gay or bisexual. The previous policy expelled all such boys instantly, without any opportunity for appeal. The new pro-gay policy takes effect in January 2014.

  8. NedFlaherty says:

    Anonymous George:

    You write — incorrectly — that “The Mormon Church is not opposed to gay rights.” Actually, the church is deeply opposed. It spent decades and tens of millions of dollars oppressing non-Mormon people everywhere, lobbying government to ensure that gay rights would be constitutionally prohibited forever. The Mormon church is the essense of opposition to human rights, especially of non-Mormons.

    You write — incorrectly — that “A heterosexual couple is uniquely different than a same sex couple” and “the Church wants to preserve the perception of that uniqueness.” Ethnic backgrounds also are “different” but banning interracial marriage for everybody so that Mormons can “preserve unique racial purity” is nothing but bigotry, prejudice, intolerance, and unconstitutional meddling in other people’s religions.

    Mormons have the right to believe every religious superstition that they desire. But they do not have any right to install their faith-based superstitions into the civil constitutions that govern all society. In other words: Mormons cannot implement a theocracy like Iran in a pluralistic republic like America.

  9. NedFlaherty says:

    Daniel Ortner, you are incorrect, on every point.

    Opposing the human right to same-gender civil marriage for all people of all other religions is most definitely homophobia, and it is certainly vitriol.

    Mormons can believe and suffer under whatever religious superstitions they desire; however, imposing those superstitions upon people of other faiths, and upon people of no faith, via constitutional amendments, is nothing but the vilest form of prejudice.

    Mormons may hold each themselves and each other to whatever lunatic “standards of sexual purity” they like; however, holding non-Mormons to Mormon standards is as backward and uncivilized as the original Bronze Age. Mormon political policies are no different than Iranian theocratic dictatorships.

    Mormon “religious liberty” does not extend to denying all other citizens their own religious liberties. The U.S. Constitution does not permit any person or group to write their religious superstitions into civil laws using the excuse of “religious liberty.”

    Hint: Opposing other people’s same-gender civil marriage is just as homophobic as opposing interracial marriage is racist. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on both. Each time, it ruled against Mormon theocracy.

  10. Daniel Ortner says:

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not anti-gay. Indeed, you mentioned several examples of how the Church has taken a stance in favor of gay rights such as endorsing the Salt Lake City Ordinance. Likewise, the Church supported the Boy Scouts move to welcoming gay scouts and has always had in place a similar policy allowing gays to participate and be involved in the Church on the condition of conformity to the Law of Chastity (No sexual relations outside of a marriage between a man and a woman). Everyone is held to the same standard of sexual purity.

    The Church took a strong stance on Proposition 8 and will continue to speak out in favor of religious liberty and protection of the God given standard of marriage. That will not change. However, opposing gay marriage does not equal homophobia or vitriol.

  11. Mark_in_MN says:

    Why pit them against one another? I see no reason to do that.

  12. lindasdf says:

    And everyone knows that the ones who want tolerance are allowed to be intolerant of the ones they want tolerance from.

  13. lindasdf says:

    Sorry, but the IRS won’t do that, since any charity can endorse issues, they just can’t endorse individual candidates.
    The mall was built by the business part of the church, and it DOES pay taxes.

  14. lindasdf says:

    No, the church does NOT hold that man is higher spiritually than women. And it’s not the man who guarantees his wife a place in heaven, it’s Jesus Christ who does that.
    Paul said in the Bible, that man is not without the woman nor is the woman without the man. Men need women to make babies, for one thing. If there were no women, man would die out. Likewise, if there were no men, women would die out.

  15. lindasdf says:

    Do you follow the creeds, or the Bible?

  16. lindasdf says:

    I guess it depends on your definition of CHRISTianity. I always thought that CHRISTianity was being a follower of Jesus CHRIST. Silly me! I forgot that trinity thing, which, BTW, is not in the Bible, but in the creeds, which are not scripture and are not Biblical.
    Maybe we are not Christian like you are, but we ARE Christian.

  17. BeccaM says:

    It’s too bad you’re so narrow-minded and bigoted, not to mention denying the reality in a dozen states and a whole bunch of countries.

  18. lindasdf says:

    Interesting. Someone had way too much time on their hands to come up with this story.

  19. lindasdf says:

    That video is disgusting. No one in their right mind would ever believe that way.

    But Ed Decker, the mastermind behind this piece of filth, would like the idea of “endless Celestial Sex” because he’s mad at the church since they ex’d him for adultery.

  20. lindasdf says:

    Just FYI, it’s MormOn, not MormAn.

  21. lindasdf says:

    The policy of plural marriage did not end so that Utah could become a state, it ended so that the US government would not end up destroying the church.

  22. lindasdf says:

    Actually, I think what’s gonna have to happen is, that civil unions and marriages are going to have to separate, in that marriage is a religious thing, not a legal thing. Because it would help others besides same sex couples. There are older people who want to get married, but would lose a good chunk of government income if they do, but they don’t want to “live in sin” as far as their church is concerned. So, they get married in church, in the eyes of God, but not in the eyes of Uncle Sam.
    There are enough others who don’t agree with SSMarriage, not just Mormons.

  23. lindasdf says:

    OK, I forgot to put that marriage is between a man and a woman. Not man and man or woman and woman. My bad.

  24. Augustus says:

    Maybe you are afraid of government forcing your church to perform a gay wedding. That won’t happen. It’s rare but some churches don’t allow interracial marriage. More commonly a church won’t allow an interfaith marriage. This is legal and anti-discrimination laws aren’t held to apply here. If your church doesn’t like homosexuality it doesn’t need to officiate gay weddings. That doesn’t make it your business to stop gay people from getting civil marriage contracts.

  25. Augustus says:

    If your opinion about whether or not a marriage is sanctified in the eyes of God is tied to its recognition or lack thereof of a secular regime you are a very confused person.

    That being said there are lots of people like that, but do you really want people respecting the “traditional definition of marriage” only because they are easily persuaded and don’t think for themselves? That’s not genuine.
    Government doesn’t never has and never will run culture. Governments run by fanatics try time and time again but culture creates and recreates itself by the daily interactions of the people in it. The only people who base their recognition or non-recognition of the validity of a spiritual marriage (which unlike civil, government-recognized marriage is completely legal and no you can’t make it illegal because you’d go against freedom of religion) on whether or not the government offers a civil contract and benefits are people who aren’t very intelligent and don’t think for themselves.
    Governments must adapt themselves to the culture, not the other way around. Stalin and Mao both tried to use government to determine cultural things with disastrous results.

  26. George says:

    I agree that prejudice is a bad thing.

    The Mormon Church supported an equal rights housing bill in Utah that prohibited discrimination based on sexual preference. Senator Orin Hatch, a Mormon, voted to approve the ENDA bill in the Senate committee. I am sure Senator Harry Reid, a Mormon, will support it. The Mormon Church has never opposed the rights for same sex couples to enjoy the legal rights that married heterosexual couples enjoy. The Mormon Church supports the Boy Scouts policy of not denying gay scouts membership.

    The Mormon Church is not opposed to gay rights. A heterosexual couple is uniquely different than a same sex couple, and the Church wants to preserve the perception of that uniqueness for the spiritual benefit of heterosexual couples and their children. Why do we not have the right to promote the preservation of the traditional definition of marriage while not denying same sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples? What else are gays trying to accomplish?

  27. BeccaM says:

    It is discriminatory because you want YOUR church policy to constrain the CIVIL law for the rest of us who don’t belong to your church.

  28. BeccaM says:

    I am married to my wife, yet you would require me to divorce her and either be celibate or marry a man.

    Don’t be disingenuous as to what LDS official policy is regarding us gay people.

  29. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Institutionalizing it doesn’t make it any less bigoted or discriminatory.

  30. lindasdf says:

    However, those opposed to prop 8 raised somewhere between $3 to $6 million MORE than those who were for prop 8. Where did THAT money go?

  31. lindasdf says:

    And yet, they didn’t have to if they didn’t want to.

  32. lindasdf says:

    Or if they are a Mormon-phobe.

  33. lindasdf says:

    It’s not bigotry or discrimination, if you don’t belong to our church. If you want to belong, you have to decide what’s more important.

  34. lindasdf says:

    Celibacy is not contrary to anything we teach. If you are not married, you are celibate. If you are married, you are entirely faithful to your spouse.

  35. lindasdf says:

    It’s not cold and passionless. It’s just a matter of putting one’s priorities in the right place.

  36. lindasdf says:

    I’m not arguing is’a validity, I’m saying it’s something one must observe IF one wants to be in our church.

  37. emjayay says:

    That’s all Old Testament stuff. Jesus was about replacing it with something more modern. Not that that stops Teavangelicals from quoting little selected passages to justify whatever they think, while ignoring all the other stuff.

  38. emjayay says:

    I’m not sure but I think the Trinity thing was controversial in the early days at least in the literalness Catholics see it. On the other hand, Jesus never discussed imaginary planets where you go when you die or Jews in North America.

  39. emjayay says:

    When anyone gets to name-calling obviously the game is over.

  40. emjayay says:

    Before that they had an extremely well timed revelation from God repudiating their polygamy policy just in time for Utah to become a state. Had to change to an Indian name, but still…

  41. emjayay says:

    They get the rest of their money by selling leftover magic golden plates.

  42. emjayay says:

    I replied to this commenter before but as the comments become more unhinged I’m beginning to see it’s pointless. Oh well, tides of history and all that.

  43. emjayay says:

    Which has never and will never happen.

  44. emjayay says:

    Well, that’s certainly pathetic and delusional. Being attracted to other humans is I assume great for straight people and “obsessed with one’s self” for gay people and “It is self indulgent worshipping of their own self.” Makes sense.

  45. emjayay says:

    Particularly if you are Boy Scout age. Or Cub Scout.

  46. silas1898 says:

    That little fact never seems to sink in with these nuts.

  47. silas1898 says:

    The “Law of Chastity” is more fiction from the Jewish Book of Fairy Tales.

  48. lindasdf says:

    I don’t know. I would assume it was on a troop by troop basis. Some more able to see past the “gay” label than others. But that’s just my humble opinion.

  49. Sweetie says:

    Wow… That’s a sad excuse for a rebuttal.

  50. Sweetie says:

    So, we’ve now shifted from making evangelical’s Christianity the foundational definition to “traditional” Christianity. Yawn. There is nothing “wobbly” or “incoherent”.

    Christanity. Look at the word. Christ + anity. There is nothing there about the Trinity, or evangelicals, or anything else. The word is what it is.

    This is just like your inability to move beyond the contextual history of the words heterosexual and homosexual. The morphological construction of words is what actually matters if you want to get to base, foundational, definitions. Context is fuzzy and changes.

  51. Sweetie says:

    Tolerance and acceptance are forms of bigotry. Refer to the Riddle Scale.

  52. sane37 says:


    Especially since all gay people are born of heterosexual relationships.

  53. sane37 says:

    The same arguments were used to outlaw my parents’ marriage because they were different “races”.

    It is about equality.

    It is about allowing two consenting adults to enter into a marriage contract together, for equal protection and for equal access to benefits in the eyes of the law.

  54. Julien Pierre says:

    The ads run by the anti-gay side were vile, odious, and slanderous.

  55. BeccaM says:

    You’re ‘stoked’? No, you’re an ignorant, bigoted asshole.

  56. BeccaM says:

    Buzz off, Troll.

  57. foozlefop says:

    A garment bottom is in no way shaped like a thong and hence therefore cannot be in a “bunch,” you dunce!

  58. foozlefop says:

    It’s Kolob, you dunce!

  59. foozlefop says:

    you can be in a sexual relationship! Please have at it! Personally, I am stoked that the LGBT community can’t reproduce. It’s natural eugenics at work!

  60. foozlefop says:

    News flash: you don’t have a wife, you have a best friend who happens to be female, and you live together. This does not in any way constitute a wife by definition nor culturally either. Don’t try to put your square peg into a round hole. No one has stopping from being with the one you love, you just what to whine, and are looking for justification for your actions.

  61. foozlefop says:

    None of the tithing money went into prop 8. Why don’t you get the facts right, Kent! All tithes go toward the church’s humanitarian efforts.

  62. foozlefop says:

    No, it is an agenda for acceptance from society and an acceptance of the church, so they can somehow square their behavior as being justified. The want the “okay” to be a pervert from society. If the LGBT community can somehow get everyone on their side, they reason maybe they could feel better about their self indulgent choices. They could make this whole movement about civil right, but no….. they choose to use marriage as their whipping boy because the issue is really much deeper than equality. It is about society telling them everything is going to be alright. They seek justification and by hijacking marriage they hope to achieve their end.

  63. foozlefop says:

    Exactly, who the hell gives a shit about acceptance or tolerance from the LGBT community. A bunch of narcissistic whiners making marriage about playtime in the dungeon. I have never once met a truly happy homosexual person, not one! What they need is therapy. It isn’t so much a choice about sex as it is a decision to live your life obsessed with one’s self. It is self indulgent worshipping of their own self. I agree the Mormons should endorse ENDA and civil unions, but what they want being marriage is clearly not what they deserve because a homosexual union is not a heterosexual union no matter how you want to deny it.

  64. BeccaM says:

    And it’s funny, isn’t it, how what we’re supposed to ‘tolerate’ is their desire to deny us equality, dignity, respect, and civil rights.

  65. BeccaM says:

    She’s actually spouting the official LDS policy. It’s apparently semi-okay to have same-sex attractions, but ideally one is supposed to set that aside, get hetero-married anyway and pop out a litter of kids. And if we can’t manage that, they want us to be alone and utterly without passion and romantic love in our lives.

    In a way, she’s also being somewhat disingenuous, because according to LDS ‘laws’, celibacy itself is considered contrary to their teachings.

    The suggestion we have the choice to be celibate and without a partner or spouse is fairly new and controversial even among the Mormon faithful.

  66. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Yes, you can, but you would be missing one of the best parts of being gay. Yes, there are other parts Linda.

  67. BeccaM says:

    Apparently Linda doesn’t comprehend the difference between sexual orientation and sexual activity.

  68. zorbear says:

    Absolutely! Just because JC is a clown, it doesn’t nesc. follow that he’s a CIRCUS clown…

  69. karmanot says:

    Isn’t cherry picking forbidden in the Mormon Church until marriage to a child?

  70. karmanot says:

    “So, evangelicals get to define Christianity for everyone?” No, only for evangelicals. Typically, you conflate wobbly ideas into an incoherent conclusion. “as long as Christ has a central role.” Wrong again. Traditional Christianity is based on the Trinity. Those sects and cults that claim otherwise are in heresy. The Ringling Circus could claim Jesus as a central performer in its clown act and that would not make it Christianity.

  71. karmanot says:

    Those cheeks have fallen and can’t get up. The chaps have moved on.

  72. karmanot says:

    The first and last time I turned the other cheek I was violated by a man of god.

  73. karmanot says:

    “the law of chastity.” There’s a major human downer for ya. Cold, passionless, religious, WOW, that’s a sure draw to the Kolob Cult.

  74. karmanot says:

    When I was a boy scout I specialized in ropes and knots, so I could have more fun with my boyfriend.

  75. karmanot says:

    You can be gay and celibate.

  76. karmanot says:

    Waaaaaaa Waaaaaaa

  77. BeccaM says:

    I know, dear. It -is- amazing sometimes though when someone swings by here who clearly has no idea they’re a homophobe.

  78. zorbear says:

    Hmmm…how about a compromise? You’ll agree to marry an opposite sex partner and keep a lover in the closet, if they’ll agree to marry a same sex partner and keep a lover on the side?

    And you know me better than to think I’m in any way any kind of serious…

  79. BeccaM says:

    Well, that, and to be fair, they actually do want to believe they’re reasonable, compassionate-minded believers.

    Unfortunately, what it’s meant is they stake out positions that exact genuine harm to others, and then try to claim it’s no real harm at all, that they’re just exercising their own religious freedom — by denying freedoms to others, including non-Mormons.

    It’s a feature common to just about every fundamentalist and/or evangelical faith: The desire to impose one’s own moral standards on others, regardless how archaic or discriminatory they might be.

  80. BeccaM says:

    I know. They don’t even think they’re being anti-gay when they’re promoting anti-gay ideas and policies, and also spout ridiculous BS like that the Scouts haven’t discriminated against gay kids.

    Gullible — and ignorant. As well as willfully blind to the harm they’ve been deliberately engaging in.

  81. BeccaM says:

    Which is an anti-gay policy, because you won’t allow us lesbians and gays to be in a sexual relationship of any kind unless we marry an opposite sex partner.

    That isn’t equal rights or a reasonable accommodation. It’s bigotry and discrimination.

  82. BeccaM says:

    Goodness, the silliness just continues.

    Listen: We do not give a flying rat’s ass about marrying in any church bigoted enough to disapprove of gay people. How about this instead: Us suing because the marriages we performed in OUR churches — Quaker, Unitarian, Jewish Temple — are being denied CIVIL legal recognition. What about OUR First Amendment rights? Hmm?

    You really need some new talking points, because your old ones are crusty and pointless.

  83. BeccaM says:

    Freedom of association and the right to form our own families is another fundamental human right.

    And wow. You think that ‘Pro-gay’ = ‘having sexual relations’? Honey, I have news for you: They were kicking out any boy scout if they merely SAID they were gay.

    Also, last I checked, there was no actual boyscout policy that said they couldn’t go on dates or have a girlfriend.

  84. phillipcsmith says:

    Good members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not, nor should they ever, hate those who have homoerotic attraction feelings. They are our brothers and sisters and deserve our love and compassion. The issue is and will likely always be homosexual behavior. Please consult for an accurate treatment of our position.

  85. cole3244 says:


  86. Mark_in_MN says:

    Yeah, keep commenting. Your disinterest in any actual content to thought, your reliance on mere caricature, and your ignorance becomes clearer and clearer.

  87. Badgerite says:

    Yes, but even celibate gays were excluded previously from being members. Yes?

  88. cole3244 says:

    this coming from a believer who looks to the sky for salvation.

  89. kenthomes says:

    You mean Nuttiness!

  90. kenthomes says:

    Mormons will make up any reason in the book to justify their unjustified beliefs. Life is just too scary for them outside of the “hive”!

  91. kenthomes says:

    What can you expect from people who believe the crap they believe in? Gullible does not even begin to describe!

  92. kenthomes says:

    Screw the Mormons!! I am sick of this cult. My family and I hardly talk because they are brainwashed religious zealots, who, unfortunately seem to prefer their “church” over family!

  93. kenthomes says:

    I am an ex- Mormon…don’t feed me that bullshit. Mormons were told during “sacrament meeting” to do all they could to push Prop 8. My aunt and sister told me their bishop requested this of them. I know how the Mormon church operates. Sheesh!

  94. kenthomes says:

    Says the conservatives when they lose the argument!

  95. kenthomes says:

    Being a Mormon and paying tithing which goes towards oppressing gay people does make you a bigot!

  96. kenthomes says:

    Being intolerant of intolerance is not intolerance dip sh%t! You are the ones who have been persecuting us – not the other way around. Please do not try and act like you are the afflicted one! History tells otherwise!

  97. Stev84 says:

    It wasn’t just the money either. The whole Prop 8 campaign was orchestrated by top Mormons in Salt Lake City. Besides extorting and coercing their members to donate, they coordinated the entire effort on the ground.

    Also, most signature gatherers at the beginning were Mormons.

  98. sane37 says:

    There no pro-ssm movement. There is a movement to prevent marriage equality, and a movement to promote marriage equality.
    It is about equality.

  99. lindasdf says:

    The LDS church has no problem with anyone who observes the law of chastity.

  100. lindasdf says:

    The pro-ssm lobby had $3-6mil MORE than the pro prop 8 people had.

  101. lindasdf says:

    Does that mean that when some gay couple tries to sue a church to perform/tolerate SSM, you will make sure that we still have our First Amendment rights.

  102. lindasdf says:

    just because we don’t support ssm, does NOT mean we hate gays. i would think most Mormons would support anything that would say, homosexual people should not have the basic rights as everyone else, to food, clothing, shelter, and jobs.

    The boy scouts do not have a pro-gay policy. ALL boy scouts are expected to be celibate.

  103. BeccaM says:

    I think the term “liar” is more fitting.

  104. BeccaM says:

    $20-25m dollars poured into California’s Prop 8 campaign, hundreds of Mormon door-to-door canvassers, and a letter from your own leader, Thomas Monson, directed at all Mormons worldwide, calling upon them to donate to pass Prop 8, says differently.

    Oh, and by the way, the Boy Scouts do have a new pro-gay policy. One which they say will prevent them from kicking out boys and young men (under 18) who happen to be gay. We’ll see how that works out in reality, and you’re partially right: It isn’t pro-gay enough to be 100% on the side of equality and justice, not when scout leaders are kicked out.

    Meanwhile, Jim, I think you need to attend to the beam in your own eye with respect to lying about what actually happened.

  105. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    No, Wikipedia is a convenient way to prove to someone that there are established definitions that someone can’t change just because they like to argue. I only took a part of one sentence to prove that there are established definitions.

    You really aren’t worth the time. You set your mind on something and refuse to even think about what others are saying to you. You might show up a lot around here, but you are a troll.

  106. Jim says:

    Mr. Aravosis, Please stop lying. Mormons do not have a visceral hatred of gays, are not viciously anti-gay, and do not have a penchant for flaunting ‘our’ homophobia. Further, mormon leadership did not saddle up to the religious right to guarantee inclusion and acceptance. Also, the boy scouts do not have a new pro-gay policy.

    Your blog is loaded with inaccuracy and falsehood. Shame on you.

  107. Naja pallida says:

    Sorry, but there is no equivalence between bigotry and being intolerant of bigotry. Whipping out the victim card the second you start to realize that you’re on the wrong side of history, again, doesn’t excuse anything. What, should we just sigh and be patient with Mormons, like hanging out with my 97 year old grandma when she utters something about “colored people”?

  108. Naja pallida says:

    Don’t turn cheeks? Aww… there was no need to retire your assless chaps. :)

  109. BrandySpears says:

    Let me know when you learn how to use Google.

  110. BrandySpears says:

    Reading the Bible in English is still blasphemous in some circles. It used to be a death sentence. Mormons are Christians.

  111. Mark_in_MN says:


    All faith is not blind. From your comment directly above, and the one before it (amongst others), its clear that you, however, have something that’s keeping you ignorant of reality. You are more concerned with stereotypes dominated by the conservative Evangelical and fundamentalist Christian than the reality of many people’s faith, religion, and lives.

    And if this is your response to the question of what connection with pedophilia and the faith that it needs rethinking by everyone, then you are using a veneer of being about reason rather than faith while making an unreasoned and prejudicial comment, trying to mask your own ignorance of knowledge that might let you make just such a connection, or are just lazily spouting something blindly with little or no effort to reason about it.

  112. Sweetie says:

    lol… Wikipedia is now the evidence one needs to prove religious beliefs?


  113. Sweetie says:

    So, evangelicals get to define Christianity for everyone? That’s rich.

    The simple fact is that Christianity is whatever someone wants to call it, as long as Christ has a central role.

  114. Sweetie says:

    According to the critique video about Mormonism, devotion to the family is quite complicated by an alleged desire to have the Mormon equivalent of thousands of virgins in the afterlife:

    I don’t know to what degree the video is accurate.

  115. Sweetie says:

    “Treated like human beings? Is that what you said little Miss Voice of a Generation? Just how do you think adults act with other adults? Do you think it’s all just a game of doubles tennis?

    When teenagers complain that they want to be treated like human beings, it’s usually because they are being treated like human beings.”

    — Veronica Sawyer’s mother

    (The real point, of course, is that one does not earn respect by being disrespectful. At no point is it respectful to deny someone’s full humanity, as heterosexists do by being heterosexist.)

  116. Sweetie says:

    When you have a proper rebuttal to Becca’s points, we’ll be very interested in seeing it. The vapors don’t qualify.

  117. Sweetie says:

    I suppose gay people are oppressing Mormons by spending huge amounts of money funding things like Prop 8.

    Holy false equivalencies Batman…

    And do stop with the abuse of the word tolerance, as if anyone is looking for that in the first place. Tolerance is condescending bigotry, hardly a virtue.

  118. Sweetie says:

    Tolerance is a level of bigotry. Refer to the Riddle Scale.

    And, being intolerant of bigotry is not a bad thing.

  119. cusinemakaty says:

    мy coυѕιɴ ιѕ мαĸιɴɢ $51/нoυr oɴlιɴe. υɴeмployed ғor α coυple oғ yeαrѕ αɴd prevιoυѕ yeαr ѕнe ɢoт α $1З619cнecĸ wιтн oɴlιɴe joв ғor α coυple oғ dαyѕ. ѕee мore αт…­ ­ViewMore——————————————&#46qr&#46net/kkEj

    That extra nonsense as you see it
    includes a plurality of gods, which Mormon males become after death,
    patriarchal planets and other, fantasies which are totally blasphemous
    to established Christianity.

  120. zorbear says:

    Makes sense — I enjoy knitting.

    I just wanted to double-check which head you wanted to remove…

  121. karmanot says:

    Larger than life one, equipped with a knitting concession.

  122. cole3244 says:

    belief in faith keeps you ignorant to reality, you are just another follower who’s mind is not their own, to some a mere puppet.

  123. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Don’t steal. I’ll give it to you.

  124. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Yes, I actually knew about the early days of the Christian Church. Many still considered themselves a Jewish sect at that time.

    I’m afraid you really don’t understand the Unitarians. Although Christians would be welcome there, many others beliefs are as well.

  125. Julien Pierre says:

    I am going to have to steal this line.

  126. karmanot says:

    That works, except it’s not Christianity as they proclaim.

  127. Julien Pierre says:

    So what if they believe that ? They can believe what they want, as long as they don’t infringe on the rights of other citizens who may not believe the same tales.

  128. karmanot says:

    That’s what I appreciate, that way I can be the bad cop with poor manners.

  129. Julien Pierre says:

    You have way to much patience for the Church of Morons, Becca.

  130. Julien Pierre says:

    You may want to check your facts and read this :

    Quote :

    “In the end, Protect Marriage estimates, as much as half of the nearly
    $40 million raised on behalf of the measure was contributed by Mormons.”

    While the Church itself may not have directly contributed, its members sure did, and they did so at the insistence of the Mormon Church .

    Most of the money also came from outside of the state of California.

  131. BeccaM says:

    Amen to that: Make amends for prior misdeeds.

  132. Julien Pierre says:

    Actually, the next time there is a public ballot on same-sex marriage, they should fund the pro same-sex marriage side. That will go a longer way than any $6 million PR campaign ever will.

  133. zorbear says:

    A little tiny one or full sized?

  134. karmanot says:

    It would take a whole circus to debate a Mormon clown.

  135. Xanderoth says:

    Yes, I am aware at your attempts. It takes far more mental effort to debate, you should try it.

  136. BeccaM says:

    I don’t see a “black” man walking toward me.

    I see a man. Where he’s from or who his ancestors were is of no concern to me.

  137. karmanot says:

    Sorry if we got your magic thong in a bunch sweet pea.

  138. BeccaM says:

    Projection much?

    I never said you were a racist or a bigot. I merely said you were hairsplitting a justification for previously racist LDS beliefs and church policies. Then you were the one who tried to say that people from Africa, Indonesia, and Australia were all ‘black.’ A statement that is actually consistent with the traditional LDS belief that the darker the skin, the greater God’s opprobrium with the people in question — regardless of continental origin.

    I, for one, am glad the LDS has officially repudiated its Brigham Young-originated racist past. I look forward to the day when your religious leaders have a similar revelation about gays and lesbians, that there is nothing inherently morally wrong with us and the families we’ve created.

    By way of an olive branch, thank you for not donating to the Prop 8 cause nor volunteering in support of it. Unfortunately, I still have a bone to pick with your church leaders and with all the Mormons — especially those who don’t live in California — who worked very hard to deny me and my wife the chance to marry in our home state for five years.

  139. Xanderoth says:

    Perhaps you are right. Unfortunately, it does not appear this is the right place for discussion, just a good place for one viewpoint to post their mutual grievances. It’s more of a support group than a discussion board.

  140. karmanot says:

    When it comes to pedophillia priests i think that the guillotine should apply.

  141. karmanot says:

    I’m with you

  142. karmanot says:

    Why do you think I am debating? I am ridiculing you.

  143. karmanot says:

    Clue: Jesus never said, “Turn the other cheek.” If fact there is very little account of Jesus except that of a political criminal barely noticed in Roman texts. Clue number two. Some of us don’t turn cheeks. Bring it on.

  144. Xanderoth says:

    I’m sure you are. Yet I will remain open to debate and a differing viewpoint through discussion.

  145. karmanot says:

    Hang around Kolobtroll, I’m just getting started.

  146. karmanot says:

    You are way out of your league with the BeccaM Xanderrot, Better quit while you can. Maybe a rest on Kolab will help.

  147. Xanderoth says:

    My point exactly, you simply deflect with insults.

  148. karmanot says:

    Who in the hell gives a shit about acceptance or tolerance from the Mormon Church? Oh please

  149. karmanot says:

    Mormbots are here!

  150. Xanderoth says:

    We will just lake it mutual intolerance then. My experience is that Mormons are becoming slowly more tolerant though. Maybe too slowly, I’m sure many here believe. But my experience is also that the LGBT community is becoming far more intolerant and resentful of Mormons each day. You can just marginalized and ignore them, but if you want acceptance you need patience and tolerance also.

  151. Mark_in_MN says:

    You wrongly assume that fear of damnation is even operative in many people of faith, much less something that might override that which is right and good. Be it on that point, or the pedophilia/sexual abuse point, you paint with an exceedingly broad brush. You seem to think that a problem that had gone unaddressed in one branch of Christianity for far too long should lead those of other traditions to deeply rethink their faith on a rather deep and broad level. You must think that there is some concept, belief, or aspect of faith that directly connects to the pedophilia scandals of the Roman Catholic Church, and one that is not in some way particular to their theology and model of organization. Maybe you can be specific about what that connection might be. To simply say that it is religion, or Christianity, or even Catholicism, is lacking in specificity, sloppy thinking, and continues painting with that broad brush.

  152. Xanderoth says:

    People are far too easily offended. You see a “black” man walking towards you, do you think African American, or black? Because it is offensive to think that guy is of African decent, or an American. I knew several white folk from South Africa that naturalized to the us, but I don’t call them African American. Simply describing someone’s skin color is not racist. You have no idea what racism is if you believe that.

  153. Xanderoth says:

    That’s your view and you are entitled to it. LGBT groups spent time and money trying to motivate and influence the other side. Unfortunately, California’s still voted the way they did. Public sentiment is changing. You blame the democratic process. The Mormon church itself didn’t spend a dime on it, but the members of the church did. They simply, took an opposing viewpoint to yours. You cannot see it as anything but bigotry and hatred, but you should. Eventually public sentiment will change and it won’t matter anyways.

  154. Xanderoth says:

    Just plain silly. You are the zealot in this conversation, and your hatred and intolerance is palpable. I am sympathetic to your cause, but your methods are disgusting, your attitude is unhelpful and you paint a very poor picture of how you want to be treated. I never put a dime into prop8, I didn’t get on the phone and persuade voters, I also am not a racist or a bigot, yet you classify me as one because of my religious affiliation. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.

  155. Bob Jones says:

    I don’t believe it’s hate, at least not as much as it is resentment or frustration. Gay people have a legitimate claim to being damaged by the actions of the radical extremists of some religions. On the other hand those same people literally believe that the lgbt is choosing to do sin and think that is justification to take away their rights, despite the lack of any conclusive objective evidence saying affording the lgbt equal treatment will harm society in any way. They don’t have much more of a claim to being damaged by the actions for the lgbt community other than being forced to bake wedding cakes for them like any other customers, which really isn’t damaging at all.

  156. BeccaM says:

    Tell you what: Next time there’s a marriage equality bill under consideration in a legislature or on a public ballot, you folks abstain from pouring millions of dollars into trying to impose your irrational disapproval of gay people within secular civil law. Particularly when much of that money (45% from Utah alone) and volunteer lobbying comes from LDS church-members who don’t even live in the affected state jurisdictions.

    Then we’ll talk about what tolerance and civility really means, m’kay?

    Here’s a hint: Pointing out a history of intolerance — whether it be racism, misogyny, or homophobia — isn’t intolerance itself.

  157. Bob Jones says:

    I totally know how you feel (especially after having all my comments deleted in another article just because the person with whom I was debating didn’t like them, and not because they were rude or violated the terms of service) but if we want even the smallest chance of having them treat us like humans, we’re going to have to treat them like humans first. Which is kind of ironic, really, since didn’t Jesus say preach the golden rule and turning the other cheek and so forth?

  158. BeccaM says:

    You do realize you’re hair-splitting a justification for racist bigotry, right?

    By the way, skin color was traditionally considered the deciding factor in Mormonism, with the darker your skin supposedly indicating the degree of God’s displeasure with you and your bloodline. National or continental origin didn’t matter.

    Brigham Young himself said, “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess
    the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

    He clearly was not limiting his statement to just people from Africa. Moreover, it was a fairly common belief that as Native Americans became more ‘saved’, their skin would become lighter.

    A bullshit notion, really, but then a lot of religion is full of such, and it’s not limited merely to Mormonism.

    Also, I assure you, Indonesians, Australian Aborigines, and “other” groups would take offense that you consider them all “blacks”.

  159. cole3244 says:

    when religion is so ingrained that nothing (pedophilia) can get a believer to rethink their faith their head might as well be in the sand because their fear of damnation overrides everything righteous and good.

  160. Yes, well, spending tens of millions of dollars to rip away the civil rights of a downtrodden minority in state after state over two decades does have a way of not earning you the Miss Congeniality award.

  161. Xanderoth says:

    How clever. Mormbottia. I like that. If you are debating, you should counter with some sort of statement of contradicting fact, not just a bunch of fanciful words that don’t mean anything. But I know, you are just trolling. No need to be civil to accomplish that.

  162. UncleBucky says:

    LOL, haha, so right! :)

  163. Xanderoth says:

    Sure is a bunch of hate and intolerance in this crowd. Especially after reading an article on how we should be more tolerant.

  164. cole3244 says:

    keep thinking, if that’s all you got i feel vindicated.

  165. karmanot says:

    Are you referring to Obots?

  166. karmanot says:

    That extra nonsense as you see it includes a plurality of gods, which Mormon males become after death, patriarchal planets and other, fantasies which are totally blasphemous to established Christianity.

  167. karmanot says:

    And here they come from the land of Mormbottia. Hamitic decent? What utter nonsense. There is no Hamitic bloodline except the fanciful tale of magical thinking and Mormon fantasy.

  168. Xanderoth says:

    Mormons never banned non-white clergy. Only those of Hamitic decent. That included some white-skinned people. Alternatively, blacks of non-Hamitic decent would have had no issue being part of the priesthood-holding clergy, like certain Indonesians, Aborigines, and a few other groups. It was an issue of bloodline, not skin color.

  169. karmanot says:

    Anus Rand comes to mind.

  170. karmanot says:

    For good people to do evil things, that takes propaganda. Godwin’s Law, anyone?

  171. karmanot says:

    Fundamentalism is also heresy. Nothing more perfectly illustrates it than Calvinism.

  172. karmanot says:

    What in the hell is a liberal Christian? What are you talking about?

  173. cole3244 says:


  174. karmanot says:

    Mormons are only two cans and a string away from Scientology.

  175. karmanot says:

    “Semantics” exactly. And in plain language Fundamentalists are not sophisticated thinkers.

  176. karmanot says:

    “I didn’t make an argument that fundamentalists are mentally deficient or unable to comprehend texts.” I would be happy to make that case, starting with Calvin.

  177. karmanot says:

    “It can mean whatever you want it to” No it can’t. It means what the true translation says it means. i suspect you are not that well read in Mormon ‘theology’—such as it is.

  178. karmanot says:

    Changing the subject and drawing false parallels does not work.

  179. BrandySpears says:

    “I suggested they interpret them from a problematic perspective, one that
    also tends away from ambiguity, nuance, and multivalent interpretation.” Semantics. In other words, fundamentalists are not as sophisticated thinkers. That’s arrogant.

  180. Mark_in_MN says:

    You did claim just that: “Just like Mormonism, liberal Christianity is a new fangled set of ideas not based on historic understanding of the faith.” Then came your complaint that Mormans and liberal Christianty cherry pick their sacred texts as if the act of empahsizing some parts of texts and seeing others as less important or not binding as if a law made them deficient or less authentic. I’m not offended that you pointed out liberal “cherry picking.” I think empahsizing some aspects over others is normal and actually good, and I think it speaks to an approach that doesn’t pretend to make the text out to be a black and white dictator on a page that must be strictly obeyed as a kind of authoritarian law. I didn’t make an argument that fundamentalists are mentally deficient or unable to comprehend texts. I suggested they interpret them from a problematic perspective, one that also tends away from ambiguity, nuance, and multivalent interpretation.

  181. Stev84 says:

    They didn’t always use to. One of the big early conflicts and schisms came about because they couldn’t agree on whether Jesus was a god, a human or something in between.

    Also, Unitarians exist and they are still Christians.

  182. Stev84 says:

    The Hebrew word means something like “ritual uncleanliness”. A taboo at worst. Not some intrinsic evil like the English mistranslation suggests.

  183. karmanot says:

    It does require a sniff of anathema to get off the ground.

  184. karmanot says:

    Proof depends on scholarship and translation. Faith has nothing to do with it.

  185. karmanot says:

    Indeed! and make better lovers. There are no flies on Spawns of Satin either.

  186. BrandySpears says:

    Proof? Or is this a statement of faith? lol

  187. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    It’s my belief that abominations have more fun.

  188. karmanot says:

    “I don’t by into the argument that fundamentalists are somehow mentally deficient in being able to comprehend texts” ROTFL….but they are Blanch, they are.

  189. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    It doesn’t really have a meaning. Icky is probably the closest.

  190. BrandySpears says:

    I never claimed any such thing. You seem to be offended that I pointed out liberal cherry picking. I don’t buy into the argument that fundamentalists are somehow mentally deficient in being able to comprehend texts – that is an arrogant liberal Christian argument.

  191. Mark_in_MN says:

    So much for your claim that liberal Christians are somehow less authentic than some other stripe of Christians (which sound very much like the fundamentalist sort).

  192. karmanot says:

    I am proud to be an abomination! But, true, it is mostly a ceremonial title requiring little more than an occasional participation in a parade or Halloween event.

  193. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    I think that’s Scientology.

  194. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Start looking in Revelations. It’s a whole bunch of craziness.

  195. Mark_in_MN says:

    No. A person who sees that religious communities of many types have done much that is good and beautiful in the world, helped people and communities, and profoundly influenced the world in ways that even many anti-theists see as beneficial (but don’t always recognize came about through religious communities).

    I also see so many that use religion as a crutch, an excuse, a perverse justification for harm, ill-will, and some of the greatest evils witnessed by humanity. We should have no need to go through such litanies. And religion has given cover for many baser things humans do. We could talk about colonialism and the conquering and (real and virtual) enslavement of millions to greedy, power hungry, and self-important Europeans often with a guise of missionary work and bringing them “civilization.” We could talk about cultural destruction, wars and genocides, misogyny and homophobia. But these are not inherent to Christianity (for that’s what we are usually talking about in these discussions, aren’t we?) but human beings have a tendency to use anything and everything to their advantage and call it virtue and holy, even if it is clearly not even by e terms of their own religious tradition. Christians have done that a great deal. But it’s not particular to Christianity in the least, nor to religion per se. Why? Because those who reject religion also exhibit that same human nature and twist their own views of the world, including claims to scientific views, in the same way.

  196. karmanot says:

    Exactly. The stupidity of iron age circular reasoning about god and Jesus is hilarious. Mormonism could easily be a plot out of Star Trek.

  197. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    I will fall back on Wikipedia for this:

    “Christians generally believe that Jesus isGod incarnate and “true God and true man”

    You can worship the Cookie Monster and call it a Christian sect, but by definition it just isn’t so. I guess we have to go by the definitions of four main Christian groups. They are the Roman Catholic Church, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and the Protestants which were established by Martin Luther. They all require belief in the Trinity. The study of religions use this definition.

    Now, what are the Christian groups you are talking about.

  198. karmanot says:

    The the evangelical view anyway.

  199. karmanot says:

    There is a difference between traditional Christian theology and Mormon trumpetry—and it’s not ‘magical thinking, as one might suppose.

  200. Sweetie says:

    I bet I can find plenty of craziness in the New Testament. Perhaps I’ll take some time to do so at some point.

  201. Sweetie says:

    Abomination isn’t even the proper word, as far as I know. It’s either an accidental or deliberate error in translation.

  202. Sweetie says:

    “you’ll hear and read that belief in the Trinity is necessary”

    One will hear a lot of things about religion, and art. I had a professor for an Aesthetics course who claimed she was the arbiter of all things artistic. She could, therefore, judge something either to be art or to not be art. She was wrong.

    Believe in the Trinity is required of one form of Christianity: the type that requires belief in the Trinity.

  203. BrandySpears says:

    It can mean whatever you want it to – like you just proved with your citing of Isaiah. The Mormons do the same.

  204. Mark_in_MN says:

    That too.

  205. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Those things are lunacies, but if you’re debating a Christian, don’t use them. Their argument will be that those are things from the Old Testament, and they have a new covenant. The problem is they continue to refer back to the Old Testament to defend their nastiness. I really don’t believe that I am an abomination, but I’ve been told that.

  206. Mark_in_MN says:

    The virgin birth and the belief that Jesus was/is the incarnate “Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten to made, of one being with the Father” (Nicene Creed) are rather distinct, although often connected. And there is nothing particularly necessary for the doctrine of incarnation that requires the virgin birth. Besides, does the biblical text really mean “virgin” as not having had sex, or merely “young woman” which is the more natural up understanding of the text in Isaiah cited as applying to the the mother and birth of Jesus?

  207. BeccaM says:

    …as well as a bone-deep patriarchist core.

  208. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Christians believe Jesus is God. If he was created, he was not God. I guess anybody can call themselves Christian, but if you study comparative religions, you’ll hear and read that belief in the Trinity is necessary.

  209. Sweetie says:

    — God damning humanity for the acts of specific humans. Blaming the offspring of a person for the person’s crimes is irrational.

    — God committing mass murder on a global scale (the flood).

    — The promotion of the “ignorance is bliss” fallacy (the garden/apple/tree).

    — The bizarre celebration of nudity, free love, and the like (the garden) as being ideal while simultaneously promoting extremes of sexual repression such as celibacy, genital mutilations, sex with a hole in a sheet, bland food, and a myriad of other insanities.

    — The laughably pathetic level of adherence to the “don’t murder” commandment, one that even the Bible itself contradicts (my Numbers genocide example is just one of many).

    This could go on all day… making a list of Christian lunacies.

  210. Mark_in_MN says:

    The issue with Mormanism and gay people and relationships is a rather deep theological one. Mormanism almost deified the family. The temple sealing of children to their parents and (heterosexual) spouses to one another for a celestial marriage for eternity bears witness to this importance. There is a reason that many devout Morman families are large. And it’s why it has been so hard for Mormans to shake the plural marriage thing after so many years, its deeply connected with an aspect of their core theology which gives Mormanism distinctiveness.

  211. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Well, I guess queen is a good word for Mehlman.

  212. goulo says:

    Not off-hand, but I’ve certainly had plenty of arguments with not-so-prominent ones (well, at least one published author, but small press and not in English), often from Russia and other ex-Soviet lands, where there was a long culture of pseudo-scientific anti-gay rhetoric instead of religious anti-gay rhetoric.

    I’m honestly surprised my statement is (apparently) controversial.

    As Bob Jones notes below, it’s common enough to see anti-gay comments in various comment threads from a few people who state that they are atheists amid the many anti-gay Bible-thumping comments. The atheist homophobes don’t like getting lumped in with the Bible-thumping homophobes. :)

  213. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    I don’t believe that’s a required belief.

  214. BrandySpears says:

    Ah, so you’re excluding multiple liberal Christians who do not believe in the virgin birth.

  215. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    I never thought of it that way, but you have a good point.

  216. Sweetie says:

    Christianity is whatever people want to say it is, as long as Jesus plays a central role.

  217. cole3244 says:

    religion gives people an excuse to be evil & hateful without consequence.

  218. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    No, that does not exclude them from Christianity. Believing that Jesus is a created being does exclude them.

  219. cole3244 says:

    another believer that has their head in the sand.

  220. Sweetie says:

    Yeah, as if Christianity itself isn’t riddled with nonsense.

    — Lot offering his daughters to an aggressive mob to be gang raped.

    — God killing innocent children to spite a politician (Egypt).

    — God ordering the Jews to commit genocide and steal land or face it themselves (Numbers).

    — God killing a mother for looking behind her, but blessing two separate acts of drunken incestuous rape by providing the rapists with healthy children.

    And that is just a start.

  221. BrandySpears says:

    Just because Mormons added some extra nonsense to Christianity does not exclude them from being Christians.
    PS: The Constitution you mention is godless – thank gawd.

  222. BeccaM says:

    Actually, you touched on a key point there: Long before I came to terms with my sexual orientation, I’d already rejected* Mormonism mainly for its overt partriarchist beliefs.

    (* = ‘Rejected’ in that when I was in the process of leaving the Catholic Church in my late teens and early adult years, I made a concerted study of nearly every religion I could find, partly out of curiosity, partly from an obsessive-compulsive desire to learn about everything, and partly because I did want something I could truly believe in. My core conclusions about Mormons were they’re trained to be nice, polite, and likable, but I couldn’t get past the racism, homophobia, and misogyny.)

    Sure, most of them have given up the polygamy angle, but they still hold to the belief that men are inherently higher spiritual beings than women. That is a family’s patriarch who guarantees his wife and children their place in heaven, not the matriarch.

  223. Bob Jones says:

    I know, right? I actually had to explain to them about how evolution violently roots out any detrimental genes and explain to them that, yes, there are some theories about the evolutionary benefits of homosexuality.

  224. Mark_in_MN says:

    The Roman Catholic child molestation and abuse matter is serious and grave, and exacerbated by a particular and peculiar culture within the RC hierarchy that still hasn’t really understood the problem (and doesn’t seem all that interested in trying to understand it, at least from the outside, which doesn’t bode well for inside their clubhouse, either). There is definitely hypocrisy here, in spades. Well, dump trucks full. More than a few bishops and priests ought to have been put on trial and done jail time.

    Having said that, however, that issue is something of a non sequitur with the topic at hand, which is also much broader than The abusive minority of Roman Catholic priests and the all too many bishops and bureaucrats the protected them or at least failed to bring them to account.

  225. BrandySpears says:

    And then there’s gentle Jesus meek and mild introducing the fiery torments of the afterworld amusement park, Hell – a new concept. Matthew 5:22

  226. karmanot says:

    I always heard it this way: “Peter, Peter Pumpkin eater had a wife and couldn’t eat her, so he—–etc. etc..” But since I was a Catholic kid, I figured it was like the Mass and Peter was a cannibal.

  227. Bob Jones says:

    Actually, I was surprised but apparently they exist. I was bored so when the new “Show your pride. Share your love. #ProudToLove” video on youtube came out I joined the comments section and started pointing out logical fallacies like strawman argument, appeal to tradition, overgeneralization, correlation is not causation, etc. but for every 15 or so “The Bible says gays are bad” comments there was one comment about “evolution says gays are unnatural” arguments from self-proclaimed atheists. It’s the internet, so I can’t say they weren’t just trolls or pretending to be atheists, but it’s possible they really were atheists,

  228. karmanot says:

    Yep, I love those mega church dramas where thousands of addled faces with sick smiles wave their hands in the air at some sky god, who loves them and forgives them for being such losers and will give them money, new and larger homes, plus a new Lexus.

  229. cole3244 says:

    pretty decent says it all, thanks for helping make my point.

  230. BeccaM says:

    We shouldn’t forget that although the Mormons were among the earliest abolitionists, they nevertheless institutionalized racism as one of their core tenets — and did not lift their ban on non-white Mormon clergy until 1978. (A move that even as recently as 2012 remains a point of contention and disagreement within LDS.

    Joseph Smith was rather open-minded on the subject of race, but after Brigham Young took over in the mid 1800s, he was famous for having said, “Any man having one drop of the seed of Cain in him cannot hold the priesthood.” He also argued that interracial marriage was an abomination deserving of the death penalty.

    They spent a reported $20m in California to help pass PropH8, using money donated by Mormon church-members worldwide. Their teachings have not changed: The LDS “law of chastity” forbids sex of any kind outside of heterosexual marriage, even for gays and lesbians. In the early 70s, they were among the first proponents of reparative psychological and physical aversion (electric shock) therapy to “cure” homosexuality. Although more recently they seem to have backed off somewhat from their more extreme pronouncements, according to them, the only non-sinful state a gay or lesbian person can be in is to be married to an opposite sex partner and to endure sexual relations with them. In other words, they’re firmly in the “homosexuality is a lifestyle choice” camp.

    I would take with a grain of salt any softening on their overtly anti-gay policies and beliefs, especially since their leadership still insists that being anything other than a celibate or self-abnegating gay person is morally wrong. They may have been bitten by the PR disaster of being known as the main proponents of PropH8 (the Catholic Church being a close 2nd, actually), and perhaps they see something like ENDA as a bone to be thrown to the sinners. Also, unlike fundamentalist Christians, I’ve seen in many of the Mormons I’ve encountered an instilled desire to be liked and to be seen as tolerant, even of ‘sinners’ and non-believers. But they also have their own evangelical streak, and on top of a desire to ‘save’ people through conversion, also a desire not to allow others to do things they (the Mormons) view as morally wrong.

    Like when gay people want to get married. I’d wager their money is also behind efforts to keep gay and lesbian couples from being allowed to adopt. (Then there’s the fact they continue to baptize dead non-Mormons, but lie constantly about having stopped the practice. They know it offends people and would rather it didn’t, but they just can’t help themselves.)

    As yet I see nothing to touch their core belief that to be a gay person and in a sexual relationship with someone of the same gender is a sin, and as long as that remains the case, they will most likely continue to oppose marriage equality for us.

  231. karmanot says:

    You certainly wandered into the briar patch with this one John, good luck. So far there has been no troll bot swarm. Several things caught my interest. 1.) “Evangelicals will never accept Mormons as equals, liberals will.” This gay liberal will never, ever, never except Mormons. What is seldom discussed about this cult and its Christian patina is the fact that Utah exists as a theocratic, patriarchal state within the union and has devoted itself to advancing its cult evangelicalism, which in most respects is neither democratic or pluralistic. The Mormon cult is an infection in the body politic and a powerful force in interfering in states politics with its considerable financial influence (Prop 8 etc.). 2.) Mormonism should be considered a subversive political cult and not Christianity. There is nothing Christian about Mormonism. It’s matrix is a jumble of science fiction, false history, mumbo jumbo and oh—-it doesn’t accept the Trinity. Further, its founder was a sexual pervert, a grifter, and criminal. The fact that Mormonism associates itself as a lost tribe of Israel and declares Jesus lost years were spent in Utah, would make 2nd graders immune to brainwashing laugh out loud. 3.) The Mormons are in no way like Jews. There is absolutely no comparison between pogroms and the Holocaust to the legitimate discrimination against early Mormons, who practiced for example the Mountain Meadows massacre and were harassed not only for their absurdest false Christianity, but for various scams and frauds perpetrated on the communities they infested. The Church still supports in stealth polygamist cult sects throughout the West. Jeff Sessions comes to mind. There is absolutely no comparison worthy of mention to Jews. 4.) “It’s not going to be easy for the Mormons to move away from the dark-side of Christianity.” Mormonism is not Christianity, it is the dark side and a poison to the basic principles of the Enlightenment on which this country was founded and on which its Constitution was written.

  232. cole3244 says:

    tell that to the altar boys.

  233. cole3244 says:

    really, name some.

  234. BrandySpears says:

    “With or without it you would have good people doing
    good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do
    evil things, that takes religion”. – Steven Weinberg

  235. BrandySpears says:

    The problem is the fundamentals – not the fundamentalist.

  236. BrandySpears says:

    “….who cherry pick the most”. Not sure if I agree with that but you do make a point about cherry picking on both sides.

  237. Whitewitch says:

    I must have worded this incorrectly. I agree that mythical beings words are invalid, however, if one would like to pretend then who am I to stop them. I would totally pick Mother Goose over Hitler and over Jesus as well.

  238. Bob Jones says:

    Still better than “Kill everyone who isn’t like us!!”

  239. BeccaM says:

    And rewrite all their texts to pretend the past had never happened, or attribute it to someone totally anonymous, the way they’ve whitewashed Brigham Young’s rabid racism.

  240. nicho says:

    I’ll take Mother Goose’s life lessons over Hitler’s any day.

    Peter, Peter Pumpkin eater had a wife and couldn’t keep her. Put her in a pumpkin shell and there he kept her very well.” Doesn’t sound so nice to me.

  241. nicho says:

    Really? Can you name some prominent ones?

  242. nicho says:

    Fundamentalist = fraud

  243. nicho says:

    Actually, it’s the non-liberal Christians who cherry pick the most. They ignore whole sections of the bible that are inconvenient to their agenda of hate.

    Prime example– Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. However, he was quite adamant that his followers do not pray in public, but only in private, and do not call attention to themselves. Yet, most of the people who claim to follow him most closely love nothing better than to parade around praying every chance they get — even better if it’s on TV — precisely so they can show off.

  244. nicho says:

    If it were politically important to the Mormons to do so, they would have a “revelation” from the boss before dinner.

  245. karmanot says:

    Neither Moses or Jesus have a single shred of archeological evidence to prove their existence.

  246. UncleBucky says:

    Won’t work. ;o) The Mormon Jesus would be found not to approve, via a message to the Head Mormon President.

  247. goulo says:

    Not necessarily. There are plenty of hateful anti-gay atheists also, alas.

  248. Naja pallida says:

    They always plead for tolerance as soon as they believe it will impact their earnings.

  249. goulo says:

    Orson Scott Card is the prominent gay-bashing Mormon wants to wipe the slate clean.
    There are some good debunkings of his “plea for tolerance”, e.g.:,99915/

  250. Bob Jones says:

    No it’s not. The crazy religious jerks can come from the same churches as the not so crazy and actually pretty decent religious people.

  251. Stev84 says:

    >”if Jesus was anything, it wasn’t intolerant.”

    Unless you are a fig tree (Mark 11:12-14) or a Canaanite woman (Matthew 15:22-28)

  252. Mark_in_MN says:

    The new tangled set of ideas not based on historic understandings of the faith is an award best given to fundamentalist and Evangelical Christianity.

    Reading the biblical text as rules of law for believers isn’t a completely new idea, but the approach you seem to be suggesting as authentic (it sounds like your privileging a fundamentalist approach to sacred texts) is very much a modern development. Christianity has always been a mix of various theological streams which have emphasized different aspects of a more-or-less common faith and put forth different understandings thereof. (As was true of the Israelite religious tradition from whence it developed.)

  253. Bob Jones says:

    Who’s to say the words of a mythical being are any better than a real being? I’ll take Mother Goose’s life lessons over Hitler’s any day. And I admit that I have no idea if their words are really what people say they are, but I want to believe that there were some people who were nice enough in history that history made sure to remember them.

  254. zorbear says:

    True — I can’t believe I forgot the mad Russian!

  255. Jacko says:

    If you really want to go after the Mormon church, go after their wallet. The Mormon church owns many commercial businesses like malls And other things not related to their faith. Plus they became a political organization when they started the prop 8 campaign. Start petitioning the IRS to have their exempt status revoked.

  256. Mark_in_MN says:

    It’s the zealotry, not the religion part, that correlates with the hatred and violence. Zealotry is mostly the use of hatred and violence with religion as an excuse, and a twisting of religion, often contorting its teachings for other ends (power, control, some other agenda).

    This isn’t to say that religion is to be free of all criticism on every score. It can be used, misused, abused in many ways. It can have content that is not always good and useful. But religion per se gets blamed for what bad people do in its name for other ends, or by distorting or outright disregarding their religion’s teachings.

  257. Whitewitch says:

    Well since all three are mythical beings you can pretend all you want that they were pretty neat guys – I suspect they would have been pretty cool – had they existed. Sadly, their words are not their words, but rather words reflecting the cultural belief of the time in which they were written.

  258. cole3244 says:

    yea, it must be a coincidence the zealots are mostly haters wherever they live.

  259. Indigo says:

    Interesting. I wonder if that applies to the confidentiality of the sacrament of Confession (or whatever they call it nowadaze).

  260. Indigo says:

    Wait! Wait! Wait! Where did the idea that the Mormons want to wipe the slate clean come from? They don’t do that, they sweep it under the rug like good Catholics and fuggidabaudit!

  261. BrandySpears says:

    Just like Mormonism, liberal Christianity is a new fangled set of ideas not based on historic understanding of the faith. Just like liberal Christianity, the Mormons will either have a divine revelation or learn how to cherry-pick the bits and pieces of their faith that suits the modern secular world in which they live while leaving all the vile bits and pieces behind. The holy books with their death warrants do not alter themselves.

    Perhaps a liberal Christian can loan the Mormons their rose colored glasses?

  262. Bob Jones says:

    I don’t think it’s religion’s fault that some humans are just plain mean. I want to think that Jesus and Budda and Moses were all pretty neat guys and it’s not their fault others twist their words for their own agenda.

  263. cole3244 says:

    whenever you detect hate religion is not far away.

  264. nicho says:

    Putin might make the list.

  265. Yes, but Wicked Queens have come around before. Barry Goldwater, Ken Mehlman, Rob Portman….

  266. jomicur says:

    It’s time for the Wicked Queen to start acting like a loving stepmother to Snow White and to make the Seven Dwarves noblemen.

  267. zorbear says:

    Let’s see…there’s the pope, and Obama, and … who else?

© 2019 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS